Sel PDF

72 INNOVATION MODELS
A Grammar of Changes
that Change Entire Fields & History
by Richard Tabor Greene


72 INNOVATION MODELS, A Grammar of Changes that Change Entire Fields & History
TABLE OF CONTENTS
UNCONVENTIONAL MODELS (slightly hard) 57 culture of development 718
1. zenovation 16 58 darwinian culture evolution 722
2 digital world 35 59 innovation of copying (patterns in history) 727
3. creativity & novelty sciences 41 60 self organizing criticality 730
4. monastic change 47 61 adjacent beyond 732
5. innovation as culture work 53 62 simple programs 733
6. computational system type dialog 130 63 globalization theory 737
7. counter the culture of bigness 160 64 de-localization 739
8. innovation noise 168 65 de-mass-ification 742
9. academic failure 174 66 four social relations 746
10. new sciences (knowledge orgn) 205 67 diversity 749
11. nested anti-cultures 246 68 creative class 755
12 interacting religions of business 254 69 order for free 759
13 insight pulsed systems 261 70 lowered coordination costs 764
14 feminizations 290 71 tipping point blinks 768
15 creativity grammar 307 72 excellence sciences (higher standards) 774
16 other world explorer 324
17 purpose of all arts 332 MODELS FOR POSSIBLE LATER INCLUSION:
18 social automata 361 (brief summaries provided at book’s end)
19 biosense 410 73. fractal model expansion
20 mindscapes 427 74. design thinking genres
21 tipping point 431 75. meister+liebig
76. totalizing bodies of knowledge
22 (well located) brain-flaw-countering 439 77. decade colleges
23 intensified socialness 460 78. idea wave catch and substrate upgrade
24 non-linear commonsense 482 79. new basic unit of intelligence
25 become theorist 519 80. aternate delivery of functions
81. inhabit the future, puncture profession cultures
CONVENTIONAL MODELS (slightly boring) 82. long outrageous practical demand
26 disrupt 535 83. social plasma idea fusion interaction density
84. product as asserted self (insanely great)
27 search, psyche, social 538 85. fractal model rebalancing
28 democratic 542 86. trojan product
29 social life of information 546 87. meta-product (recursive service)
30 network hero (intellectual space) 550 88. strategically exaggerate obstacles
31 radicality 554 89. culture crossing
32 technology lives 558 90. morphologic forecasting
33 increasing returns to scale 565 91. structural cognition
92 funding pulses (long public sort private)
34 technology tipping points 558
35 strategy constipation 572
MODELS DELIBERATELY EXCLUDED
36 silicon valley introjection 577 There are 3 generations of academic models of innovation
37 niche riding niches 584 that really are just math games- take “diffusion” models as
38 de-organizing 588 an example--using gas diffusion thermodynamics maths for
innovation spread BUT any CEO who acts like or gets his firm
39 inventor mental practices 599 to act like “a gas” in order to innovate, is doomed = these
40 manage mental models 604 models are nice but useless. Kitchen sink academic models
41 inventor myth 611 are also dropped--you switch “being father” “run a scout
troop” in place of “innovation” in them and everything
42 network hole spanning 615 makes just as much sense. Harvard models of Silicon Valley
43 necessity-function-emergence 618 45 years too late are also excluded = too much old news, dis-
torted elitistly. Similarly “early adopter” models are just
44 career dynamics 622 monkey-see monkey-do re-written to impress in academic
45 venture start 625j prose. This book does not waste reader time on them.
46 founder stories 631 Indeed this book’s author is not fooled by tiny forced regular
47 trust theory of entrepreneurship 648 updates and changes masquerading as “innovation”--inflated
48 information ecology 654 by execs, academics, media wanting career progress and
sales, not social or customer progress. When all changes
49 open business model 670 become “innovations”--standards lower and markets later
50 media convergence 678 fail. Most new software apps, for example, are anything but
51 managing R&D 684 innovative--most are “me too” or “that like”.
52 knowledge management 691 The models above come from 2000 books and 8000 eminent
53 substance of style and design 701 people from 63 professions 41 nations whom I and my student
54 knowledge dynamics (dialectic idea evolution) 706 interviewed at the University of Chicago, Beijing University,
Keio University, Karlsruhe Inst. of Technology, TUDelft Uni-
55 social movement 710 versity, ETH in Switzerland. ALSO we go BEYOND BUSINESS
56 social revolution 714 in this book to ALL of innovation, not VENAL PARTS only.
CAUSAL MAP OF 92 INNOVATION MODELS (left to right)
SOCIALLY BORROW
MOTIVE DIVERGE THINK FIND & MIX
COMPUTE GROWTH
VOID + 1 innovation BASE 4 monastic KNOWL- 10 new sci- EXPLORE 2 digital world COMPU- 6 computa- RIDE 32 technology
BE change EDGE ences SPACES TATION- tional type lifespans
NEW AL SOCI- dialog
STRUC- ALITY
44 career 19 biosense TURE 52 knowledge 33 increasing 18 social 34 technology
dynamics management returns, net automata tipping points
econ
84 product as 79 new basic KNOWL- 39 inventor 48 info ecol- 63 simple pro- 37 niche riding
asserted self unit of intelli- EDGE mental prac- ogy grams
(insanely gence NEW tices
great) DYNAM-
ICS
PASSION 43 need-func- 91 structural 40 manage 70 lowered SOCI 28 demo- 50 media con-
+ IDEA tion-emer- cognition mental models coordination ALIZED cratic invent vergence
gence costs DO-ER
45 passion PLU- 3 creativity & 54 knowledge 16 other 41 lone inven- 53 substance
starts ven- RALIZE novelty sci- dynamics (dia- world explore tor myth of style and
tures ences lectic) design
46 founder 15 creativity META- 75 meister-lie- 24 non-linear 49 open busi- 48 darwinian
stories grammar KNOWL- big common ness model culture evolu-
EDGE sense tion
INTEN- 23 intense 17 purposes of 87 meta-prod- 27 search 55 social 66 four social
SIFY sociality all arts uct (recursive psyche social movement relation types
service) evolving
31 radicalized 25 become Like fairy tales, the 90 moroho 56 social revo- 77 decade col-
research theorist innovators goes into forecast lution leges
36 silicon val- 51 manage another world MIX 12 interact- 68 creative 78 catch idea
ley intro-ject R&D where all differs SPACES ing religions class wave +
of business upgrade sub-
from this world and strates
survives dangers,
47 trust span 73 fractal monsters, and evil 42 net 80 alterna- 81 inhabit the
venture model expand holespan tive function future, punc-
witches. The hero delivery ture profes-
innovator comes sion cultures
83 social 74 genres of back to this world 61 adjacent 29 social life FIX FAT 26 disrupt
plasma idea design think- with special pow- beyond of info AND
fusions ing ers developed in SLOW
ANTI- 5 innovation those battles, and 64 de-local- 57 culture of 35 strategy
as culture special perspec- ization developoment constipation
work tives, new things he
BEYOND 72 excellence 7 counter big- or she can notice 63 globaliza- 82 long outra- 65 de-mass-ify
science ness culture with new ways to tion geous practi-
(higher stan- react to familiar cal demand
dards)
and novel things.
58 exaggerate 8 innovation 67 diversity TUNE 21 tipping
obstacles noise There are many leverage COM- point
new such worlds to PLEXITY
People do innovat- 9 academic 59 innovate EMER- 60 self orga-
ings--that means failure explore with mod- via copying GENCE nizing critical-
els of innovation for error ity
passion plus idea,
fighting obstacles. 11 nested each. 89 culture 69 order for
anti-cultures crossing free
People need to Take that other
14 feminiza- 71 tipping
interact to get world stuff and
tions point intui-
make new struc-
diverse ideas to tures and processes tions
fuse--there are 22 brain flaw of knowledge with MIX 13 insight No lone inventor or idea suffices as any
various routes to counter tme. TIMES pulsed sys- one great invention requires a host of
such dense inten- tems
supporting other ones and systems to
sities of interac- 38 de-orga- Then you explore 86 trojan
tion. your new knowl- make it work. So the innovator mobi-
nize products
edge forms, shake lizes groups and communities of colalbo-
76 totalize 92 funding
Then there is the bodies of
and mix them up, pulses public
ration to elaborate the core insight into
motive to push knowledge
and alternate and private systems of value and delivery to the
merely beyond PULSES over time of world; coming to teh world by hitching
FIX 20 mindscapes engagement with
just because it is MIND 85 fractal detachment = till rides on burgeoning other trends, prod-
beyond. (relanc model balance INSIGHTS appear. ucts, and developments, and fixing what
e) fat old products, ideas, firms fail to fix.
TOTALIZE DECADE
BODIES OF COLLEGES
KNOWLEDGE
p205 11 p361 19
NEW NESTED
10 SCIENCES ANTI- 18 SOCIAL BIOSENSE
p174 (KNOWLEDGE CULTURES 12 76 77
p332
AUTOMATA 20
ORGANIZATION) p246 p410
ACADEMIC INTERACTING CATCH
PURPOSE
MEISTER + FAILURE RELIGIONS MINDSCAPES IDEA WAVES +
OF ALL
LIEBIG OF BUSINESS UPGRADE
9 CORE p254 17 ARTS RARE
p427
SUBSTRATES
GENRES OF OTHER IDEAS
INSIGHT
13 NON-LINEAR
KNOWLEDGE
TIPPING
21
WORLD NEW BASIC
3
DESIGN COMMON-
75 PULSED POINTS
THINKING EXPLORER SENSE 78 UNIT OF
SYSTEMS
p324 p307 p482 INTENSI- p431 INTELLIGENCE
74 FEMINIZA- 261 COUNTER
79
3 16
CREATIVITY TIONS 24p460FIED BRAIN FLAWS
DIGITAL CREATIVITY
GRAMMAR 14 SOCIAL-
NESS
22 27
290 p439
2 WORLD & NOVELTY
4 15 67 23
4
26 DISRUPT SEARCH, p538
2
SCIENCES p746 PSYCHE,
p35
p41 DIVERSITY
p519 p535 SOCIAL 28
MONASTIC FOUR DEMO-
1
ZENOVATION
p16
THE HEAVY
CHANGE
p47
66 SOCIAL
RELATIONS
EVOLUTION
LEVERAGING
25
BECOME
THEORIST
EXTENDING
CRATIC
iNNOVA-
TING p542
INNOVATION
NOISE
HITTERS
INNOVATION
AS CULTURE
5
p742
p749
68 TECHNOLOGY
GENERATIONS
SEARCH
29
SOCIAL LIFE
DE-MASS- & LIFESPANS OF INFO
73 p168 WORK IFICATION CREATIVE
p558
COUNTER COMPUTA- p53 CLASS p554
NET HERO p546
8 BIGNESS TION TYPE CONCENTRATIONS 32 RADICALITY INTELLECT
FRACTAL
p160
CULTURE DIALOG 6 GOALS SPACE ALTER-
30
NATIVE
MODEL p130
7
1 65 p755
31p550
FUNCTION
5
EXPANSION LUBRICATED 80 DELIVERY
CONCENTRATED INHABIT THE
92 FUNDING
PULSES
(PUBLIC + 58
DARWIN-
IAN
59
INNOVATION
CULTURE BY COPYING
EXCELLENCE
SCIENCES
p774 EXCELLENCES
ORDER FOR FREE
69 34 TECH
TIPPING
35
STRATEGY
81
FUTURE +
PUNCTURE
PROFESSION
(HIGHER
PRIVATE) p718 EVOLU-
CULTURE TION
ERROR 60 STANDARDS) p565 POINTS CONSTIPA-
TION 36 CULTURES
p722 p727 SELF p568 p572
OF INCREASING
SILICON
DEVELOP- ORGANIZING RETURNS VALLLEY
CRITICALITY TO SCALE
57 MENT NON-LINEAR p730 TIPPING POINT LOWERED
p759
33 p604 THINKING
INTROJECT
p577
DE-LOCAL-
IZATION
DYNAMIC
SPACES 61 72 INTUITIONS COORDINATION
COSTS MANAGE
DYNAMICS
37
p739 ADJACENT p768
70 MENTAL NICHE
RIDING
64 GLOBALI-
ZATION
p737 THEORY
SIMPLE
PROGRAMS
BEYOND
p732
62
8 MEDIA 51 71
p764
NET
p615 43
6 MODELS
40 INVENTOR DE-
MENTAL
SPACES
ORGANIZE
p588
p584
38
63 p733
50 CONVER- MANAGE p684
PROJECT
42 HOLE NEED-
FUNCTION-
p599
39
GENCE 52 SPAN
44
7
90 MORPHOLOGIC OPEN p678 REPERTOIRE LONE EMERGENCE
83 82
FORECASTING BUSINESS INVENTOR p618 LONG OUTRA-
91 STRUCTURAL KNOWLEDGE MYTH CAREER GEOUS PRAC-
MODELS
COGNITION MANAGEMENT DYNAMICS TICAL DEMAND
88 p670 p611 IDEA +
49 KNOWLEDGE
EVOLUTION
p691
41 PASSION +
p622 SOCIAL
PLASMA
EXAGGERATE
OBSTACLES
SOCIAL
REVOLU- DYNAMICS STYLE &
53 INFO ECOSYSTEM
PASSION 45 IDEA FUSION
ECOLOGY
TION DESIGN STARTS 84 PRODUCT AS
89 CULTURE p714 SUBSTANCE p654 VENTURES ASSERTED
CROSSINGS SOCIAL DIALECTIC p701 p625 SELF
TRUST
56 MOVE- KNOWLEDGE 86
48 SPAN IS
FOUNDER
STORIES
p710 MENT DYNAMICS 54 85 p648 VENTURE
p631
46
p706 TROJAN SPAN
55 PRODUCTS
FRACTAL 47
MODEL
87 META-PRODUCT
RECURSIVE REBALANCE
SERVICE
Copyright 2015 by Richard Tabor Greene, Rights Reserved, Registered richardtgreene@alum.mit.edu
SUMMARY PARAGRAPHS FOR THE 72 MODELS

UNCONVENTIONAL MODELS (slightly hard)
1. zenovation 16 First become a Void Master seeing beyond all that exists, no attachments, seeing
the ALL from a remote vantage point, then re-entering the World, re-doing all its
layers of assumptions in ways no one else can fathom or match. LSD, zen, Japan,
india, design.
2 digital world 35 See the information aspects of all things and revise the time and space nature of
all things based on a planet wide web of everyone and everything having real time
access to the information of all things. Spot under-used fallow resources, uncon-
nected things that combine for creativity,
3. creativity & nov- Where others employ one or two, at most, creativity sciences, you master and
elty sciences 41 deploy 5 or 10 or more of the 30 of them available, simultaneously--turning prod-
uct, service, ads, retail space, costume, events, announcements, repairs into Won-
ders.
4. monastic change Identify things done dozens of times a day, that are centuries old, unchanged, and
47 update them in the simplest possible ways that yet multiply their impact and pro-
ductivity by factors of 400% or more--then simultaneous use of them dozens of
times a day by billions will change history and entire fields.
5. innovation as Identify the dozen of so nested cultures inside other cultures, that each constraint
culture work 53 what people need, want, imagine, try, and by un-doing their limiting neurotic sta-
tus-generating influence, you do what each and all of them find impossible in ways
none of them try.
6. computational The five known types of computational system--brains, minds, societies, machines,
system type dialog biologies--dialog spawning ever more new forms of computational system to spot,
invent, go beyond--an expanding gyre of innovations, from seeing the computa-
130 tional nature, possibilities, and ecosystems of all.
7. counter the cul- Big anythings have a common set of culture traits that work against innovation--by
ture of bigness 160 mapping the contradictions, neuroses, biases, and bad elements of humanity
encouraged by size, and countering each of them, you create the miraculous para-
dox of huge organizations nimbly dancing into new nascent combining fluxing
evolving futures.
8. innovation noise A huge number of forces from male hormones, status and territory fights, primate
168 behaviors that bigness encourages, desire for promotion and little men feeling
unimportant saying a dozen different ways “mommy mommy look at me”--turn any
change or difference however slight and copy-cat into “innovations”--by subtract-
ing them out from all you see, hear, suggest, plan, and do, you aim at the actual
history and entire field changes possible.
9. academic fail- Schools do a lot of things to students to make them passive, filled with un-used
ure 174 ideas, “beating” each other in competitions, and the like; colleges fail to even try
to educate settling for job equipment and venal value installations--teaching hosts
of “right” models and formulas that will be out of date in months, that please pop
media--simply by countering all that schools and colleges do you amaze and “inno-
vate”
10. new sciences For 1000 years colleges worldwide have split knowledge into the same ancient cat-
(knowledge orgn) egories--the narrow people, skill sets, professions, disciplines of knowledge from
that, make all tiny-er and tiny-er fractions of all that is needed and known--simply
205 by re-organizing knowledge to fit the cross-world cross-culture cross-profession
cross-everything nature of what we all face, you innovate.
11. nested anti-cul- People moved to California to escape the snob hierarchy aristocratic English ways
tures 246 of USA East Coast and its Religion of Business; people moved from southern Califor-
nia to Palo Alto to escape the central broadcast media and passive consumption
patterns of Hollywood; people moved from analog tech to digital tech to escape
the narrow craft traditions and technologies of traditional fields and industries;
people moved from organizing around status ranks of monkeys to networks of
cooperating dispersed diverse entities--Silicon Valley contributed 8 times as much
to US GDP as MIT-Harvard for 50 years by these cultures consciously countered.

12 interacting reli- There are 8 religions of business promoted by believers around the world--each
gions of business impervious to contrary data and imposing its preferred version of reality on situa-
tions no matter how cruel and unhappy the results--though each pretends to be
254 “science”, each is filled with delusional ways to do not actually have anything to
do with business or leadership. ALL the major global innovations in business prac-
tices and products of the last 500 years have come from ways of one of these reli-
gions of business, imported into others and adapted to the differing resources and
needs there.
13 insight pulsed The insight process is found in dozens of diverse areas of life--its alternation of
systems 261 engagement with detachment, ever more abstract representations, growing fail-
ure index, Despair Doorway to sudden avalanche changes of entire systems--these
dynamics are how we penetrate new cultures, perform in theatres, achieve self
change, mobilize team powers, and much else. Vendors push technologies that
only know how to increase connection, which reduces creativity greatly. Pulsed
systems structured along the insight process’ dynamics, create innovative results.
14 feminizations For eons the world’s systems have been designed and run by men and men alone--
290 till Europeans every 40 years killed 20 million or so of each other, as a regular
Christianity-endorsed hobby. The cruel stupidity and absurdity of these results,
did nothing to improve these horrid ways, systems, and results till recently.
Recently people have noticed how most problems and bad outcomes stem from
excess malenesses of various sorts, now being widely investigated. By countering
them as they are clarified, amazing changes and history changing innovations
result.
15 creativity gram- Though professors play a cruel pitiful game of “my model is better than yours” and
mar 307 “I have the rightest model” actual impact comes not from such narrow statistically
“validated” Harvard models but from deploying diverse SETS of such models,
selected so as to compensate for the biases, flaws, and others weaknesses of each
other. Seeing situations from the perspective of these “creativity model gram-
mars” allow innovation to result (where you replace single right-y models).
16 other world Innovations require two diverse cultures of effort--exploring an Other World of
explorer 324 ideas different than the ideas accepted in ours, and bringing new idea combina-
tions found there toward realization by finding ways to fit them into present cir-
cumstances--a different kind of finding. Find new idea combinations, find where
they fit and improve. Both lands are to be explored thoroughly.
17 purpose of all If you interview great artists in 63 fields and people self nominating as “greatly
arts 332 affected by arts” in the same fields you find them all repeating, what ends up as
64 basic functions enacted in lives by all arts. Later greatness of a work can be
predicted by how many, how distributed, how deeply a work enacts these func-
tions in viewers/users/audiences. Any product of change can be, in mid-design,
tweaked so as to enact more, more diverse, more strongly these functions--making
innovative outcomes, thereby.
18 social automata There is a more computational way of seeing everything we organize in science,
361 engineering, mind, and society. Populations of actors interacting, with someone,
possibly one of the actors, noticing and “tuning” how connected, diverse, and ini-
tiative-taking the population’s actors are--are a new way of designing and leading
things that surprise us, unintended, and emerge, reguiring use to notice, and
prune away noise from emergent signal. This is found on all size scales--a
resplacement for how we think/pllan, meet, discuss, lead teams, lead teams of
teams (organizations), get technologies-ventures-funds-people to interact.
19 biosense 410 Steel used to be our common sense of what “strong” is; now bone is our image--it
grows where under stress, and sense and fixes its own breaks. Humans, finally,
are shifting to biologic eco- evolutionary models and ideas and sense from old
Newtonian mechanics = everything has to be redone, innovated.
20 mindscapes 427 There are 25+ pairs of brain modules that act in opposition to each other; spot
which pole is each pair is emphasized by a field, person, project, or design and by
emphasizing the slighted pole, innovate.
21 tipping point The world is full of non-linear realities though our minds are filled with linear
431 models and traditions--by shifting our models to dynamic, evolving, non-linear
models we can spot tipping points were slight inputs change entire system states.

22 (well located) There are over 180 documented replicated-in-research flaws in how brains process
brain-flaw-counter- reality; every minute of every day what we think, feel, and do is distorted or
harmed by many of them, but these effects are generally slight--at certain loca-
ing 439 tions for certain issues, their impact is huge and if noticed, blocked, or prevented
results in innovation.
23 intensified There are at least 16 ways of being social such that is several of them are intensi-
socialness 460 fied at the same time and place, innovation emerges.
24 non-linear com- There are particular genres, types, and flaws in handling system effects, and peo-
monsense 482 ple who abide among them all, mastering the recognition and handling of them all,
find their every step innovates--they inhabit a non-linear land others miss.
25 become theo- Similarly, people with more theories, more abstract ones, more diverse ones, more
rist 519 multi-level ones, more detailed ones--notice more and can imagine alternatives
other miss = they live in a bigger world and most of what they say and do, inno-
vates.
CONVENTIONAL MODELS (slightly boring)
26 disrupt 535 Large establish organizations by doing well their profitable traditional businesses
and ways guarantee failure--Danny Miller noted this in an article “Success Fails”
(always)--what works in your present framework bribes you to leave on the mar-
gins utterly new formulas that grow, unseen, and unminded till massive defections
from you to them.
27 search, psyche, The number of present needs, ideas, and ways grows exponentially allowing enor-
social 538 mous numbers of combinations = a space too vast to search effectively alone--so
innovation comes from reducing search spaces in clever ways, or increasing who
searches in clever ways.
28 democratized If you make a range from competitors, to customers of competitors, to your cus-
innovating 542 tomers, to your pioneer lead customers, to your inventive adapting-the-product
lead customers, to your sales and service staff, to your R&D staff--and processes
across that range to compile learnings to the next stage towards the interior and
push prototypes and ideas for testing out across the range toward the outside--you
expand “who invents” and increase innovation
29 social life of There is an invisible surround of unconscious routines and habits that makes any
information 546 existing device or technology work well for peoplel so that new ones, if they do
not fit those ways and instead require major shifts in them, will be rejected,
unless the new devices are designed so as to ease the transition-of-routines
involved. Innovations have hidden social life supports and opposers.
30 network hero A shared intellectual space among people across various organizations, nations,
(intellectual space) professions, develops and spawns innovations if we see beyond myths of the lone
inventor and marshal and welcome the diverse sources that have to interact
350 respectfully to get the new to appear.
31 radicality 354 There are degree of innovativeness in reality and to get home run innovations you
have to aim higher and farther, try more risky approaches, yet avoid giant expen-
sive falures that kill efforts--a weave of smaller scale doable inventions that pay
for big risks and delays of home run ones.
32 technology Innovations appear from riding waves of sets of inter-related new technologies
lives 358 that fit together--recognizing each set and fitting it rather than fitting past sets or
ones not yet emerging is key to being judged innovative.
33 increasing Network economics differs from soybean economics in that first msovers win all,
returns to scale learning costs lock in early ueers even to bad interfaces and features--so speed to
market and spread, even if profitless brings value to users of being able to
365 exchange with users of the same “wide spread” device--it is not just features but
links to many other users and their advice, apps, inventions that is value for cus-
tomers.

34 technology tip- Create channels that amplify and develop intiutions, impressions that are vague
ping points 358 and new, judgments without solid data or basis, surprising changes and news not
understood--channel these to further investigation and confirmation rather than
dismiss anything not “solid” and “proven” and “data supported”---it is the slight
things the nascent vague things, the un-justified senses and impressions where
THE TRULY NEW appears--listening and developing that leads to big innovations
35 strategy consti- This is a model of how disruptors kills establish big firms--these firms get close to
pation 572 their lead customers who tweak existing offerings and refuse examination of new
techs = lead customer following kills big firms--because these lead customers CON-
TROL CEOs
36 silicon valley You need more than a population of ventures and proposed ventures--you need,
introjection 577 more importantly, a population of diverse, not agreeing with each other, compet-
ing, funders of venture ideas---so intrapreneuring fails unless there are plural
diverse, disagreeing, competing sources of funding in big firms. You also need a
population of diverse, disagreeing, competing sources of funding for your ventures
by OUTSIDERS--so internal judgements compete with outsider ones--only when
YOUR people can consistently and publically LOSE BADLY will your internal people
learn and change ways.
37 niche riding Trying to invent something totally new that sells is foolish. Instead invent some-
niches 584 thing totally new that customers of some wonderfully growing business/venture/
tech BADLY NEED NOW--hitch a ride on their growth. BUT do not trust them totally
and look around for another ride to hitch onto, hopping here and there, always
riding growth (markets, collectings of new customers) done by others. Let them do
the heavy lifting of getting eyeballs and attention.
38 de-organizing Large corporations are expert at standard delivery globally of standard sets of
588 functions--in variable laws, nations, climates, and so on. They perfect stamping
out variations. To expect them to innovate runs counter to all they aim for, are
expert at, and what makes them pay and be paid. To innovate you need them to
be expert at differing from themselves, trying multiple iffy things till some find
homes that lead to exponential growth, etc. You need a totally different size,
speed, set of people, goals, approaches, context. You have to UN-ORGANIZE to
venture and innovate, in ALL dimensions.
39 inventor men- Inventing is not at all what we think--inventors: make 50 patents to enable 1 to
tal practices 599 sell well, tend to invent ONE thing in dozens of diverse contexts lifelong, inventors
live in a land betwen future and present rather than visiting the new from time to
time, big organizations are noise filled and nasty competition filled so anything
new subtle nascent unclear unproven-by-data is ignored or killed outright = no
innovations not fitting existing interest groups. Big firms end up--always--using
the smallest possible amount of novelty able to make customers dis-satisfied with
what they were just sold by the company = resales so vastly easier cheaper than
sellilng to new people or selling new things to old familiar people.
40 manage mental The myth that we sense reality---we all sense a tiny portion of reality, we notice
models 604 what our existing mental models direct us to emotionally then conceptually.
Things not fitting our models are “noise” not signal and igored. The NEW is always
first NOISE. Innovation = how to turn NOISE into signal? Need diverse detailed
multi-level comprehensive abstract repertoire of models--to run by various NOISES
till one, seen via one of those models, becomes, magically SIGNAL. Cannot reuse
the repertoire--it has to continually grow and differ from its past self = unre-
warded models to keep minds open and beyond themselves = constant PAIN, so
innovation is rare.
41 inventor myth Giant global societial manias and LUSTS for a particular kind of newness break out-
611 -things fitting it, get notice, funds, tries, become innovations. Great things not
fitting it die, un-noticed forever. Timing is critical--to see and fit the mania of
your time. To cloak an old new idea in THIS era’s mania clothes for notice, accep-
tance, enthusiasm. The idea/device that contributes to, excites that global net-
work sharing that mania and LUST for newness of one type--is judged “an
innovation”---innovations are conttributions to particular communities. They are
not technical stand on their own ideas or things. Inventors are people parts of
whose lives from years ago happen to perfectly match a mania in the world NOW--
suddenly old stuff in them gets mobilized into a contribution judged “an innova-
tion”.

42 network hole Human networks are lumpy--some few nodes have many shallow contacts, while
spanning 615 most nodes have specialized intentional few sharing values and experience with
them = deep ties, not weak ties. Therefore human societies have long strands of
subnetworks not aware of each other for years and decades, even if in the same
village or industry TILL some brave person, knowing they will be an alien not wel-
come, leaps to another subnet and makes a regular linkage there--overcoming lack
of expertise and respect in that other web and getting familiar there then bringing
back new stuff and gradually getting colleagues in one’s old web familiar and less
afraid of the new stuff = innovations.
43 necessity-func- A pair---an idea plus a person passionate about it--move in and out, up and down,
tion-emergence becoming disguised and visible, in one firm then another, handing the idea and
passion to someone else who takes over in other firms or regions--across years and
618 decades, TILL the idea-passion unit finds a HOME that loves it into realization.
During years of such up and down journeys thru disguises and past supporters and
enemies--the idea-passion tandem picks up tests, proofs, supporting other inven-
tions, gaining gradually credibilities. Historic inevitability combines with amazing
functionality combines with emergent form pruned of noise and distracting fea-
tures and functions.
44 career dynam- Nine or so drives that urge all humans in life, work themselves out in careers that
ics 622 are in organizations that are in societies with manias and enthusiasms of their era.
Bridging all of those drives into forms that promotion, career, organization society,
mania of era fit, call for, tolerate, or endorse/support is the problem all people
and careers try to solve. Actual career moves are particular innovations--offered
at possible exciting “fits” of promotion-career-org-society-mania. Most fail, but
some such moves get thru--fit perfectly all those layers and become “innovations”.
The drives urge the people to invent and pro-offer such career moves = possible
innovations and the layers promotion-career-org-society-mania ask for and give
limelight to career moves that might be useful = innovations. This is a continual
dialog for each person, and each of those layers a person offers career moves
through.
45 venture start Ventures start as a passion delivered to an audience as a message--the venture IS
625 the passion for a long time then it IS the message for a long time--only gradually,
as people notice and invest in the message, collecting technologies, markets, per-
sonnel, features, and lastly sales and profits. Going “real” too early and eagerly,
asked for by dead old East coast religion of business firms and investors and mar-
kets--kills all innovation. Going “real” should be delayed and slow--gradually turn-
ing passion into message into bits of feature and function into bits of sales and
market. The core is passion wrapped in message wrapped in a gradual accumula-
tion of “realities” of form, function, feature, sales.
46 founder sto- Five components make innovations---A VEHICLE, THE VENTURE, a larger VEHICLE,
ries 631 THE VALLEY (of small ventures seething in and out of existence), a PRODUCT that
seeths in and out of one form or another, DANGERS of too fast too early too much
compromise with forms and requests and demands of old establish firms/markets/
products, the RIDE from passion to message to accumulations of form and feature
to tested sales and distributors to selling out to ANGELS or IPOs to profits. These
five work together, emerge together, only when geography forces density of inter-
action stripping ego and hoarding info and nasty competing off of people making
for lubricated flows of funds, techs, people, ideas, across all bounds--seething.
Only a few places have the geography for such dense interactings and the norms
for sharing, not hoarding, non hierarchy, helping all--the REGION competes more
than people or firms.
47 trust theory of Migrants, immigrants create more new businesses than others. The scale of busi-
entrepreneurship nesses they create matches the size of social trust unit in their own culture and
community. Some groups are family limited in scale (Chinese everywhere), some
648 are congregational in scale (groups of families sharing rites and values), some are
profession in scale (friends and family in a few overlapping professions), some are
multi-profession multi-industry in scale. At every scale, the key is how many peo-
ple you make and keep promises with, without worry or legal guarantees or
enforcements OTHER THAN SOCIAL UNIT REJECTION OF TRUST VIOLATORS. It is
the shunning by whole communities of trust that allows legal free, bank free, insti-
tution free, fast, flexible building of enterprises--done with trust socially not oth-
erwise enforced. However a balance of warmth from trusting social ties and cold
evaluation of doing of roles assigned/assumed is needed to prevent trust declining
into corruption.

48 information Biology is replacing physics as the main science of this era. That means ecosys-
ecology 654 tems of products, technologies, tech ventures in valleys are seen and dynamics
among them views in analogy to ecosystem relations among species. That means
natural selection among them is noticed, using precise analogies with nautral
selection features--neutral drift, mutation in mutation rates, epigenetic inherit-
ance of learnings, and more. However, folk views of natural selection are terribly
wrong--it is NOT the fittest who survive but the organisms with the largest reper-
toires of useless neutral traits (some of which foster survival if environments shift
in a major way). Being optimally adapted to present circumstances, without such
a large diverse repertoire of useless traits--is fatal, suicidal = an example of “suc-
cess fails”. What natural selection generates, if not fitness, is new higher levels
of organization, where components lose some adaptiveness and flexibility for the
sake of powers to survive and adapt from higher level cooperations and structures-
-others in “society” levels fighting an enemy that would overcome you alone, for
example. Innovations are natural results of natural selection processes among
products, ideas, fund, venture competing in ecosystems of interaction.
49 open business Take the basic dynamics of Silicon Valley and spread them out like butter across
model 670 the customers, suppliers, competitors, production systems, etc. of a normal firm--
that is the base image of “open”-ing in this model. Unfortunately you do not have
the peninsula that Silivon Valley has to concentrate chance encounters. You do not
have 10+ years of 22,000 new wanted technologies funded by government of the
Apollo program (then forced commercialization suddenly of 10 years of high tech
doings). You do not have a beginning of the digital tech revolution in Fairchild and
its alums all over your non-peninsula. You do not have the nested anti-cultures of
California’s laid backness, celebration of “irresponsible mirth” group cultures,
backyard beer bashes in great sun, non-hoarding of persons-knowledge-ideas-
funds. In other words--this model pushes you to Silicon Valley-ize your ways,
though you lack huge generators that made Silicon Valley special. What you get,
then is “right ways” unsupported by what I mentioned above--a technician’s “short
cuts”--typical of professors without a real life and experience of the world. THE
BASIC PROBLEM IS CONSTIPATION OF FLOWS--in big firms and among firms around
them--nothing moves, everything fixed boxed by laws and lawyers and careerist
hoarding of execs on the way up. Everything is individualized--for the CEO mostly,
and a little leftover for the firm, and nothing left over for the future of customers,
society, and technology. Un-constipating is obvious---getting things to flow--but
this model does not deal with the norms, culture, geography, public-private pulsed
fundings, that get those flows to find homes for new tech ideas.
50 media conver- This is several nested revolutions from digital technologies in one package--from
gence 678 passive spectating to active influencing, from passive reading to billions of people
publishing, from things from one medium staying in that medium to people cut and
pasting across dozens of media--holographs, 3D cams, postscript, word processers,
emoticons, smartphone screenshots, mixed and matched at will. Ownership
changes, fees change. Why you make, what you pay, how you make, how you pay,
who makes and pays everything co-evolves confusingly--as soon as rules are done,
their basis is gone. THIS SITUATION WILL NEVER BE SOLVED---the frontier outruns
the rules and payments systems in perpetuity. But this is happening to publishing
media now--TV, movies, 3D, webcams, newspapers, print media, posters, e-post-
ers. It will happen to the rest of things via 3D printing, consumer design apps, and
gradually ALL of our economy and world will have vastly more people PRODUCING
not passively consuming. A cacophony of voices, ways, burgeoning changes--will
make FINDING and PERFECTING and USING/LEARNING communities vital. Groups
will CHOOSE to INHABIT portions of this fluxing mess--putting up tents, surveying
what is around, making use and sense of it. Publishing’s revolution now is EVERY-
THING’s later revolution.

51 managing R&D R&D is boring. Really--timid, cowardly, great ideas constantly killed by ignorant
684 MBA managers unable to understand technologies but pretending to grasp them. It
is really really boring. In its best, pre-MBA forms, it is all about PORTFOLIO MAN-
AGEMENT--herding a hoard of diverse PROJECTS as the prospects for them evolve,
decay, emerge, change, blend, split. MOST written on R&D as an innovation
model, is MBAish, sick, and humerously stupid. Harvard regularly burps up ridicu-
lous comic books by professors living in other centuries. Even Xerox PARC’s former
boss, center of the digital tech revolution, writes ponderous boring HBR press
books on “seeing differently” that see everything totally the same. Yawn.
There is another way, however--the complexity theory--social automaton. tuning
parameters of how agents in populations interact new indirect form of leadership.
Rather than ponderous delayed silly little project assessment tables and score-
cards (and kissing up of top engineers to their “superiors” MBAs bosses) large
diverse populations of projects, half from insiders and half with outsiders, inter-
act, spawning emergence of blends, clumps, pathways of new projects. Pruning
noise from signal, sampling the interactions in mid-process, expanding and con-
tracting population bounds in outcourcing experiments and commercialization con-
centrations are some of the operations applied here to entire populations of
projects. It is NOT about evaluating the individual project but managing emer-
gents from the population of interacting ones.
52 knowledge Individual people ARE knowledge interfaces in this model, who locate themselves-
management 691 -their minds--in intersecting flow of knowledge, often constipated by organiza-
tions/executives/East-coast-religion-of-busines-norms. Knowing, inventing,
learning, applying are FOUR distinct cultures at war with each other--pretending
they are one “organization culture” is a trick by venal CEOs and MBAs to rip all off
for their personal wealth building projects. Vendors push biased limited technolo-
gies that hinder knowing, inventing, learning, applying in unadmitted ways--new
systems cost lots unadmitted. There are 64+ ways organization learn and each
new device, system, product, and technology has to be examine for which of them
it helps and hinders. Violating borders = getting things to flow = is the main job
and constipated flows are the norm (and why big firms fail). To flow requires to
violate. That means managing knowledge to the point of innovations requires a
CULTURE OF VIOLATING BOUNDS--not something taught in MBA programs. Knowl-
edge appears in particular formats--people using the same ideas packaged in dif-
ferent formats stupidly argue and fight--translating idea across formats is KEY TO
GETTING IDEAS TO FLOW.
53 substance of If global warming does not destroy all rapidly we face a world of extreme produc-
style and design tivities making essentials widely and cheaply available, though perhaps without
jobs for most. National stipends may result or some unforeseen system (everyone
701 a servant for some rich cocaine addict is one alternative promoted by right wing-
ers).
Whatever the income base of populations--super productivity will make everyone a
producer. What happens to the world, culture, economies when everyone is a pro-
ducer? Style and Fashion and Design rule. The value added is surprise, amazing
greatness, rare perfection in a world of opportunists, and ALSO, importantly FIND-
ERS whether apps or communities or tours or media. There will be so diverse
many options and inventions that that rate of evolution making FINDING values for
you an immensely growing in difficulty task. CREATORS and FINDERS will be the
polarity between poles of which everything orients and takes place. New princi-
ples of production appear--UGLINESS as the cost of failed attempts at new BEAU-
TIES. Districts will become vital as concentrations of fast interactions that get
ahead of others elsewhere not as passionate about that districts chosen main
direction.

54 knowledge Study the history of ideas, publishings, awards in any field for a century and you
dynamics (dialectic find huge generational effects--the present generation A’s idea countered by the
next B generation in tern attacked by revived generation A idea in the hands of
idea evolution) 706 generation C. This is one of dozens of knowledge dynamics repeated in every
field’s history over intermediate time spans. Another is winning ideas in long idea
conflicts, incorporate the loser ideas they beat, as parts of themselves (incorpo-
rated into their contexts), but later generations free those loser ideas thusly con-
strained, to use them against established contexts-ideas. There are dozens of
these, You innovate in an inverse U function way here---conforming to, fitting into
these dynamics ENOUGH to be understood and felt as a contribution and violating,
challenging such dynamics enough to interest and be seen as expanding ways and
minds in the field. Too little fit and you are dismissed as alien junk, to much fit
and you are dismissed as me-too and not a contribution. Processes such as the
above lead to overall fractal shapes of ideas in a field--trees of repeating polari-
ties/oppositions on all size scales. Each knowledge dynamic is something for an
innovative idea to RIDE on; each fractal tree is a PATH for such RIDES to take place
on.
55 social move- The famous Kuhn model of science as established paradigms attacked, de-throned,
ment 710 replace with new ones, fleshed out till they are attacked--is part of this social
movement model of innovation. Alternatives are born again and again without
changing entire fields till one of them surprisingly causes sudden widespread
defections from the field’s main models. Latent unadmitted, hidden frustrations
and doubts build up--that career systems force into suppression (for promotions
kissing up to established figures and their ideas is essential). This leads to the
famous Danny Miller Success Fails event--where all become sychophantic copies of
top leader biases till not enough variety exists to survive even slight changes of
environment. Innovation are one-of-many attempts at new ways/ideas that,
unpredictably, happen to cause widespread defection from old ways. This is, as
Par Bak’s Nobel Prize sandpile research demonstrated--a matter of luck and chance
and timing more than a matter of features of the item stimulating defections.
56 social revolu- Some last straw causes liberation from old ways, into a lonely no man’s land,
tion 714 where you encounter other liberated ones and freely try to build alternative bet-
ter ways and institutions--if you succeed, suddenly a new institution type emerges
and along with it a new type of happiness--public happiness--the joy of changing
history then and there by your doings here and now. That leads to your inventon
becoming a hsitoric dream to others who copy you, flock to you as disciples, and
replicate your invention. All that newness has to be protected from establish
forces of the past trying to assimilate away what is new and challenging to them.
You innovate by supporting these dynamics--last straw, liberation, no man’s land
marginal survival, finding other liberated ones, together trying out new inventions,
success generating public happiness, becoming historic dream for others, conserv-
ing the new from forces of the past.
57 culture of Cultures of persons, groups, nations, firms that develop economically share 20
development 718 characteristics, worldwide, in three main groups: a population of strivers, afford-
able available training for needed roles, and a reliable intermediate future allow-
ing people to invest effort, funds, facilities. Where these three are present
dynamics among the population of strivers, using the training, spawn myriad emer-
gent innovations over intermediate futures kept reliable, so invested effort pays
off.
58 darwinian cul- This is Darwin’s natural selection process. It occurs among products, among tech-
ture evolution 722 nologies, among tastes and fashions in markets, in mind of competing ideas, in
regions competing for inhabitation by the “creative class”, and so on. Natural
selection in all these areas is different than natural selection among carbon based
DNA coded lifeforms, in subtle ways and obvious ones. That makes innovation
hard--1) understanding biologic natural selection well enough to spot or make sim-
ilar such dynamics among products, tech ventures in valleys, etc. 2) mapping
those biologic dynamics intelligently to take into account the different substrates
of inheritance, mutation, cross-over, species formation, trait evolution. Example-
-it is not the fittest that survive, but those with the largest repertoires of now use-
less traits who survive. Two, natural selection generates not fitness but higher lev-
els of organization. Seeing analogs of these among products, techs, tech
ventures, ideas--leads to innovations.

59 innovation of Errors in copying, misunderstanding local contexts of use, misunderstanding your
copying (patterns own contexts of use, mis-seeing what you are copying and how it works--these are
some of the ways that copying nearly always results in innovation. Japan took
in history) 727 Feigenbaum, Deming, Juran ways of totalizing handling of a body of knowledge--
quality knowledge--and used them to erect a counter to ordinary Japanese vertical
hierarchy monkey cultures of management. TQM was a counter to Japan’s man-
agement culture but not necessarily a counter to non-Japan ones--so its powers
abroad are various, depending on the degree to which foreign use environments
suffer the same weaknesses as traditional Japanese management--manging by
opinion of high ranked monkeys, management by blaming nearest workers for pro-
duction faults, management by right answer not statistics, management by verti-
cal boss pleasing at the cost of ignoring horizontal customer needs. Americans
ruined TQM’s power by individualizing it, keeping stats for managers not workers,
and the like BUT some Americans switched for Japanese stats, US artificial intelli-
gence software, turning statistical quality circles into knowledge modeling circles.
Such adaptations end up becoming innovations at times.
60 self organizing Humans are an innovaton made by natural selection processes. Life is an innova-
criticality 730 tion made by natural selection processes. Natural selection is an innovation made
by the universe somehow. The universe itself, measured this way, is MORE INNO-
VATIVE than humans are. Humans innovate by studying and borrowing from how
the univere itself invents and innovates. Some systems become critical--where
slight changes of input, exactly like many similar others, have totally different and
bigger results--changing entire system states. Some systems do more--they self
organize till they are at such critical values, again and again--ready for a slight
input to lead to system wide emergent patterns of great complexity that no ele-
ment in the system intended, planned, invented. Inventorless Inventions--this is
called and it won a Nobel Prize for its inventor--Par Bak, in 1972. You can spot
these dynamics going on in any human group and prune noise from around it, to
see the emergent inventions that from time to time appear, rather than losing
them in the noise of human intended designs and inventions. The model of innova-
tion uses human projects and invention efforts as platforms for spotting by pruning
noise away, innovations emergent from systems that no one planned or intended or
could have imagined.
61 adjacent Each new idea or device invention gets added to our world and mentally we can
beyond 732 combine it with all prior ideas and device inventions. Most of those combinations
will be junk, but a few, always will become still newer inventions. The possible
combinations expand exponentially in this sceme, making the actual new inven-
tions also expand exponentially. You innovate here by developing a repertoire of
diverse frameworks--comprehensive enough, abstract enough, detailed enough,
multi-level enough, numerous enough to SPOT emergents of value and prune noise
away from them. The key is searching this enormous space of possibilities by an
equally enormous personal library of frameworks for spotting value.
62 simple pro- The stripes of zebras, the random branchings of blood vessels, the one photon sen-
grams 733 sitivity of retinas, the other organism systems that operate at the physics maxi-
mum possible, somehow found and invented by natural selection--all evince
immense complexity of structure, process, or behavior. This complexity, however,
comes from extremely simple rules, iterated. Proof that, contrary to human
norms, complexity comes from extreme simplicity has been developed in a branch
of computer science--automata theory--whose bible is one book by Stephen Wol-
fram A New Kind of Science. One dimensional cellular automata games have been
proven by Wolfram capable of the most complex behaviors and outcomes of all
brains and computers possible. About 35 out of 200+ such automata have this
General Computational Equivalence trait. Social ways to organize people and
work in automata formats--automata are the simplest thinkable machines and
social arrangements of people in such arrangements are vastly more creative than
usual brainstorm sessions. Populations of projects, of small tech ventures, of
ideas, of engineers, of ideas can be structured in automata formats, innovating as
nature invented zebra stripes (spaced so as to make running zebras disappear in
tall grasses they live among).

63 globalization Every home in the world is a collection of global things--each locale is global in
theory 737 this sense. Systems, increasingly, are getting global so anything can get delivered
quickly locally and local productions can get global exposure rapidly and inexpen-
sively. Locals becoming global and global things getting into all locales--these
twin forces relativize local absolutes, undermine tribal norms, give proof that all
local ways are suboptimal in every sense except that they are already there and
imposed on all. Migrations result as local values are seen--always everywhere--
wanting. Yet the load of makng your own self freely from a globe of alternative
components scares and overwhelms local people, forcing some of them into long-
ing for rigid set hierarchies and ways of centuries ago. But wishing the globe away
and wishing the mixing of local with global away will not stand a chance unless all
modern media are refused and all trade is refused. The globalization processes
are FORCING ALL LOCALITIES to get seen and used as distinct unique innovations
when exposed to global audiences. Some fits will be found, even if evil ones at
times. Similarly many things gone global, when penetrating locales will be experi-
enced as serious innovations in local ways and potentials. Globalizing is innovat-
ing.
64 de-localiza- Global things, views, programs, lives entering each locality involves kicking people
tion 739 into making their own selves, assembling from an entire globe of alternative styes,
skills, values, jobs, careers, family types. This ia a heavey self reflection burden,
particular due to the expert system society type it leads to--where many forms of
self care require you individually to find and research and assemble teams of doz-
ens of narrow speciality professions, no member of which actually takes responsi-
ble for your overall good outcome. This is such a heavy burden that people
collapse into longing for rigid hierarchic localities they fled and freed from. Each
person is him-/her-self a potential innovation, though most of these self built per-
sons fail in the sense of not meeting a lot of their dreams, aspirations, and needs.
Many succeed however, making populatins of person-innovations that interact to
spawn businesses, styles, shows, new experiences, new expert services for others.
65 de-mass-ifica- Uniform mass manufacture creates global within-home diversity. Institutions and
tion 742 products are wrong size: too big and too little at the same time (family sizes are
now both too big and too small at the same time). We are more and more together
in loneliness. We yearn for rigid hierarchies we just worked hard to liberate our-
selves from. The above paradoxes are generating bottom up mid-range institu-
tions, processes, communities to fill out and fix the paradox results. Between
global and local an entire new self- and group-built world is emerging. This is the
emergence of dozens, hundreds of inter-related innovations, continually invented
and launched to fill voids in our too big and too small policies, results, institutions.
Mass means for custom designs, delivery, to global markets means each locale
becomes innovative when launching its views and ways globally.
66 four social rela- There is a direction of evolution--things start from communal sharing, through
tions 746 hierarchic ranking, through reciprocating exchanges, to market pricing. Sex was
originally communal, all with all in tribal festivals, then was stratified by status
ranks, then was mutual exchange, then in cities becamse bought and sold. Every-
thing else traverses these stages of treatment. Innovations are all merely stages
along this journey, each new stage done with and as new innovations.
67 diversity 749 There are many kinds of diversity--gender, age, era, nation, culture, profession,
personality, educatedness, etc.--which map onto the many types of task to be
done--some forms of diversity fit well some forms of task. However diversity
drives people crazy, they avoid it--though it may improve innovativity of out-
comes, for many it is not worth the hassle. For diversity puts the huge uncon-
scious iceberg of effortless views and ways of you against the equally huge
unconscious iceberg of effortless views and ways of me--which always are differ-
ent. When together neither you nor I can do anything effortlessly--as we do not
share growing up and mastering same routines. People hate this effort of having
to operate without their effortless unconscious routines and views. They avoid it.
To TURN DIVERSITIES OF VARIOUS TYPES INTO INNOVATIONS you have to build stuff
(ways) that overcome this COST OF OPERATING DIVERSELY. Innovation comes from
successful targeting and achieving of that machinery.

68 creative class Cities are insight processes in this model. They collections of diverse populations
755 interacting, from which unintended inventions and innovations naturally emerge--
if someone spots them and separates signal from noise. To turn the turmoil of
mixing in cities into innovations you have to have some minds as diverse as what
emerges in terms of diverse within-mind frameworks that SPOT different emer-
gents and SPOT uses that amaze with them. Cities enact on plural size scales ALL
the dynamics of the INSIGHT MODEL of INNOVATION presented in this book: alter-
nation of engagement with detachment, applied to ever more abstract renderings
of situations, collecting failed solution attempts, indexng them lovingly till they
inversely specify what eventual solutions must be like, till a sudden avalanche
event occurs, the punch-line of a slight idea leading to entire re-seeing of every-
thing in the situation = eventual solution. The Despair Doorway--you have to try
all you know and can imagine and FAIL, get into enough despair to hate the parts
of who you now are in the way of solution enough to change those usually self-
loved parts, THEN the door to solution opens--when you stop loving those old parts
of your own self and its ways. Cities compete for the global mobile creative class
of innovators by selling themselves AS INSIGHT PROCESSES, not as sets of buildings
and facilties. Interestingly homosexuality tolerated widely is a key indicator of
presence of these city wide city deep insight processes in robust operation.
69 order for free There is a critical value in populations interacting at which tiny local actions have
759 some global results, enough to create emergent patterns of great complexity but
not the total chaos of every local impacting the global state. The edge of chaos
this value of some critical parameter of the population’s interactions is called.
Feedbacks on all size scales, both negative and positive, kept in equilibrium of
sorts, collapse with a few growing enormously at such critical values. Complex
structures or behaviors can emerge that no unit in the system plans, intends, or
invents. Invention without innovators again (see above). This goes for teams,
congresses, corporations, Silicon Valley entities interacting. Finding such critical
values and tuning till amazing emergent complex results emerge is an art, only
now being engineered--in the past it happened as sudden unplannable INSIGHT
processes. Design is being challenged by the inventiveness for free of such emer-
gent results.
70 lowered coordi- New ditigal info technologies and global transport and smartphone infrastructures,
nation costs 764 with the world wide web--are changing time and space--bringing things closer to
other things in both time and space terms--shrinking the size and delays between
things. This makes reactions occur enromously faster, increases diversity of what
interacts with what, and speeds evolution in all processes, markets, minds. Coor-
dinations costs lower greatly--making doing everything in one vertically integrated
organization too slow and expensive. Populations instantly re-configurable can
form temporary coalitions to do things. Auctions replace transfer pricing among
fixed firms. The results appear---coalitions of ventures meet and associate with
each other on the web, big organizations dissolve into populations bidding and
interacting, tuned not structured; larger scale populations OF LARGE FIRMS appear
dynamically cooperating and competing at the same time with myriad projects
shared between them. As a result all types and sizes of diversity get found and
combined more--resulting in more innovative everything.
71 tipping point Non-linear dynamics within minds meet non-linear dynamics between minds so the
blinks 768 form of output from persons and organizatins becomes viral spreading epidemics
that pulsate, throbe for a while and ebb away in waves. Natural selection pro-
cesses among ideas contending get resolved into decisions and actions when tip-
ping points among them get reached, avalanche INSIGHT events changing whole
mind commitments and views. Similarly natural selection processes among prod-
ucts, firms, techs, persons, funds, funders in societies get resolved when tipping
points get reached, spreading one pattern globally in viral dynamics. To GO VIRAL
a thing in heads has to cause between idea tipping and a thing in society has to
cause between contender tipping. Aiming mental processes at finding such
between idea tipping points and aiming innovations released into society at soci-
etal tipping points becomes our new non-linear path to innovation.

72 excellence sci- All inherited myths, certainties, philosophies, virtues, norms and ways get eroded
ences (higher stan- by comparison with an entire globe of alternative ones--making local excellences
not so excellence emotionally and making local certainties not so certain emotion-
dards) 774 ally. What is excellent here and now among my friends is vile, evil, a crime in
other locales and vice versa. Everyone certain they are right THEREBY are wrong.
Rightness in principle is always wrong. That leaves what is good, what is excel-
lent--Plato’s topic in his books--to be defined in less “righteous” local, bigotted
ways. All else depends on proper defining of the good and the excellent. Each
global innovation team in industry experiences divergent ideas of good and excel-
lent at both a great problem and sometimes a great boon. Empiric, not religious,
not philosophic, not political, not ideological defining of the good and the excel-
lent needs doing. When that is done you get 50+ ways to rise to the top of nearly
any field by being “excellent” in one of those 50+ ways. Some of those ways are
ways to create--there are 30 creativity sciences: inventing, composing, perform-
ing, designing, innovating, and 26 others. Each of those creativity sciences itself
is composed of dozens of model of itself--60 ways to create, 72 models of innova-
ton, 64 approaches to design, and so on. Any one model will have, on average, 50+
parameters of how it gets used and done around the world and throughout history.
This hierarchy of plural fields and models--is our route to global forms of excel-
lence in a world where imposing ANY local idea of it, turns to mass killing, and
evil.
MODELS FOR POSSIBLE LATER INCLUSION:
73. fractal model Apple takes all the existing features of a product and pushing innovation in ALL of
expansion them at once--to do this generally you have to build a fractal model of all the key
features of something, then plot that in a next larger fractal, with blank boxes at
every item on every leve, to hold NEXT innovations all over the product on all size
scales for next versions. This creates a SENSE OF EXCELLENCE so rare in our era of
opportunist money grubbing by MBA infected minds.
74. design thinking Just as there are 120 models of creativity, 72 models of innovation, 256 founder
genres dynamics in Silicon Valley, 420 natural selection dynamics--there are plural models
of doing design. No one has, thus far, built good meta-models of all those models
in relation to each other, so design colleges generally do not have grad schools and
Ph.Ds. Design thinking is a pop buzzword--that no one defines because very little
overt thinking goes into design. Most consultancies are at the level of adding
grandma, barking dogs, and forest rangers to brainstorm sessions in order to IDEO
and Frog their design thinking processes and results. Pitiful. When you do the
hard work of interviewing hundreds of actual designers in 60+ design genres, you
get 64 models of design, that work like a grammar unconsciously in the minds of
great designers. Designers generally at 30 to 35 years old reach a professional pla-
teau--where if they keep going as they are, the will drop into the obscurities of
history unnoticed forever. What got them fresh out of school excited--making
actual monkey, finding clients not avoiding all innnovation, no longer works when
designers face their own deaths--they want to leave their mark and how they were
trained won’t get them impacting their entire field and history. More Red Dots do
not history make--nice but no banana. A grammar of 60+ design approaches, made
explicit from unconsious contents offers a DIRECT ROAD to changing all of your
design genre and history.
75. meister+liebig You have a population of practitioners, and another population of research inven-
tors and TOGETHER they innovate. A continual stream of research results gets
turned into experiments in improving practice by both populations cooperating.
This is the meister plus research grad school system invented by a German, Liebig-
-a rural pharmacist assigned to train young pharmacists. He assigned each to a
research a different topic and ended up a few years later with half of all chemistry
research articles published in European journals done by his students. German
leaders eventually noticed this and made it the basis of a national graduate school
new institution, copied by the USA in the 1930s. Innovation in this system is a join
effort of two quite distinct populations.

76. totalizing bod- Japan took a body of knowledge--quality knowledge--and instead of treating it via
ies of knowledge professions as the West did, treated it via several totalizations, so all managers
and all workers were made responsible for continual quality improvement in their
work areas. TQM that resulted conquered 11 global industries in every non-Japan
nation in the 1970s and 1980s. Harvard professors, lied, and stripped the word
Japan off and substitutes “lean” so professors could pretend the 30+ totalization
tools Japan invented were professorial bright ideas from elites. This was both dis-
honest and sick. 1) the versions of the tools in the US, for example, were individ-
ualized, made analytic and complex, elitized, ruining their power vis-a-vis Japan
2) where Japan had invented TQM as a counter culture to usual vertical Japanese
management culture, the West did not make TQM into a counter to their vertical-
ity cultures (elites just made non-elite parts of TQM elite-y). WHAT OTHER BOD-
IES OF KNOWLEDGE IF TOTALIZED WOULD CONQUER (OUT PRODUCE) THE WORLD?
Robotics--Japan followed TQM with a whole workforce totalization of robotics
knowledge--producing, for example, simple reliable easy to learn and use Panaro-
bots that defeature Phd. developed MIT US robots that Ph.ds could not safely pro-
gram and set up. This is innovations of enormous power by totalizing bodies of
knowledge.
77. decade colleges There used to be one college experience in lives--between decade two and three.
BUT people go back for masters degrees between decade three and four, and again
between decade four and five, and retirees go back for degree between decade 8
and 9. College as a withdrawal from the world into professional study is becom-
ing an every decade thing. This is the decade college idea---bringing PRACTICE
experience in the form of new cohorts to RESEARCH results and initiatives every
TEN years. This is a speeding up and extension of the Liebig + meister formula for
innovation.
78.idea wave catch About every 8 years major consulting firms start un-selling what they just pro-
and substrate moted and start pushing something newer and much better. In truth every 8 years
new idea waves wash over every field of knowledge, profession, and research
upgrade organization. For example, complexity theory washed over all in the 1990s as big
data washes over all since 2010. Other waves of technology infrastructure come
in waves too--a PC wave 30 years ago, a tablet wave 10 years ago, and a smart-
phone wave 5 years ago. You are FORCED to catch BOTH waves to some extent--
as everyone else around all over society will. HOWEVER innovators are those who
pioneer catching both wave types and seeing what their contents can be made to
do. As Jobs at Apple insisted--engineers are trained to tweak and have no experi-
ence of the serious experimentation and testing needed to find what a new tech
can actually be made to do. Waves to made to do experiments to major innova-
tions.
79. new basic unit European elites leading Europeans into killling millions of each other every 40
of intelligence years for centuries; American elites leading Americans around the world losing
wars on the world’s poorest peoples decade after decade. Harvard and MIT elites
on Wall Street losing 3 trillion dollars now debt on government balance sheets, to
pay bankers for cocaine treatment programs for their kids--as banker money shuf-
fles blew up badly. These are, according to British and Dutch researchers clear
evidence that lone heroic males are incapable of inteligent leadership. Shrivastra
and Minzberg followings of executives showing no impacts of all their “leaderly-
looking actions” on a smaller scale indicates the same thing, will less dead bodies.
The male leader solidly dis-credited himself in history. What unit IS capable of
leading? A male-female pair (the Perones?) does not work as the man commands
the woman. A male with two females trio? Experiments in these new units of
intelligence are going on all over research organizations--finding that there IS a
unit of intelligence that works vastly better, at least for innovation, than heroic
lone males commanding--trios of two women with one man. The outcomes of such
new units are nearly all innovations--as they end up treating every issue totally
differently than lone males in the past did (males tend to use every issue for per-
sonal advancement never organizational improvement or service).

80. aternate deliv- If you find what functions achieve DIRECTIONALITY in groups and DIRECTEDNESS in
ery of functions them (the former, everyone aiming the same direction; the latter every action
moving in that direction in actuality), then you can examine ALTERNATIVE WAYS to
deliver such functions other than present monkey hierarchies of males--a fixed
expensive inventory that leads to constant over-shooting (too much managing) and
under-shooting (too little managing). Delivering functions not by a specially en-
perked social class is both faster and more effective. Many alternative systems of
function delivery have been developed in Nordic Europe, canada, Brazil and else-
where. These forms of leadership liberate huge innovation forces--removing the
thrall of commanding males and their primate intimidations--they way so many
wives make everything better as soon as their long-time husbands die.
81. inhabit the Many people in Silicon Valley talk about the impossibility of innovating outside that
future, puncture geography---each daily place and encounter involves chance encounters with so
many ideas, people, initiatives, ventures, funders. Going to the store, to the
profession cultures beach, picking up kids, backyard parties, news, local clubs and sports--everywhere
informs. There is so much that is new, experimental, being tried for the first time
in history around you that you NO LONGER LIVE IN THE PRESENT. You are LIVING IN
ATTEMPTED FUTURES. Your natural thoughts and reactions become innovations,
without any personal effort to be smart or innovate. Your daydreams, conversa-
tions, musings, goofy cartons---it all becomes innovative when viewed outside Sili-
con Valley.
82. long outrageous Long term high tech demanding public funded projects of great aspirational
practical demand appeal--the US man on the moon Apollo program is the perfect example--develop
lots of tries and re-tries of great new techs needed, till suddenly at project’s end-
-everyone has to sell commercially to survive. This becomes a Pulsed System of
waves of public then private financing, forcing utterly new things attemted then
forcing finding uses, prices, customers for them. From this PULSING innovations
emerge.
83. social plasma Concentrate a lot of people in a small peninsula. Add lubricants for flows and
idea fusion interac- interactions such as anti-hierarchy egalitarian norms, sharing not hoarding info
norms, helping competitors not hurting them, making the whole region successful
tion density not just your own self, being laid back and irresponsibly happy rather than uptight
and demanding, setting up prisons to put MBAs and lawyers and East Coast elitist
professors in. Two things happen--a social plasma develops, where ideas get
stripped of their owner origins and belong to all not to authors, and idea fusions
occur, where density and variety of frequency of idea meeting idea results in some
wonderful combinations that release tremendous insight and energy and passion to
apply. This is a social reactor you build and tune and manage--and an idea fusion
reaction you look for and harvert. Anywhere where these dynamics are done will
work out--but if you do not have lots of bright people in a small peninsual, the
density of interactions and if you do not have norms for egalitarian sharing, inter-
actions will be of no use. USA East Coast religion of business people put in this
peninsula of densely interacting people will gum up the worlks like an Alzheimer’s
plaque--slowing things down with status, analysis, elitism, big desks. YUK
84. product as Put your self into it--we say; make the product itself a self, introducing itself to
asserted self buyers. Put you as message into the product to transmit that message from you to
the user--you and I and this world are now greater. These are the thoughts along
(insanely great) the way of this route to innovation. You insert your self, your firm as self, your
engineerings as self, your product as self, to the world and users. It is all mes-
sages delivered, with the venture, the product as packaging. Life and you and I
are great wonders--says product 1, says product 1’s upgrade, says product 2. THIS
is simple---you have to be a rich founder owner with immense power to operate
this way but it works, it innovates at rates unmatched by cowardly timid tepid cor-
porate R&D groups.

85. fractal model Build dozens of comprehensive fractal detaild multi-level abstract models of ALL
rebalancing the dynamics of various sorts in various areas of the world. Then measure imbal-
ances on each of them--which of this model’s 64 dynamics has a leader, a facility, a
budget, priority, emphasis, interest, ad space, agenda space? Which have none of
these things. What would be become and look like and do if the slighted dynamics
were made supported main and central? This is the model rebalancing method of
innovating. It only works if your models really are immensely comprehensive and
detailed. There has to be a granularity to your balances and imbalances that sug-
gests unusual changes and ways to operate no one else will imagine without your
model and its details. Take the 64 ways organization learn model in this book--plot
how many of those ways your smartphone app fosters, supports, makes easier,
makes faster, makes higher in quality of outcome. Take some your app fails to
support and test with users what support of THAT would mean to them, price, per-
formance, popularity, word of mouth spread.
86. trojan product Designers graduate and get depressed for first years--all ALL their first clients hate
new stuff, innovations, and want products and systems as close to existing ones
that already sell as possible. They PAY for the smallest change from present they
can get and they complain and remove too much creativity wherever they find it.
This discourages all designers. Great designers face this in school (not via profes-
sor and course). They know that the TRICK of great design is hiding immense inno-
vation in a familiar comfortable easy to learn package. This is the trojan horse
nature of all great innovations---they come at people looking like something famil-
iar and only use reveals dimensions not mentioned or advertised of amazing power.
You innovate more by disguising better in this model. The more you appear inno-
vative the smaller your actual increment of novelty.
87. meta-product Meta-products are major innovations that nearly always amaze. An example will
(recursive service) help--there are six Taguchi apps available on the market. They all do roughly the
same thing--automat the stats parts of a Taguchi optimization techniques for
designers. None of them stand out, all of them sell OK but not greatly. What do
you do? Do you make a product with greater math features to out-sell them all?
That is what normal firms do. That is failure to meta-innovate. INSTEAD notice
taht setting up the stats and interpreting the resuts of the stats and generating
reports for executives from the stats are hassles irritating all users and reducing
their use of Taguchi optimization overall. So you make your product a META-PROD-
UCT--your Taguchi app sets up inputs FOR ALL SIX competitor products and your
app interprets results FOR ALL SIX competitor products. Instanlty your app when
released sells ONE COPY FOR EACH COMPETITOR PRODUCT SOLD = instant market
dominance as you sell roughly six times more than each of your competitors. Later
by matching their shared maths core, you make a Version Two that wipes them out
of the market entirely. This is the meta-product route to innovation example, It
applies quite generally to products, services, facilities, events, fashion and much
else.
88. strategically Nearly all businesses work around obstacles as cheaply easily and quickly as possi-
exaggerate obsta- ble. The minimize time and effort wasted against the obstacle. This model of
innovation however changes that--you deliberately extend grappling with chief
cles obstacles, and do not work around them--you work to obliterate them entirely--to
make them entirely irrelevant or disappear. This often requires entire new ancil-
lary innovation streams to redirect powerful interests or forces or traditions sus-
taining obstacles. YOU design a product and an obstacle anihilation product/
service that go together into the world. Where competitors release products
partly less than they could be due to working around the obstacle, you release
dream versions, totally unaffected by the obstacle or using its forces of the prod-
uct’s own purposes and features. In modern biology this happens all the time as
failed drugs reveal by how and where they fail, mechanisms that can be used as
future drug systems.
89. culture cross- Ways natural to you in one environment of living and work, when you move to a
ing different culture can be seen and felt as innovations, without you doing anything
effortful or deliberate. You just naturally do a routine you absorbed in that other
world here and now in a different world, where it meets needs that are not found
in that place of origin. Merely getting a practice or invention across cultures can
turn it into an innovation. I use the quality circles case--of my own re-doing of
quality circles as artificial intelligence, knowledge modeling, and high tech robot-
ics circles in the USA--by throwing out Japan’s stats and inserting US software.
This won me the Deming Prize in Japan and the Baldrige Award in the USA.

90. morphologic This is the story of an oil crisis that made in days General Electric’s jet engines no
forecasting longer economic for airlines. GE mobilized its engineers for new fuel efficient
designs but they failed to patent them---someone decades earlier had patend
them all. Forutnately that person was a former GE employee--Mr. Zwicky. GE
wanted to know how he had known decades early that fuel efficient designs would
be needed? He has a method--a large matrix of customer needs, hundreds of
them, and product possible features and design attributes, hundreds of them. Most
intersections on such matrices were boring and worthless, but Zwicky circles a few
interesting clumps and designed things for each clump and patented them. One
clump was hotness limits of materials and fuel saving--hotter used less fuel but
require new heat resistant materials. This is a general search space way of inno-
vating, but its risk is the world may take decades to catch up, economically, with
its ideas.
91. structural cog- The initial idea, from Noam Chomsky and Greene, was an MIT undergrad research
nition project I did with Noam in 1968. We wanted to know what made top MIT Harvard
faculty ways of thinking better than average faculty ways of thinking and built a
survey to find out including cases to handle. We identified top thinkers among
those faculty and had them handle cases live in front of us in great detail. We got
every 30 second protocols of how they thought from that and found ONE MENTAL
STRUCTURE that expanded what they all applied ordinary mental operations to,
from 6 or 8 ideas as in normal faculty to 20 or 30 ideas for these leading faculty
thinkers. Moreover we found these leading faculty read the geometries of
thought in paragraphs not just points. Structures read, structures written, struc-
tures combined--these allowed them to applyg mental operators to 30 ideas at a
time not to 6 or 8 at a time. New tools, more regularized fractal form structures
that expanded this from 30 ideas at a time to 64 and 128 and 216 ideas at a time
were developed and tested. The vast increase in mental productivity that resulted
allowed generating a dozen times more new ideas each hour and day as others =
more final possible inovations = more actual innovations achieved and bigger ones
in terms of amounts of novelty involved.
92. funding pulses The throwing of money to bright people, at first patient long term reach far high
(long public sort tech direction government funds, followed by no government funds and a live or
die struggle to commercialize bold things built, followed by a repeat of the long
private) term patient government bold techs funding, followed by another life or death
survival crash to commercialize bold stuff developed--these PULSES create innov-
tions.

Copyright 2015 by Richard Tabor Greene (richardtgreene@alum.mit.edu), All Rights Reserved, Registered PAGE 1
72 Innovation Models
Oh My God! Not Another Book on “Innovation”--
Who Needs Another?
One of the 100 innovation models this book presents is the Innovation Noise model. I will
not summarize it here, but use only its main point--that the vast majority of talk, writing,
speeches, slideshows, academic articles about “innovation” are not real. If you read/listen
carefully you can substitute the word “change” for “innovation” and realize that it pays to
exaggerate and inflate nearly all changes of all sorts into “innovations”. This I call “innova-
tion nosie”. There is almost NO writing and presenting on innovation! INSTEAD
we have an absolute FLOOD of INNOVATION NOISE. You may not believe that right
now as you read this first paragraph of this book, but by the time you get to page ten or so,
you will be a believer!
What are all these so-called “innovation” books, then, actually presenting? First, they take
updating of the technical substrates of work and business, shifting from PCs to tablets, then
to smartphones, shifting to process software, then ERP, then cloud computing software, and
so forth--all as “innovation”. This is a stream of evolving new substrates for doing work
functions that will never end. Everyone does these upgrades to survive, whether they want
to or not, whether they are well led or not. This is just a piece of normal business exist-
ence. Calling each tiny little shift of technical substrate “innovation” is lying, pure and sim-
ple--a dishonest self inflating gross exaggeration. The new ideas involved were invented
elsewhere and forced on you and your organization--if by nothing else by magazines that
executives read in first class sections of airplanes.
Second, if ten thousand other firms are doing exactly what I am doing, though most of them
did it a few years or months earlier than I did it--am I an “innovator” when I do it? If you
gather, as my students have, hundreds of last 3 years slideshows on “innovation” by repre-
sentatives or CEOs or R&D heads of Fortune Global 100 firms, and compare them for content
points--99.8% of their points are exactly the same. Only 2 points per hundred presentations
are different. So “innovation” of this sort, the most common sort we find in magazine arti-
cles, business conferences, and leader speeches, is apparently a common goo that ten thou-
sand firms spread all over themselves from some sort of giant goo-bottle somewhere.
Innovation that does, in no way, differ from what nearly every firm alive is now or has
recently done, is either “not” innovation or is “a nearly worthless version” of it.
SOME EXAMPLES FROM YESTERDAY IN TOKYO:

1) moving a common sales system from in-house software
onto the cloud--reported as “innovation”
2) taking a company printing technology and printing not just
documents but fashion colors and e-circuit patterns--
reported as “innovation”
3) analyzing some customer door data to find patterns
distingishing coming door problems--reported as
This book was written to educate you not please you or inflate your self regard. Beyond mere business mod-
els of innovation and venal personal and national cultures of innovation. Let’s use our brains folks.
“innovation”.
LET’S TAKE THESE IN TURN: 1) system relocation 2)
capability re-targeting 3) data analysis. IF THESE ARE
“INNOVATIONS” then nearly all changes whatsoever in
business and work are “innovations”.
I repeat: there are almost NO books, speeches, or presentations on inno-

vation presently in the world! SO this book is NEEDED!
The debasing of talk goes along with the debasing of thought and debasement of action--
they all are symptoms of dying Religions of Business. This book does NOT partake of that.
Seeing Innovation Clearly--by Stripping Off Dis-

torting Cultures by Which we View It
Talk (and writing) about “innovation” and such matters, takes place inside cultures and con-
texts that are all but never noticed, discussed, improved, changed, considered. These same
cultures plus some others, are the environment in which “innovation” takes place.
Vital aspects of “innovation” such as whether it is in any way real or just “for show”, the
extent of novelty achieved, whether it addresses major human needs or merely finds “prof-
its” for investors, and the like, are limited, prevented, distorted, or otherwise affected by
these cultures.
A few of such cultures with large enduring limitations on “innovation” both as it is thought
of, discussed, and done, are listed here, not a complete list, but sufficient to make one of
the main points of this book, and to distinguish it, greatly from every other book on innova-
tion that has ever been written.
1. publish-or-perish academic culture of the American sort, widely aped globally

All research on innovation takes place within the biases, bigotries, male hierarchy
subserviences, crowd phenomena, of this unproven approach to new knowledge
(American research supermacy was established in the 1940s by brilliant Jews,
fleeing Europe, meeting Robber Baron foundations, funding graduate research,
aping Liebig’s amazing “research university” invention in Germany--not by pub-
lish-or-perish tiny topic journal offerings of USA professors since 1960);
Every few years, when the Academy of Management journal/review/executive

change editors, the new editor, inevitably writes a scathing editorial lamenting
that no one actually reads any of those publishings--especially executives, man-
agers, and businesses of all sorts--the academics pile up knowledge no one at all
uses (thank goodness, many say).
THE RESULT FOR INNOVATION--DEATH BY FULL IMPLEMENTATION OF “BEST”

RESEARCH RESULTS--Nearly all major corporation full scale multi-year multi-mil-
lion-dollar implementations of the very best Harvard etc. models of innovation
and creativity, produce no, negligible, or laughably tiny results--see Procter &
Gamble’s Corporate New Ventures program using Amabile’s “research” at Har-

vard--her “great” social science stats produced copying a hit Japanese product 8
years later in the USA as the result of changing 42+ environment variables at
P&G--with results like that who needs enemies.
2. nerd software engineers in Silicon Valley making San Francisco culture banal
Think of that episode of the British comedy, the IT Crowd, when the elevator opens
onto the basement where two IT nerds do their thing, and--the shock--a
“woman” walks out--”what is it, one nerd asks the other, who hits Wikipedia
immediately and reads the first paragraph there on what a women is; “how does
it operate?” the first nerd asks--”does it have a manual?”--this is what we are
talking about--software engineer culture
Quite a few of these people have made billions and bought immense boats, man-
sions, inventing strange new charities and universities--Singularity, Minerva; Man-
hattan is full of people who have fled from San Francisco, driven out by the lack
of social grace and taste of everything in San Francisco area, due to engineers
uberalles;
These people have developed their own software-engineer culture, replacing earlier
Fairchild and Saturn program cultures of Silicon Valley; autism is rampant as is
the brutality of treatment of people, selves, persons, life by minds full of their
own brilliance and not used to tolerance and compromise and other functions
Ruby, Java, Haskell, Hadoop, and other computer languages do not call for.
THE RESULT FOR INNOVATION--THE AUTISTIC ECONOMY AND ITS PRODUCTS--we

get great increases in personal connectedness and convenience of shopping--free
international video calls, instant re-order buttons for Amazon, instant smart-
phone fact-checking of any conversation, 100,000 free courses from top universi-
ties, while getting musicians, writers, professors, engineers unable to get full
time jobs, decent live-able incomes, and hope for a future beyond marginal
existence. We get old ladies doubling their pension incomes by renting out
rooms via Airbnb, poor people driving for beyond welfare incomes by Lyft and
Uber, and the like. We get “globalization” reducing costs (by shifting production
work to the world’s poorest populations) but reducing incomes by more. NET--
the top 1% get 80+% of all increases in income from productivity improvements.
We are developing servant populations, begging for existence from cocaine-laden
elites.
3. dying East Coast religion of business bastions--Harvard-MIT, the ivies--lately

colonizing the West Coast with a campus here, a building there
Sematech is the archetype of this culture and its West Coast religion of business,
opposite--at first Norris of Intel ran Sematech, answering his own email, having a
cubicle like any other, eating and parking with others, he was followed by a VP
from Xerox, who knocked down 8 cubicles, to make room for a several meter long
marble desk, hired a secretary to protect him from messages from the rabble,
tiered parking and eating into three strata, with a nearly naked woman serving in
the executive dining room and a blue collar Molly, draped with layers of fabric
rolling a cart for the mere engineers; none of the Xerox VP things had anything at
all to do with good business, good products, good leadership--they were ritual
items from a “religion of what business is” a “religion of what leading is” that re-
installed European class strata as the “essence of business”, the “core of lead-
ing”.
People, most from East Coast universities, write that Stanford was key to Silicon
Valley’s emergence and its domination of Route 128 around Harvard-MIT (8 times
more contribution to GDP than Route 128 over the last 50 years); this is a myth,
from the East Coast religion of business, repeated by professors, but not by
actual founders in the area--no one (of 150+ interviewed by my grad students)
who founded a successful Silicon Valley venture between 1950 and 1990
attributes a key role to Stanford, other than a laid back atmosphere that toler-
ated student friendships and interning at nearby firms, and other side-effects of
the general “laid back” culture of the West Coast religion of doing business.
THE RESULT FOR INNOVATION--THE EAST COAST ALZHEIMER’S PLAQUE KILLING

SILICON VALLEY--hierarchy, class divisions, leader isolation, workforces denuded
of context or influence, talent sent to shuffling money for the super-wealthy on
Wall Street, venture technologies undercut for fast “returns” to “investors”--the
invasion, in recent years, of Silicon Valley by Goldman Sachs, Harvard, MIT and
the like is the final daggar signallng the death of Silicon Valley, and its digital
tech revolution. Within a generation we will have half or more of Silicon Valley
new ideas and technologies, stillborn, unable to “meet” the criteria of dead arro-
gant cocaine-addicted East Coast “investors” and the horders of “professors” and
their “elite techniques” that Silicon Valley did quite well without for 50 years--
now spread as an Alzheimer’s plaque, slowing all thought processes with injec-
tions of snobbery, rent seeking, psychopath short-term-me-ism, and whatever
else made the Harvard-MIT nexus 1/8th as vital as Silicon Valley the last 50 years.
What do the above cultures do to shape how we think about innovation, what we think inno-
vation is and does, and how actual innovation happens (including if and how people “do” it)?
1. academic culture--make all the things that professors are good at (individual-
ism, analysis, maths, models, theory, article publishing) central to all good
business outcomes, hence, central to innovation;
THE RESULT: business models, business plans, strategies, lots of slides with various
graphs, ROE, ROA, RO?, and on and on--there is NO data anywhere published that
ANY of these things is a part of innovation, of if present, are worth anything, or if
present, are not harmful (at Xerox PARC we always read Harvard cases about our
own projects to laugh at how utterly off-base they were--all sorts of elite analy-
ses, “people”, and high status stuff never a part of what we did, obviously
pushed from professorial biases).
Thiel’s book Zero to One has a great demonstration of how academic mindsets and
viewpoints get into heads quite generally and gum up thought and action with
inappropriate “ideas” and “analyses” from professors, highly experienced at
building nothing beyond unread academic papers. Thiel in first chapters takes
the word “competition” and he de-mystifies it, unwraps layers of academic crap
from it, revealing that--”from the viewpoint of me trying to build a business out
of a new idea, the last thing I want or need is competition of any sort” but, he
goes, on “I run into tech venture founders everywhere talking about competition
being ’good’ for ’business’\”. Well, he says, it is not good for them--it is a harm
and to be avoided at all costs. You want to inject into the world something no
one else can get their mind around but with such immediate payback to users/
customers that they want more of it and tell their friends to get it. You want
years of being uncompeted with. Yet founders fresh out of engineering schools,
gum up their thinking by tolerating levels of competition out of some vague, pro-
fessor generated tolerance for it as vaguely in general “good”. Competition is
bad, harmful, to be avoided--if your new tech venture baby is to get big enough
to survive and thrive. This is one story in one book about how one word--”com-
petition”--comes into heads gumming up their ability to innovate, due to profes-
sorial wrappings around the word, operating in those minds. This is exactly the
harm done to innovation by 30 years later professor renderings of what was pas-
sion, goofy risking, and venturing as “business” “plans” “models” “business
model innovations”---bullshit. All that 30 years later professorial stuff was 30
years after the fact re-interpreting all as if what professors are good at was and
is the center of all good things! A power grab pure and simple, done by colleges
indirectly and sneakily, and now spreading like an Alzheimer’s plaque all over Sil-
icon Valley, from Google’s new Goldman Sachs’ CFO, to Harvard’s new depart-
ments in Palo Alto area, to rewritings of Silicon Valley history as if Stanford were
central.
2. software engineer nerd-otaku culture--the autism that produces software tools

and systems invisibly becomes the workstyles and lifestyles enabled by what
those nerds and their software products “produce”
THE RESULT: “improvements” in life and work that, at least initially for a few
decades, harm life and work more than they improve them.
3. East Coast religion of business invading West Coast religion of business--replac-

ing egalitarian, laid back, knowledge sharing, friendship based interactions
with hierarchic, ruthless, knowledge hoarding, altercative based interactions
Hennessey, President of Stanford, went to New York City, to examine setting up a

second engineering school there, to form a second Silicon Valley on the East
Coast--but the first meetings were rooms full of lawyers with contracts giving all
the profits to New York City and all the costs and risks to Stanford--so Hennessey
realized, according to the accompanying New Yorker reporter Alito, that the cul-
ture gap was too huge for any contracts or arrangements to counter--he hopped
on a plane before the week was out, letting Israel, a militarist, super-male cul-
ture, replace Stanford in the project.
THE RESULT: like an Alzheimer’s plaque the snobberies, ruthless self-uberalles,

“returns to investers” anti-product goals, elite university math-y analyses insert
themselves slowing down and mis-directing all processes, killing off idea after
idea, venture after venture, tech after tech--replicating innovation death till the
West Coast declines into mere “money shuffles” for the rich on Wall Street.
It is a good time now, for readers, to either put this book down and retreat to personally
favored euphemisms for ideologies about how they want the world to be, or to eagerly
embrace the rest of this book, with the confidence that I, the author of it, aim to account
fully for biases, blindspots, hidden self interests, and other ways cultures distort innovation
and related concepts and practices. This book looks at innovation un-emcumbered by such
distortions and biases. It is fresh and refreshing to all who have read dozens of usual New
York City and Harvard Business School publishings on innovation.
Some Particular Means and Ends of This Book’s

Treatment of Innovation
Academic culture, nerd engineer culture, East Coast religion of business culture--each of
them has it specific genius and great deeds, but far too much and often, each hides behind
those, severe dysfunction. How do we write a book on any topic as much mentoned and
overly published as “innovation” without blindly repeating distortions around and in it from
these three cultures?
The answer to that question, necessarily, has to be incomplete at the time of this writing. I
recently bought and read (diagramming the 50+ main points of the key 3 or so chapters in
each of) 400 books on innovation, not merely in business, but in art, in social welfare, in psy-
chotherapies, in culture building and handling, in a total of 60+ areas of life. To “get” the
actual ideas, practices, techniques, results, and core in each of them about “innovation” I
found myself repeating certain treatments that amounted to stripping off distortive effects
of academic culture, nerd engineer culture, and East Coast religion of business culture, as
follows:
1. REPERTOIRES OF MODELS--from single right-y models of innovation to plural

diverse models of it
HOW THIS HELPS--it is not the case that each academic model is worthless--they are
worthless by themselves--when combined smartly with other such models that
compensate for the weaknesses and narrowness of any one model, such combi-
nations of models can have real impact power that single right-y models do not
have.
2. MEASURE AMOUNTS OF NOVELTY ACHIEVED--from no concern with and mea-

surement of the amount/degree of novelty achieved by any particular “inno-
vation” to careful distinguishing of “whole field and history changing degrees
of change acheved” from normal updates and improvements, daily life
changes, we all do every day and year
HOW THIS HELPS--everyone gets personal benefits and profits from exaggerating
both their need for innovation and the kinds and amounts of it they achieve--by,
in this book, holding to a higher standard of “innovations” that change entire
fields and their histories, we leave behind “for show” and self-uberalles “career
path” pseudo-innovations that dominate articles published, speeches given, and
promotions awarded.
3. BEYOND MERE BUSINESS AREAS OF INNOVATION--from the “innovations” prod-

ucts, business models, business processes, and technologies to innovations in
welfare, art, community building, justice, education.
HOW THIS HELPS--economic development requires 3 things (says Grondana in Hun-

tington’s book Culture Matters)--a population of strivers, available training, and
a reliable near future; outside of business, that “population of strivers” is differ-
ent or missing altogether--so this book presents ways to innovate where the cul-
ture of economic development pieces are missing or attenuated.
4. BEYOND MERE EXAMPLE AND STORY TO MODELS YOU CAN USE--from examples,
quotes, pithy phrases to detailed multi-scale causal models of what changes
what in order to produce field and history changing improvements in ends and
means
HOW THIS HELPS--so many books, nearly all really, are chock full of examples; this
comes from editors who insist that readers more readily connect to and “under-
stand” examples--however researchers have found, for decades, that readers are
terrible at identifying the abstract variables and causal inputs to change that are
latent in such example stories, and readers completely fail to notice assumed
things and there-but-never-mentioned things that such innovation stories
depended on. This book makes explicit what you have to change, how much you
have to change it, and how to change it.
5. BEYOND MERE AMERICANISMS--from American centric views of innovation to

global ends and means of innovating.
HOW THIS HELPS--Americans are so ignorant of how others do things and so arro-
gantly stuck in their own praising of each other that system after system, city
after city, measure after measure sinks in the USA below levels in 15 or 20 other
industrial nations. This is a quite general sinking phenomenon--invisible to Amer-
icans but visible to nearly all others due to global access to US media; this book
views everything about innovation from Japanese quality, China continental
project, West Coast USA digital culture, East Coast USA money shuffles on Wall
Street, Nordic Europe care for all, Southern Europe work for life not live for
work--cultures of capitalism. American ways, views, biases, and flaws are not
central or omitted in this book.
Academia is all about me “beating you, so much so that young faculty report that Harvard
and University of Chicago are among the “least intellectually rich places I have even been”
as any ideas you mention may quickly appear under someone else’s grad student’s name a
month or two later at a conference presentation or article published. So in daily interaction
everyone self-edits, being careful not to mention anything interesting they are working on.
Maybe this is one factor in why the home run ideas inventions appear more in third tier uni-
versities than in first tier ones.
This “beating” other professors to an idea or publishing or result ends up, without realizing
it, publishing “my model is better than yours” style articles. So everyone produces their
own model, arguing how it is better than all prior ones. In truth, each article and model in
it, are so narrow, recent, reactatory that none of them, when applied, have power to
improve the world. Indeed, quite the contrary, in most fields, narrow academic models
when applied produce immensely harmful side-effects--as derivative pricing took 3 trillion
dollars from world economies in 2008/9 not yet paid back to the populations thusly indebted
against their will.
In the world outside academia, where top innovations get done and appear, research cannot
find one right-y model. CEOs tend to fear any consultant, model, or professor who comes to
them saying “my model is better than the models of all others”. CEOs have a lot to lose and
not much to gain by putting all their innovation marbles in one basket. They prefer a combi-
nation of models that compensate for each other’s weaknesses and actual major industry
innovations tend from come from TWO sources PRIMARILY:
1. IDEA SOCCER--powerful ideas that get kicked around from one engineer to
another, from one department to another, from one budget to another, from
one company to another, for 6, 8, 10 years till FINALLY the idea finds a HOME
that LOVES it to fruition (Van de Ven, the Minnesota Studies of Innovation);
2. PERFORMANCES CROSSING NATIONAL OR GENDER CULTURE BARRIERS--all the

major improvements in business practices, innovations so immense that every
company in every nation today (approximately) implemented them all the
time, have come from a power or unique performance achievement of one
national or gender culture, crossing borders, and being adapted to bring
entirely new performance capabilities to other national cultures or genders
(Drucker for German technique in the USA, Deming/Kano/Ohno for Japanese
techniques in the USA and elsewhere, Berners-Lee for CERN Swiss techniques
in USA and the web worldwide, etc.). [Note, no such major innovation in
world wide business practice came from any grad school of business--the best
they claim is Beta for pricing derivatives on Wall Street, an idea with a Nobel
and a 3 trillion dollar price tag for its recent consequences].
Proven Personally, Proven by Generations of My

Students
Readers will already have guessed that this book has “attitude”. It shuns the euphemisms
that New York City publishers require to expand sales by their strategy of “offend no one”.
This book is happy to offend the elites who have turned “innovation” into a game played for
personal career advancement, or gaming Venture Capital and angel investors for funds mak-
ing later IPOs un-needed.
Furthermore, I have personally changed technology delivery in seven Fortune 100 global cor-
porations--3 in the USA, 2 in Europe, 2 in Japan. I have won a Deming Prize for inserting
artificial intelligence circles into Japanese corporate quality programs and a Baldrige Award
for inserting Knowledge System Circles into Xerox’s quality program. I have installed citizen
mass workshop policy making meetings in conservative Japan, in 44 corporations and com-
munities there, in spite of overt and covert opposition from the Liberal Democratic Party and
area governments. I have tripled income of all families, not some, in Korea’s poorest single
village, by ignoring male NGO leaders and their approaches and asking village women what
they most needed--they wanted portable mowers to reduce annual rice harvesting from 7
weeks to 4 days yearly. I got a Japanese firm to donate 128 such mowers and bingo, all vil-
lage women suddenly had 6 weeks of free time. They invested that time in Jeju City, in
cash-paid part-time work. That cash got the attention of village men--cash meant buying
sex and alcohol to them so the men suddenly became interested in serious development
work! This was years before the World Bank openly admitted its 50 years of lending only
from men to men, had failed to dent poverty as much as one project among women by Yun-
nus in Bangledesh, Grameen Bank. I have organized 200 students in soccer stadiums, operat-
ing as social automata, generating 100 meter by 20 meter canvas artworks, that, when cut
into 2000 one meter square pieces and sold, produced $200,000 in four hours of work. I
have designed and led staff in producing two sofware systems that US government intelli-
gence agencies ordered hundreds of copies of “at any reasonable price” months before pub-
lic release of these apps. Three such apps were released as tech ventures near Palo Alto--
two survive to this day, one died. I created the world’s first metaphoric thinking assessment
program in the world’s top single high school (measured as how many grads went to Stan-
ford, Harvard, and MIT each year)--Weston High School--working under a genius, Bruce Mac-
Donald. Recently I established the world’s most challenging intellectual methods curriculum
in 20 of China’s top high schools--methods beyond levels of reading, writing, modeling,
meeting, designing at Harvard and MIT grad schools.
41 of my students at the University of Chicago, at Temple University in Japan, at Keio Univer-

sity in Japan, at Beijing University in China have set up their own design firms. Over 70 of
my former students have won prizes as “best in Asia” manager of this or that, including best
marketing manager in all of Asia (including China) for Procter & Gamble. Many of them
changed fundamental company routes to success, such as shifting 100 years of P&G data-
based marketing to celebrity marketing.
All the models and ideas in this book have been tested by me and my students--they WORK.
Sources of this book’s Models

It all started with Noam Chomsky, whom I went to as an MIT undergrad, because a friend told
me the easiest science for completing my “science distribution requirement” was cognitive
linguistics. Chomsky sent me to a grad student who gave me Smalley’s Phonetic Grammer, a
book with ways to write down all the sounds of all the languages in the world (nearly), and
giant tapes of baby talk. To make the story short, I no longer trusted that “friend” as I tran-
scribed baby talk using Smalley. The result was we trained Harvard and MIT moms in aspects
of language so they could spot and reward partially correct utterances by their babies,
allowing babies behind in language development to “catch up”. I thought that was more
than enough for the distribution requirement but I was wrong. Professor Chomsky wanted
more--a survey of Harvard-MIT faculty to find “whose thinking ability is best” along various
dimensions, and an interview of those top thinkers for keys to what enabled thinking at the
top to be top. The result was a 250 page book Structural Cognition that I wrote as a MIT
junior on one mental structure, the fractal concept hierarchy, that we found enabling top
faculty to apply ordinary mental operators to 20 and 30 ideas at a time, that ordinary Har-
vard MIT faculty applied to 4 to 10 ideas at a time. Later, by refining this structure and regu-
larizing it in three ways, Chomsky and I developed at method that expanded this from 20 or
30 ideas at a time to 60 or 120 ideas at a time. This I have written up in a paper on “Struc-
tural Cognition”.
Later when founders of the University of Chicago Grad School of Business hired me for my
first professor job, teaching MBAs and Phds, I faced rows of MBAs without a good definition
of what “educating” them meant; and I faced rows of elite professors without any idea of
what topic I should “research”. To shorten the story--I ended up turning homework into
research assignments, and choosing to re-do Plato, that is, define “the good” and “excel-
lence” not ideologically, politically, philosophically, culturally, but empirically--by asking
the 8000 greatest people in the world how they rose to the top of each of their profes-
sions. 63 professions of people from 41 nations were surveyed and interviewed in the
end. This we called the EXCELLENCE SCIENCE RESEARCH PROJECT. Many of the 54, so-
called “excellence sciences”, that is, ways to rise to the top of those 63 professions, got
written up in large books because we identified 150 people in each of those 54 areas who
rose to that top that way, then asked them what their particular way-to-the-top consisted of
in concrete capabilities. One of those 54 routes to the top was “innovation”. 150 people
nominated as being a the top of their field via “innovating” were interviewed for the con-
crete capabilities by which they innovated. That is one source of this book, what those 150
great innovators said their innovativity consisted of in capability terms. [Another route to
the top was by virtue of being “highly educated-acting”, which produced books on 64 capa-
bilities of highly educated people--defining what I had to do with my MBA students in 2 years
of masters work.]
I wanted a basis of comparison because people often are quite wrong about what they think
caused things, including their own accomplishments. So I wanted a comprehensive survey
of academic research on innovation, so I could compare its models with models from practi-
tioners. I bought 400 books on innovation and diagramming main points of 3 or so key chap-
ters in each. The biggest difference between sets of models was LUCK--innovative
practitioners were much more cognizant of being lucky, right place right time, and the like,
than academic models. Indeed we found LUCK in none of the academic models--surely an
important omission. For luck means there are powerful situational factors missing from aca-
demic models and powerful individual person factors allowing the noticing and engagement
of situational factors missing from academic models.
A second major factor was motive--practitioners were convinced that motivation was
immensely more important than any other factor for innovating. What got handed around in
the fluid ever-changing coalitions that Van de Ven found behind any eventual innovation, was
not ideas so much as a pair--an idea that greatly motivated people. It was that pair that
kept ideas, tryings, experiments, scarfings, skunkworks, alive across years, firms, projects,
persons. Along with motive and maybe the same thing was adpatibility--will to change
approach, firm, era, technology, persons entirely to keep an idea alive and move it one step
forward toward realization. Motive and this sort of adaptiveness came together--you cannot
do one without the other. Motive erodes when you have one fixed way you want to succeed,
or a time limit on it.
Origins of this book’s Models

This section gets rather personal. Some readers may be offended by anything personal in a
book---too bad.
I have previously written 18 books, many of them more than 2000 or 3000 pages. I probably
am going to have to re-format them on A4 size pages with 400 or less words per page. Many
of them now are on B4 pages with 2000 words per page in small fonts. At the time they
were written I was reducing page count because my students copied the books on copy
machines so more words per page, reduced page count and student copy costs. PDF and the
web make that no longer useful. So I will probably reformat my 18 prior books in coming
years.
Does the world really want and need another book by me on any of these Excellence Sci-
ences? And if so, should it be a book about “innovation” and why?
There is a palpable mood of confusion or angst or self doubt arising in and about Silicon Val-
ley. The recent generation of software only tech ventures, leave behind the Miscrosoft and
Apple generations of software and hardware wedded to each other. More and more huge
valuations are given to apps without profits and with expanding user-bases that disappear
with a “puff” in an instant. More and more valuations are increased for Amazon and compa-
nies like it that grow immense but never have profits because they re-invest all in further
dominance, scale, scope, and expansion. Most of these firms have tiny workforces com-
pared to the manufacturing firms with similar valuations they replaced. Employee-less,
profit-less, transient products, leaders, and firms abound, are the new normal it seems.
On the other hand huge global threats increase dangerously with no ventures handling them:
climate change, nuclear proliferation, anti-biotic resistant germs, and more. We are inno-
vating without addressing our deepest threats. We are not even confident that innovation
will be able to handle diminishing water, violent wind storms, massive migrations of tens of
millions of starving poor, germs that mutate to wipe out hundreds of millions in months like
the Black Plague. We all feel precarious and the more that feeling endures in spite of bally
hoo about “innovation” from nerds in San Francisco, the more fear fills us. Innovation is
drifting to trivial domains, dangerously, this amounts to.
A man, facing a tiger, who invents the wheel, then becomes tiger food--should we celebrate
his inventiveness? He can’t, that is for sure.
If we add to the above, the distortive cultures I started this book with and fixes for the dis-
tinct ways they hide and distort “innovation”--there is much deep almost ontological work
needed to clear brush and bias, self interest and male hormone excesses of self praise, from
the concept--to leave something spare, bare, core, powerful, worthy of a book. That is the
main job this book tackles, along the way covering more models of innovation, a greater
variety of innovation processes and results, more detailed models of it, than any other book,
and possibly more than any subsequent book for quite some time. I have an article present-
ing 120 models of creativity that stopped the publishing of a dozen books by professors on
five or six models, and a book on 60 models that sealed the fate of those initiated-but-never-
finished books (all announced as “forthcoming” on amazon.com but now, years later, still not
around and no “forthcoming” message remains for them). This book will probably have a
similar effect--being the go to book for:
COMPREHENSIVE TREATMENT
DIVERSE TREATMENT
DETAILED TREATMENT
MULTI-SCALE TREATMENT
of the innovation topic.
There is one further consideration--innovation of the type that changes entire fields and his-
tory is.............fun, lots of fun. Writing a book on innovation allows me to re-live lots of
great times, huge challenges met or avoided, small ideas that somehow ended up with great
impacts. Writing a book on innovation allows me to revisit most of my past and integrate
NGO, major corporation, long French lunches with Ecole Poly grads, artificial intelligence
technology, China programs of vast extent, keynote speeches at Karlsruhe Institute of Tech-
nology, panel discussions (largely boring) with Bill Gates and another with Kissenger, Japa-
nese conservatism overcome, Korean village dynamics, stadiums filled with social automata,
and much else.
So What Do 100 Models of Innovation Do for Me,

the Reader?
Regardless of all the above discussion, some readers may not be clear of the value of moving
from 5 or 6 models of things like innovation to 60 or 100 models? What benefit does all that
extra complexity, attention, detail, and difference provide?
To answer that question we have to go into a particular view of what persons are. We are all
theorists, only most of us end up at 20 years old, filled with theories we are not conscious of,
that operate invisibly inside us, determining what we notice, imaging doing, consider, value,
and prefer. For those people who do not realize this--that most of what determines them is
invisible and put there decades earlier while they grew up--that most of those routines and
contants are terribly dated, local, bigoted, and biased--they end up with 50 year old bodies
inhabited by 12 year old minds. We all know such people--they are the ones who majored in
economics or management in undergrad school in order to get money and success at a cost of
being incomplete and dangerous human beings all life long, hurting friend and family, boss
and employee, customer and supplier, as they bandy about things they learned as a child as
they were certain, right, and sole ways to think, feel, and act in the world. YUK.
Educatedness, is the property of persons who do realize this, and at about age 20 determine
to eliminate most of their own selves, of the routines that constitute them, and one by one
replace those happenstance routines from their upbringing, to better ones consciously cho-
sen, praacticed into automaticity, and forgotten. If they work hard at this self replacement
work for 30+ years, at about age 55, they become, that rarest of persons--adults = people
who, from observing their values, attitudes, words, and actions you cannot tell when and
where they were born and raised.
We are all theorists of one of these above two sorts: filled with theories from our upbringing
that we never consciously realized, challenged, or replaced with better ones, or, filled with
routines we have consciously selected from the best in history and in our contemporary
world (which true colleges are supposed to provide), and practiced into automaticity.
The person filled with 5 or 6 models of innovation, walks into situation and notices, let us
say 30 things that tell how to innovate there; the person filled with 50 models of innovation,
walks into situations and notices, let us say, 250 things that tell how to innovate there; the
person filled with 100 models of innovation, walks into situations and notices, let us say, 500
things that tell how to innovate there.
This means, the world itself, is actually bigger for people filled with more theories, more
detailed theories, more various theories. This book enables you to:
1. walk into situations and notice hundreds of avenues to innovation others miss
2. switch effortlessly to any of dozens of other models of innovating when one
gets stymied, stuck, or blocked
3. compensate for the flaws or omissions of any one model of innovating by
choosing from a large repertoire of alternative models, just that model that
perfectly compensates for what your one model lacks
4. aim for and achieve major whole field and history changing scale innovation
where others are doing mere improvements or adaptation of systems to con-
tinually new technical substrates
5. diagnose exactly which innovation models a person, firm, project, nation lacks
and which, if immediately installed, would most improve scale and quality of
innovations achieved.
These are considerable powers, almost magic--when others view them in you. You walk into
the same situations they do but you notice hundreds of things, blocks, possibilities those oth-
ers miss. You work on a project with them and whenever everything grinds to a halt, without
apparent effort, you switch everyone to an alternative innovation model that bypasses
blocks and things in the way. These appear almost magical to those unaware of their basis
as a repertoire of diverse models of innovation in your mind. This book gives these powers
to all who read it sincerely. I and hundreds of my students over the years in the EU, in
Japan, in the USA, and in China, have acquired these powers and prospered as a result. Your
are invited to join us by reading the rest of this book below.
Some Non-Models of Innovation by Typical Con-

sultants, HBR, Kelly, Keeley, Christensen (Espe-
cially the “Business Model” Guys)
Professors sit writing grant proposal after proposal, grading (slightly) papers and exams,
teaching the occasional course (reluctantly for the most part), analyzing some biased,
dated, partial nearly useless data gotten at great effort from reluctant firms lacking decent
data themselves. They then write and publish papers, small, in rigid formats, generally of
tiny topic fitting ideologies in the editors of their field-journals. Non-conforming thoughts
and topics are rather ruthlessly edited out--till entire fields collapse every 50 years or so.
No one reads most of this papers--ever--and that is a very good thing, you have to say, when
you consider that, for example, social science papers publish “effects” without boundary
conditions or magnitudes, based on “results” totally ruined by powerful sample biases that
overwhelm the minimal correlations found. Since all agree on these rules of the game, it
does not matter that these rules produce junk results of no impact power--topics too con-
firmist, topics too narrow, stats too poorly understood, a search for “rightness” that drives
all “creativity” out of topics, treatments, and results. You get things like Estes at Harvard,
published in top journals for decades, trying to get brain structures from processing time dif-
ferences (before fMRI was available). His entire lifework, worthless, as soon as better equip-
ment appeared, the fMRI. Oh well--it was after his retirement.
This is not a bad way to live and work but it is not the epitome of anything vital either. So,
from time to time professors read new stuff the world pops up, like the flood of new things
Silicon Valley pops up, and after 40 or so years, even elite “top” university faculty “notice”
in their distorted, delayed, abstract, impractical theoretical paper-publishing ways, stuff
going on. I hope I am not offending anyone by being overly honest and unexaggerated here.
Take “business model” from the most recent software wave of Silicon Valley start ups from
say 1990. Many of these firms delayed profits or forwent them entirely, re-inventing in
growth--seeking what Brian Arthur called network effects *increasing returns to scale*.
They struggled, eventually, to “monetize” huge hit rates, user populations, and the like.
They shifted from one “business model” to another, the press said--though people inside
these firms did not in their talk and minds have anything at all to do with business “models”.
In sooth, “business models” were a power grab by professors. The term was invented by
media and professors to, more and more, make some sort of professorial analysis seem key
to tech venture success in Silicon Valley. Nevermind that 50 years of Silicon Valley burping
up 8 times more contribution to GDP than MIT-Harvard and the East Coast religion of business
without any mention of “business model”. Suddenly “business models” were where it was
at, what everyone “needed” according to professors and media aping professor terminolo-
gies. This was phony thru and thru--a sick narcissist, elitist religion of business invading the
West Coast religion of business and en-sick-ening it.
But there are other sicknesses, passing belated and useless professorial analyses as essential
to business success--hundreds of recent HBR “analyses” of West Coast ventures, hundreds of
books with groovy graphics on “innovation” “secrets” of Silicon Valley by people not related
to it at all, even a error-filled bad dissertation plus company examples that dis-illustrate
what books written suggested of Christensen, the man who most bally--hooed “disruption”
as a term (a New Yorker article demonstrates). Intel and Microsoft overthrew IBM domi-
nance of the world’s greatest recent tool--the computer--and 30 years later, Christensen at
Harvard “discovers” the key to Intel and Microsoft (which they apparently missed) was “dis-
ruptive technologies”. Strange that the disruptors themselves never needed or used such
ideas! It is, obvious therefore, that “disruption” as a concept was not then and is not now
vital for actual achieving of “changes that modify entire industries and history itself”. “Dis-
ruption” is just a circular game--innovations that change entire fields, industries, and history
are, ho hum, “disruptive”---we all knew that, thank you, without Harvard and Mr. Chris-
tensen. Talk about “disruptive innovations” how about the automobile--it disrupted a lot of
horses, architecture of streets, created suburbs and commutes, polluted, made drive in
movie theatres and restaurants--it wiped out a dozen kinds of business and ushered in an
entire new national infrastructure--it was plenty disruption--all big innovations disrupt--
the word as Christensen used it, is worthless, without merit. This is typical of how
professors rewrite the past to insert terms and analyses that had no part in innova-
tions that changed the world, to make a new history as if professorial ideas were key!
Readers should re-read that sentence ten times.
Take Keeley--his ten models of “innovation”. I wanted to incorporate his models and
insights in this book. So I paid a lot of attention to them. Unfortunately five minutes suf-
ficed--Keeley has no models of innovation at all. His “ten models of innovation” book is not
about innovation! It is about ten places where innovations may appear. But we all knew all
those ten (and many more) places before his book was written. When I go to each chapter
of Keeley’s book to see in “network” or “service” or “brand” etc. for the other seven, what
generates “innovations” = powerful forms of novelty that change entire industries, fields,
and history, I find nothing all--a bunch of already published stories by dozens of others on
cases we all know about from years ago. Keeley measures the “number of the ten types”
each story-case involved--but this is trivial, simply noting which of ten parts of any business,
a case “changed” in invisible, un-discussed-in-the-book ways. It is how old, standard, peo-
ple and groups, like you and me and our groups, manage to change the world and history of
their field--that we all want to know. This Keeley’s book omits entirely. A history of well
trodden past cases, categorized by ten labels--yuk.
Of course “models of innovation” without any difficult ideas, methods, or other contents are
attractive and easy to present to stupid people in normal businesses (not everyone but quite
a few). Any set of morons of feeble mental capabilities, will feel “smart” when such pablum
is presented to them. Unfortunately, no increments in innovation appear.
Harvard’s Amabile, the opposite of this, is equally ineffective. She has a creativity model
filled with “fully validated” variables (about 42+ of them) that measure out as creating an
“innovation fostering” environment. When applied fully and sincerely by effective, power-
ful private sector organizations, Procter & Gamble in its Corporate New Ventures program,
for example, this produced copying a Japanese hit product 8 years later! That is my defini-
tion of “delayed copying” and not my definition of “innovation” or “creativity”. There is a
wonderful HBR article by her on this P&G venture, where you get six pages of all those 42
changed things, and one half of one paragraph, hidden at the end, of the pitiful “delayed
copying” results. Typical of professors--great problem spec, slight or missing actual impact
and solution. Her “model” is a non-model, if by “model” you need actual results.
So, in sum, the world is filled with pseudo-models of innovation---models 40 years after
something wonderful popped up, models of wonderful things done entirely without such
models, models of Silicon Valley etc. by people totally outside or and unrelated to it and its
phenomena, models decades after something wonderful that give a simple name to it (that
fools us into missing that then name is circular), models of types of wonderful doing that
merely tell us what ten diverse parts of business or worklife that wonderfulness appeared in,
and finally models by the very top professors at the very top university in the world that,
when fully sincerely applied, produce next to nothing. The world is full of models of inno-
vation that are non-models. This book breaks that tradition.
1. ZENOVATION--The Jobs-Apple Model of

Innovation
We start with this model because it is on everyone’s mind. Currently Apple captures 92% of
the total profit of the smartphone industry world-wide, while selling less than half of all such
devices. None of this came from East Coast religion of business big desks, stratified parking-
eating, shuffles of money on Wall Street, strategies, business plans, business models and, in
general, MBA-disease. Apple’s founder and his successor, if anything, continually extirpated
every remnant of these destructive East Coast religions from Apple and its ways, products,
and people. We cannot look to anything at all from any college of business for Apple’s suc-
cess.
The world’s most valuable company was built by extirpating remnant MBA and East Coast
religion of business ideas and influences.
This is, at the very least, embarrassing to the hordes of youth who, out of personal greed,
got an expensive MBA from a top global college recently. They will not like this book. Too
bad. Indeed, we can look to Apple as a big reason Harvard and MIT are establishing depart-
ments in Silicon Valley these days--giving up on matching their creativity in East Coast elitist,
math-y, hierarchic, knowledge hoarding places and ways.
We can say more than the above, however. It is more than just MBA-ness and East Coast
religion of business hierarchy, analysis uberalles, hyper-male hormonal management regimes
that Jobs and Apple countered. Consider the nexus--India with meditation, LSD with cos-
mos, Japan with clean lean seen systems, buddhist-Japanese-zen “right mind” “right
deeds”. Imagine a person who spent years finding himself abroad in these contexts--who
felt the insubstantiality of American, Americans, American ways, seeing them all as various
very limited neurotic manias, not as ideals or global leadership. Imagine an American who
grew up seeing thru and beyond Americanisms--knowing that inserting the future into Amer-
ica would require acting non-American-ly. Now, of course, this person, Steve Jobs is bally-
hooed hither and yon as the epitome of American-nesses of various right wing bigotted past-
looking sorts. An irony
Read the model of innovation below, particularly the sunflower final summary of all its core
points, with two things in mind: 1) the nexus of four counter cultures beyond Americanisms
above 2) no major improvement in business practice the last 120 years has come from any
college of business and its research--they all came from ways of one gender or nation cross-
ing over to other genders or cultures. In those two contexts read the below.
ZEN Innovation
ZENOVATION
An example of how all major improvements in
business practice come from crossing cultures
by Steve Jobs & Apple
TEN PILLARS OF ZEN TECH by Steve Jobs:
1. THE DESPAIR DOORWAY Watch your mind generate endless worries, till you
reach emotional disgust and dispair, at ever attaining happiness while follow-
ing (in control of) that mind--when that despair is life threatening THEN and
only then Moksha, liberation from world and self, “that art thou” appears--
satori
2. THE PRIMACY OF PERCEPT THEN you notice the exquisite detail of every-
thing in this life and world--detail we always miss in normal consciousness--
garner by calming and shutting down concepts, true clean clear complete
perception--seeing is the start of all movement.
3. THE POWER OF SINGULARITY Practice undistraction--aiming that is true and

not dissipated by the endless worries our own minds generate
4. SEEING THRU Penetrate the layers--that cultures, norms, conformances,
getting “along”, fitting in dissipate and absorb purpose into
5. META-LIVING Do all that you do, feel all that you feel, think all that you
think, totally, with the no-mind beyond all concepts, cognition, worry, social
concerns--see thru the world fog, mind fog, feeling fog that lives and pur-
poses get lost in
6. DEEDS AS SIGNAL CUTTING THRU NOISE The one clean stroke that is all you
are--situations are for cutting to satori.
7. DO WHAT YOU KNOW, DO NOT PILE UP UN-ACTED-ON KNOWLEDGE Know
your knowing--the wonders of living and doing the one great idea or opportu-
nity that comes your way--go for world changes when and where ever you get
a whiff of them--go purely undistractedly for them without thought of money,
profit, fame, suffering, happiness--go for deeds and creations that shake his-
tory.
8. THE ALL IN ALL THE COSMOS IN THE IOTA The tiniest things, the most
mundane things, the greatest ambitions, the greatest deeds--all these are
exactly equal--invitations to get beyond mind, beyond distraction, beyond
self, beyond other, to the essence beyond world that makes us alive.
9. CUT THRU DELUSIONAL TIME Time is a detail--you penetrate it like any
other fog, you aim and keep aimed where every other thing around you
diverges, gets distracted, attenuated, lost, self doubting, critiqued--you keep
at it, untouched by your mind and any other mind’s worry generations.
10. BOUNDARIES ARE SOCIAL DISEASES TO IGNORE The “world” is erected as
access blocks, separations, endless boundaries, endless norms for staying in
or out, forbidden joys and acts and associations--all these are delusional--life
is purpose, aim, movement toward that is THRU all these barriers, borders,
boundaries, norms, forbiddens, proper paths. Now is always a good time;
later is always a refusal of life and deed = see the entire, the systems, the
nets of linkages and revolutionize THAT, revolutionize the biggest scope possi-
ble to go for, the scope that dismays and amazes all who see and hear it, the
scope that only GREATNESS can handle--call people out of their non-great-
nesses. Give systems a single pure movement to re-organize their all around.
How to Build the World's

Most Valuable Company
Steve Jobs, in his own words, reorganized and
compressed, from his most famous interview, done
by the magazine INC:
INFO FLOW MANUFACTURE

1. You follow this back, and you find that it's not how long it
takes to make stuff; it's how long it takes the information to

flow through the system. And yet electronics move at the
speed of light - or very close to it.
MID-LESS WORLD
2. The best way to think of the Web is as a direct-to-
customer distribution channel, whether it's for information
or commerce. It bypasses all middlemen. And, it turns out,
there are a lot of middlepersons in this society. And they
generally tend to slow things down, muck things up, and
make things more expensive. The elimination of them is
going to be profound.
EMAIL TO SELF
3. As a matter of fact, my favorite way of reminding myself
to do something is to send myself e-mail. That's my storage.
OLD PRACTICES + NEW PRACTICES + DEVICE DIALOG

4. Design is a funny word. Some people think design means
how it looks. But of course, if you dig deeper, it's really how
it works. The design of the Mac wasn't what it looked like,
although that was part of it. Primarily, it was how it worked.
NEW LIVES, PRACTICES, FEELINGS, IMAGININGS,

POSSIBILITIES NOT JUST NEW PRODUCTS
5. To design something really well, you have to get it. You
have to really grok what it's all about. It takes a passionate
commitment to really thoroughly understand something,
chew it up, not just quickly swallow it. Most people don't
take the time to do that.
CREATIVITY AS SEEING DIFFERENTLY

6. Creativity is just connecting things. When you ask creative
people how they did something, they feel a little guilty
because they didn't really do it, they just saw something. It
seemed obvious to them after a while. That's because they
were able to connect experiences they've had and synthesize
new things.
VERY SHY VERY MUCH PERFOMER—DRAMATIC PRODUCT

idea. Pick the best one, and let's go
GOAL AND MOTIVATION IF RIGHT MINIMIZE AND SOLVE

OPERATINAL ISSUES
21. "Manage the top line, and the bottom line will follow."
What's the top line? It's things like, why are we doing this in
the first place? What's our strategy? What are customers
saying? How responsive are we? Do we have the best
products and the best people? Those are the kind of
questions you have to focus on.
MANUFACTURING IS A SOFTWARE PROCESS WITH FUNNY

INPUTS AND OUTPUTS
22. I think the same philosophy that drives the product has
to drive everything else if you want to have a great com-
pany. ******GERMANY Manufacturing, for example, is an
extension of the engineering process for us. We view it more
and more as a software-engineering job with interesting I/O
[input-output] devices on the ends. It demands just as much
thought and strategy as the product. If you don't pay atten-
tion to your manufacturing, it will limit the kind of product
you can build and engineer. Some companies view manufac-
turing as a necessary evil, and some view it as something
more neutral. But we view it instead as a tremendous oppor-
tunity to gain a competitive advantage. INC.: Have you
always viewed it that way JOBS:****** Ever since I visited
Japan in the early '80s. And let me add that the same is true
of sales and marketing. You need a sales and marketing orga-
nization that is oriented toward educating customers rather
than just taking orders, providing a real service rather than
moving boxes. This is extremely important. ******For most of
your customers, after all, the sales folks are your company.
So you've really got to pay attention to that. The point is
that our philosophy is not a product philosophy. It's a philos-
ophy of how we go about things, and it affects everything—
finance, information systems. Can I digress for a moment?
23. So, to build a great company, you need more than a

great product. You have to pay attention to all the different
areas and be as aggressive with them as with your product.
Otherwise, you'll spend half your time fixing things that

break. And that's typical of high-growth companies. Half the
management time is spent making repairs—stock-option
plans, marketing strategies, information systems, whatever.
Take an employee stock-participation plan. You need help
from a lawyer or a consultant. Most people take very little
time selecting lawyers and consultants. It doesn't cost money
to interview 10 lawyers, but you have to invest your time.
And most people don't do it because they don't think it's
important. But it is important. It will save you countless
hours in the future
Turn Steve Jobs' Life

into Creativity Operator
Sequence
1. FRIENDS—meet your partner via shared styles, values,
views, interests
2. OPPOSITES—hobbyist plus drive
3. THIEF—ideas, funds from partner, opportunity from
slow big firms
4. HERO--FIX YOUR CIVILIZATION'S DEEPEST FLAWS in
PRODUCTS OF WORK---democratizing products for USA
to counter big firms, 6 billion TV stations, give all
people the computer tool
5. HERO--FIX YOUR CIVILIZATION'S DEEPEST FLAWS in
HOW YOU WORK---imagine and work at higher standards
than are needed and reasonable in your culture
6.TYRANT-- A CULTURE OF EXCELLENCE---insanely great
products, insanely perfect systems/operations of work
7. FAILURE---OPTIMIZE USER EXPERIENCE NOT PRODUCT
FEATURES = failure of Mac and Next DESIGN FOR
COMPONENT PRICES 3 & 5 YEARS HENCE
8. TRIO---BALANCE EMOTION & EMOTIONLESSNESS = got
wife and Pixar and success together wife let him relent
to engineers supporting Toy Story's story
9.DAVID TELLS GOLIAH--- iPOD, IPAD, IPHONE
=generalize initial revolutions = digitize each medium
with library products = SYSTEM PRODUCTS iTunes,
negotiate new prices
18 Step Steve Jobs

Management Process
The Powers of Sheer Excellence
in a World of Expedience
1. Customers cannot anticipate what technology can do
= they cannot ask for current capabilities of it
2. Customers will not ask for things they think are not
possible = they miss wonders available
3. It takes a long time and great effort to pull out of
customers what they really want = and what they now
can want
4. It takes a long time and great effort to pull out of
engineers what current technology is and can now cost-
effectively do = and what they can now do with it
5. New technology requires exploration by those
inventing it and using it = exploration takes time and
effort and smart perception
6. New customer interests, needs, and capabilities
require exploration by the customers and the companies
supplying them = exploration takes time and effort and
smart perception
7. Selling yourself then customers, designers, engineers,
investors, that something NOW can and will be done,
delivered---passion founded investigation based decision
= each product a new invented venture equation/
enterprise, that old black magic has me in its spell
8. Steal ideas from your past, your present, your future,
your friends, your enemies = not whose idea (smart or
not smart, friend or not friend, ours or theirs) but ideas
for use
9. Demand excellence—not product only, but sales
experience and manufacture cleanliness-paint-colors
and dress—a cultureof excellence done not explained or
trained
10. Demand excellent details—instill new levels of
attention and discipline
11. Demand excellent hidden innards no one sees---the
people making the innards then believe they built
something not merely good but wonderful “insanely
great”
12. An artist painting with a technology (an artist
painting with digital chips)
13. Drive for layer upon layer of order—driving

excellence to larger scale via achieving it on smaller
scales
14. Elicit passionate fandom from customers---products
that tell them the product is wonderful, the maker of
the product is wonderful, and they, the customers,
can be wonderful too.
15. Using the power of failure and your own death =
there are hard times where all you have is love for
what you do and only that keeps you going;
16. Failure = the lightness of becoming a beginner again;
17. Jobs' aspergers, failure at Apple, thrown out, THEN
Next, Pixas, WIFE = sudden success at Pixar = wife
interpreted human reactions he had missed due to
aspergers
18. The only way to be satisfied is to do great work, the
only way to do great work is to love what you do
Some Design Koans

Test Your Jobs-ness by
Designing the Following:
1. DESIGN PUZZLE---all pieces same shape, all pieces
same color BUT make 11 famous person's faces
2. DESIGN BICYCLE----make TWO changes in ordinary
bicycle designs that allow faster speeds than racing
bicycles by ordinary bicycles
3. DESIGN WEB CRAWLER---that finds everyone sharing
your interests, needs, capabilities AND who is
compatible & interesting to you
4. DESIGN ACTIVITY---that is fastest way for any group
of strangers to learn most of each others' interests,
needs, capabilities
5. DESIGN REPLACEMENT FOR “THE COLLEGE
COURSE”---that weaves face-to-face and e-learning so
500,000+ take each course at MIT levels of final skill
6. DESIGN REPLACEMENT FOR BRAINSTORMS—that
forces your ideas to interact and use others' ideas in
detail
7. DESIGN REPLACEMENT FOR MEETINGS---so all who
attend each leads some treatment of some topics in
each meeting
8. DESIGN REPLACEMENT FOR DISCUSSSIONS---so fast
emotional mind differences are seen and melded first
allowing easy later concept difference melding

9. DESIGN REPLACEMENT FOR PROCESSES--so work is
faster, more visible, combining more diverse people and
ideas, using more expert procedures
10. DESIGN REPLACEMENT FOR PROSE---a new way of
writing that does not hide number of points, names of
points, order of points
11. DESIGN NEW WORD PROCESSOR APP—that makes it
just as fast and easy to write what replaces prose as
Microsoft Word now makes it to write prose.
12. DESIGN THE iWATCH---something that fully uses
available wrist space with proper tactile, sound, sight,
smell, signals and functions to make all old style
watches instantly dissatisfy & disappear.
Some Cultures of
Excellent Innovation
1. ENGINEER CULTURE—work for self, hide behind
maths, fear emotion
2. MBA CULTURE---work for self, psychopaths who
abuse others, ignore emotion and harms to others
3. DESIGN CULTURE---sexually ambiguous, counter-
establishment, beauty for beauty sake, beyond
requirements and needs
4. DEVICE CULTURE---what it affords, what affords it,
ecosystem dynamics
5. USER CULTURE---social life of use, social life of
information, task/goal ecosystem dynamics, quality &
excellence satisfaction & delight dynamics, attention
and interest decay and liking dynamics
6. EMERGENT EXPERIENCE OF USE CULTURE---new
interests, needs, capabilities = impact on social indexing
levels.
7. EXPLORATION CULTURE--KNOWN vs. UNKNOWN
NEEDS
8. EXPLORATION CULTURE--KNOWN vs. UNKNOWN
CAPABILITIES
9. BALANCE--WITHIN SELF vs. BEYOND SELF
10. BALANCE--ISOLATION & DIFFERENCE
11. BALANCE--CONNECTION & FAMILIARITY/EASE
12. BALANCE--DESIGNED vs. EMERGENT TRAITS
13. BASIC FUNCTIONS as performance
14. ME EXECUTING EXCELLENTLY as performance
15. MY IMPACT PERFORMING TO ME (and history) as
performance
Replacing Old Sciences &

Divisions of Knowledge
1. KNOWLEDGE & COGNITION SCIENCES---Structural
Cognition, Brain Power books from research at MIT 1966
Jobs-Apple refused human and organization delays on
info transmission thru work processes within firm
and across firm = continual work on human mental
causes of delayed sharing of thought, aims, actions.
2. SOFTWARE & TECHNOLOGY SCIENCES---Global

Quality and Implementing Japanese AI Techniques books
from combining MIT, Project MAC artificial intelligence
with Panasonic & Sekisui quality circles
Jobs-Apple refused the vaporware, let first customers
design it, norms of Silicon Valley ventures and
refused the engineer norms of not doing invention
only tweaking performance parameters of existing
ways.
3. THE QUALITY & CULTURE SCIENCES---Culture

Powers & Global Quality books--Deming Prize for high
tech circles in Japan, Baldrige Award for Knowledge
Based Systems circles at Xerox PARC in USA
Jobs-Apple were very buddhist in all they did--priori-

tizing percept or concept, seeing over doing, clean
clear over fast functional = building an Asian cul-
ture within a Western culture.
4. SELF & CAREER SCIENCES---Managing Self; Are You

Educated, Japan? books from Wellesley College with
Weston Public Schools metaphoric thinking project, and
U of Chicago Business School Excellence Sciences project
Jobs-Apple put persons and the excellence that

brought out all that persons “were all about” at the
center of processes, ways, systems--demanding
that people be people, that is, un-doing all that
prior people, history, Silicon Valley, others, did and
erected = actual “being” beyond in all you thought,
felt, did.
ZEN do & be the

JAPAN
biggest scale
the of life possible
feminine borders are
saves all from computer in 1000 there to get
male extremes hands better than you shrunken
= widen the self giant computer in to a size others
fixes failures genius hands CUZ can manage
WIFE SAVES each shows uses to
999 others MEET no further
cannot avoid TOY STORY not get ideation
out-running your what
AT PIXAR wantsX ORPHAN what ANYONE needed--
act, act, act;
own vision, self = new now but X is dialog
must withdraw techs are years all about = forwhat
to recover SCULLY ahead of from takes techcan be
now
12 A 1
wonder NEXT BOTH time made to do, HOMELESS
of self FAILURE users & what power POOR
developer to users
performances
(fn) that are 11 2 new
understanding
tech requires practice
what powersXEROX performances
the product (drama) 10 3
ZENOVATION
get beyond
self INDIA being
beyond self
gives users INTERFACE the make things MEDITATION beyond other
strip ego
not features TAKEN origin
ideas to
from 9 4
Jobs-Apple
Tao
LOOK as what creativity
they are (robots we see, not do
as what
choose best
& combine 8 5 see own
painted same
color
JAPAN take the
detail=system, dotime it
to 7 6
all is top
& system
excellence
DESIGN beauty
& excellence
lean, pure, clean right the new not line in the rare, unused
zen process = first just B makes
bottom product chance for
power & impact =
buddhist “muge” time product line requires chewing =
making, selling, ASSERT ACID great HOBBY shows self/firm/
interfaces SELF BOLDLY COSMOS CLUB system quality
push all to sell the idea

giant chains of “what this
excellence connection =
push all means”
systems we power in
functions miss & tinker user hands
to it too with portions
of
LSD DESIGN
5. EXCELLENCE SCIENCES---54 distinct routes to the top
of nearly all fields; Multiple Models of Creativity paper
from Excellence Science Research Project at University
of Chicago Grad School of Business and Santa Fe
Institute 1992
Jobs-Apple refused Wall Street’s East Coast religion of

business ideas of “excellence” and they refused the
West Coast religion of business ideas of “excel-
lence” = excellence measured by impact not by
conformance with views popular with others and

elites.
6. IMAGINATION & REALITY SCIENCES---Are You

Effective: 100 Methods; Story Sciences—history, drama,
comedy, fiction, performances books, from NVPhilips,
Siemens Invent Events, NAMCO, Square D, Nintendo 2000
Jobs-Apple refused the male, hierarchic, hormonal-

emotional ways of “management” and “leadership”
that did little actual leading, acting more as reli-
gious belief systems--what is “real” for Jobs-Apple
= getting beyond self and others, getting beyond
present and present ways and from that place
achieving imaginings, and the great stories they
generate = the ancient Greek form of immortality
by leaving behind for centuries great deeds that
story-tellers repeat via tales around campfires and
bar tables.
7. CREATIVITY & NOVELTY SCIENCES---Are You

Creative? 60 Models; Are You Creative? 128 Steps;
Getting Real about Creativity in Business; Innovation 45
Models from DTMA China, Replicating Silicon Valley in
Europe 2000
Jobs-Apple refused to be “creative” and to “design”

in only one creativity science = they created,
invented, innovated, composed, performed,
launched ventures, etc. doing diverse kinds of cre-
ating, Creativity & Novelty Sciences, where others
just made products or sales events “creative”.
8. SYSTEMS & LEADERSHIP SCIENCES---Global Quality,

Managing Complexity, Taking Place: 64 City-fications of
Creative City Theory & Practice; Knowledge Epitome
books from Keio, DTMA China, Kansai Gaidai, Temple
University, Santa Fe Institute, ING Tokyo 1988
Jobs-Apple saw rather than did = the buddhist idea of

creativity coming from clear seeing beyond ego of
self and others, extending this to seeing the entire,
the all, the whole, dissolving all the borders,
boundaries, status ranks that kept normal people
and ways in tiny easy-to-control-by-others sacks =
designing, creating, inventing, innovating, compos-
ing, performing entire systems products were in,
not mere product alone.
9. STORY & MEDIA SCIENCES---Story Sciences, Changing

the Five Fundamental Interfaces of Human Work and
Existence from work at Disney, Pixar, Dreamworks
Jobs-Apple did real deeds, inserting perfected things

into a world of money chasing, venality; they
thereby generated stories about amazing great-
ness, insanely great things, generated by insanely
great factories and retail store designs, and prod-
uct launch event theatre shows = REALITY is what
humans imagine and lead the stuff of the world
to become, not current structures of the stuff.
There is ANOTHER ELEMENT to this Jobs-Apple model of innovation. Jobs and Woz invented
the personal computer. Jobs, especially, saw it is “the world’s most powerful tool” and “the
most powerful tool in history into the hands of man”. Jobs was also, after Pixar, re-seeing
his own invention of the PC. Where at first he and Woz, and IBM and everyone else saw the
PC as a “thing”, a “product”, something put on desktops and having itself a desktop inter-
face--the post-Pixar Jobs had, in his exile from Apple, realized that view of the PC was
stunted, undershooting what computing-the-new-tool-of-humankind could be and do. Jobs
can to his second round at Apple, seeing computation as a kind of goo, that you could spread
in two new ways:
1) COMPUTATIONAL OBJECTS---shrink the PC and plurify it among a number of

types of devices
2) COMPUTATIONAL GOO----reverse that and imagine computation (perhaps chips)
in and on and between everything--computation as our new “prepositions”, a
dynamic, programmable, self diagnosing, learning population of prepositions.
3) COMPUTATIONAL DOORWAY---with the entire world covered in computational
goo or dust, each blob or particle brings the entire globe’s power, via the
web, to bear on each tiny blob or dust particle locale.
Apple “saw” personal computers as a conceptual, a perceptual error. Computation

was most fundamentally goo, and only current technology substrates imprisoned it in
boxes on desktops. As Moore’s law continued its miniturization of components
march, the practical presence and form of computation would reach for bacterial size
scale, a powder, an intelligent dust on everything, perhaps, one day. So the iPod,
and the iPad, and the iWatch were the result of seeing computation as a powerful
tool not wedded to any first product form. They were the re-doing of objects in our
world, one by one, computationally. At the same time they talked to each other,
computed to each other--the web inviting global immense power delivered in real
time to any device however big or small. The PC, due to the web, was immense; the
iPod, due to the web, was immense; the iWatch due to the web was immense. Shirts
could thusly become “immense”, caps, neckties, bolts, straps, every object eventu-
ally.
This seeing of “the tool” beyond presently do-able embodiments, and seeing of this
tool “made enormous” via the door it amounted to, to global web immensities--this
double seeing of “personal computation” as goo, global web door goo--drove Apple
innovation in Jobs’ second stint. The tool was becoming more tool-like and less wed-
ded to present embodiments and things.
The next model of innovation in this book--the Digital World Model--takes this single
Jobs-Apple perception and runs with it.
IN CONCLUSION--DOING INNOVATION THIS WAY

Jobs was reputed to be selfish and ruthless but when you view videos, hours long, of
him interacting with Next and Pixar teams, he is sensitive, kind, and ruthless at the
same time. His strange combination of passionate efforts to communicate, context,
and get others as aspirational as himself and his willingness to fire people on the spot
who resist all that--comes from what and has what business value?
The answer is obvious, simple, and explains how to repeat Jobs-Apple success and
story. Jobs was NOT invested in this world and developed his orphan feeling via LSD,
Zen, India, Japan, and finally design experiences. What if all that people and the
world now are, are built on sand, not solid and to be respected but delusional reifica-
tions of past issues and forces, to be revised freely and rather completely today?
This old 1960s mindset, when combined in a young 30 year old person--Jobs--with
$200 million, took business products and organizations to places MBAs and others not
born into orphan insecurity and not developing via meditation-India-zen-Japan prac-
tice the handling and use of “the void” and the “no-mind” approach to work and pur-
pose, product and organizaation could not imagine much less achieve or even aspire
to.
VOID POWER was the STYLE of Apple under Jobs the second time round--voiding the
present forms of industries and products, voiding the rush to shallow quick making of
money in MBAs and elite college faculty of business, voiding the employees who did
not buy into becoming Void Masters themselves.
Do this mode of innovation requires making of yourself, then of your employees,

products, and eventually customers--Void Masters.
DOING THIS MODEL OF INNOVATION

THE ZENOVATION MODEL OF INNOVATION (Steve Jobs and Apple)
the implementation
the provisional answers we provide here
questions
HOW DO YOU DO THIS? LSD, Japan, Zen, Design--this is the kind of person who invented this
model, who led this model, and who this person selected, trained, and
promoted to leadership. There is no way, not way at all, no shortcut,
around these FOUR requirements--without THAT special kind of mental-
ity, this innovation model is un-do-able. The delusion, so enormously
common, so insisted on, that any major corporation’s 10,000 or 100,000
employees-managers can implement any model of innovation--that does
not work. You have to be founded-led by, select, train, a special kind of
person, to install this model--LSD or its equivalent, Japan work or its
equivalent, Zen or its equivalent, and Design or its equivalent.
WHAT ARE THE MAJOR OBSTA- This model assumes (and requires) a special juncture in evolution of
CLES YOU ENCOUNTER? technologies and economies and cultures--a point where old functions
are attacked successfully everywhere by new technology substrates for
doing functions---at such special junctures, people of vision expanded by
LSD, by Japan experience, by Zen practice, by Design experience can
move into the void, because they are trained in voids and uses of voids,
trained in not-doing, trained to see and act beyond and outside all
norms, rules, ways, cultures, assumptions, educations.
WHY DO MANY NEVER ATTEMPT Harvard and a host of colleges are now teaching “how to do Apple-Jobs”
IT? without any LSD, Japan experience, Zen practice, design experience and
practical power at seeing and handling voids--a ridiculous dishonest dis-
tortion by elite faculty incapable of understanding the West Coast reli-
gion of business and the Silicon Valley fundamentals that devastated
Harvard-MIT in productivity and innovativity the last 45 years.
2. The Digital World Model of Innovation

The first automobiles “disrupted” horse drawn carriages and carriage makers did not make
the transition, though consultants equivalent Christensen taught them they were about to be
“disrupted”. The first airplanes “disrupted” train travel then boat travel. Indeed we can-
not name any major innovation in history that did not “disrupt”. The question then is, what
additional insight or meaning, do we get from the word “disrupt” that we do not get from
the word “innovate”? Generations of my students and consulting clients have answered
this--nothing. The word “disrupt” adds nothing to the word “innovate”. All innovations
“disrupt” by definition. To be fair here, I must mention a New Yorker article made this
point years ago.
What are Lyft, Uber, Airbnb, Kickstarter, etc. doing beyond “disrupting” prior modes of
transport, hotelling, funding, etc.? It turns out they are all based on information technolo-
gies. They are doing things like using cellular ubiquitous real time global web information
to eliminate wasted car seats, rooms, enthusiasm for ideas and techs.
We therefore need a model of innovation that comes from digital tech invading all domains
of work and life. What does that enable? find? “disrupt”?
A flood of really bad publishings. Publishers sell books--that is, they want money. So any
“hot” topic gets dozens or hundreds of me-too shallow quick tomes thrown at it. “Disrup-
tion” (as if any major innovation did not disrupt a lot) is one such shallow buzzword exam-
ple. Not to pick on any one person or group--take the Keeley Doberly books on 10 areas of
“disruption”. The middle of their main book has four pages with “tactics” of disruption
under each of the ten parts of any business that is their “model” of “innovation”. But we
all already knew those ten parts of any business centuries ago. Also, the tactics under
some of them--things like “lean” and “in-app purchases” and “get close to customers” come
straight from Japanese quality practices 50 years ago, of Japanese gaming features 30 years
ago. There is nothing new in the Keeley innovation book---old, centuries old, divisions of
parts of any business that may be made to change, with, under them, decades old practices
from hither and yon, each with hundreds or thousands of already published books on them.
This is the sort of flood of shallow idea-less publishings on “disruption” and “innovation”
that publishers throw at us. We must wade through it to, come up for intellectual air, now
and then. Compare the Keeley books to the list of types of disrution across the centure,
below.
The digital revolution simply affected information and knowledge of all types in all places
and purposes. It sounds limited but the role of information, perception, sensing, thinking,
designing, implementing--all knowledge intensive if not entirely knowledge work--is vast,
indeed, probably everything we do except a few biologic functions. All of culture, ambi-
tion, art, science, work, family, dreams is centered upon, developed with, and produces
information and knowledge. Therefore, the digital revolution is a revolution in how we
think, feel, and do EVERYTHING. THE DISRUPTIONS, therefore, caused by it, are ubiqui-
tous, found everywhere we are and be and do.
Centuries Old Disruption Types

1. WASTED FACILITIES SOLD--found, marketed, assigned, insured by ubiquitous data
a. most rooms--empty most of the time--Airbnb
b. most car seats--empty most of the time--Lyft, Uber
c. most free human time--unused most of the time--
MicroWork
d. most human capabilities--not used by current jobs and
tasks--Dutch Part-timing (benefits, pension with all PT
jobs)
2. KNOWING/USING WHAT’S AROUND--GPS location indexing of services, nearby inter-
ests, nearby persons
a. what is near us--people, products, services, events
b. what is near our interest X--other interests, persons
c. what is near our goals/id/professions--related fields,
events
3. LOWERED COORDINATION COSTS--fluid coalitions replace stable unities
a. the job = people with several jobs/firms per week, others
part-timing to various extents = need new guilds for
welfare
b. ventures = outsource almost all functions to other
ventures = node in web = computed web-venture
coalitions
c. big firms = outsource (internally and/or externally) till
only core and changing coalition remain
d. big firms across multiple-industries = large coalitions of
big firms tackle continental/global scale emergent
markets
4. EXPANDED DOER--from 1 or few to many doing X
a. funding by many--kickstarter etc., peer to peer lending
b. noticing by many--scientific data analysis outsourced
c. collaborative design--mutual editing, checking, inventing
d. interactive publishing by many--open refereeing of
research
e. anyone sales sites--Etsy, Amazon
f. fractional ownership--Netjets
5. KNOWLEDGE CONCENTRATION/DISPERSION/COLLECTION--Knowledge spread, knowl-
edge gather, knowledge personalize--Informate
a. tripadvisor
b. best price finders
c. auctioneers
d. curriculum downshifts--grad stats in college first years,
college projects in high school first years
6. FEEDBACK--from partial, sampled, delayed to more complete, representative, imme-
diate to the point of co-development
a. comments
b. reviews
c. purchasing friend networks
d. viral purchase events
e. audience-co-composed--movies plot moves, musics
7. EXPANDED AUDIENCE--from general local publics to global; from general local publics
to global narrow specialized communities
a. publish to friends--real time ubiquitous friend contact
b. publish to globe--if found by search engines
c. publish to narrow speciality communities--global scope
makes narrow interests still attract large crowd
d. MOOC--massive online courses with world wide student
bodies
e. global presence--live displays shared by communities from
various global locations
8. INTERFACE & SYSTEM & INFRASTRUCTURE BASED EXPANSION OF CUSTOMER BASE
a. for elderly--WII by Nintendo
b. e-auto--via national recharge/re-battery system
c. shirt smartphone--woven in ordinary shirts so all humans
get networked
9. INSTANT DELIVERY
a. amazon drone
b. bicycle to office/home
c. comvenience store pickups
10. DIS-MEDIATION
a. bank-less-ness
b. main function free, profit from side functions
c. mainframe to PC to smartphone to iwatch to iclothing
d. travel, real estate, courseware, education-hiring link
ravel agencies
e. crowd, auction doer of micro-service segments =
Tutorvista
11. MIXED METAPHORS, MIXED MODES
a. bus-like flexibility at air speeds = Southwest Airlines
b. circus without animals and with arts/opera = Cirque du
Soleil
c. humanized intermediaries--between sports, fitness clubs,
health consults, personal schedules = Curves; between
professional mass prices/variety PLUS mini-courses per
project = Home Depot
d. object oriented social systems--instant reconfigured
innner and inter institution links and knowledge flows
(evolving ecosystem environment of each institution)
12. ITERATIVE MAKING--multi-pass “printing” replacing crafted/assembled items
a. 3D printing
b. policy by experiment (big data subset)
c. product machine-guns (design by first user feedback)
d. venture “sell out” by angel fund escalations, not IPOs
13. SELF CUSTOMIZING/CONTROLLING THINGS--subworldings:
a. homes--room settings for those who enter
b. offices--office settings for activities scheduled
c. e-malls--informated parking/discounting/aisle guidance
d. drones, flying cars
e. personalized displays/world/contacts/colors/temps
f. e-clothing
g. e-courseware
14. DELIVER NEW WAYS--new practices via new things made in new ways
a. NEW WAYS FOR NEW THINGS--new practices spawning
whole new way of work/life product introduction event-
care-celebrity-system
b. LEAD USERS AS PRE-DICTIVE CO-DESIGNERS--work-arounds
for all procedures captured by IT as next product/
service/system versions
c. PRODUCTS DOCUMENTING HOW THEY ARE USED--
d. TROJAN PRODUCTS/SERVICES--you get for free then
“find” ads, upgrades, in-app buys = charge for uses not
apps
e. EMERGENT SYSTEMS--new wants/needs emerge with new
ways emerge with new things
15. VOID AVOIDED RESEARCH
a. customer convenience blockage researched--Dyson

b. e-auto via addressing battery
16. ULTIMATIZING GOALS
a. death-less-ness
b. space tourism
c. human replacement parts
17. REVOLUTION DYNAMICS
a. THE 200 PATENTS THAT MAKE 1 PATENT WORK--Edison’s
light bulb, worthless without electricity delivery system
all over the world--the creativity of SPREADING and idea
X
b. RULE MAKERS, TAKERS, BREAKERS
c. liberators, founders, historic dream makers, conservers of
novelty
d. FEEL AS WE GO--ways, strategy, profit-sourcing
e. NETWORK ECONOMIES--WINNER TAKES ALL, FIRSTMOVER
ADVANTAGE
f. ECOSYSTEM NOT GAME COMPETITION--symbiotic, partner,
stepping stone = win win roles = coopetition
g. DOGMA BREAKING EXPERIMENTS--example--break common
goal of customer first, follow customer needs etc.
When the automobile emerged circa 1900, horse drawn carriages were everywhere, along
with water troughs for horses, and stables for feeing horses, and much else. None of that
system helped fuel and repair cars but by analogy it could have. Yet carriage makers com-
pletely failed to act on that anlogy--car makers had to erect their own gas stations, with
refueling and repair facilities. This is to say--what happens when a new technology does a
function a dozen times better--faster, farther, easier, than an earlier one? Suburbs hap-
pened, drive in movie theatres, urban ghettos, air pollution, global warming. Looking care-
fully at the new technology does not show us anything about the old ways disrupted and the
new emergent ways to live and work that change in power, speed, etc. will entail. We have
to look at how that new power in work and lives, sparks new human dreams, conveniences,
ambitions, structurings. This is the practices that surround each and every new introduced
thing and power enabled by that thing.
This Digital World Model of Innovation is represented by the fractal concept model below, 3
levels branch factor 4 = 64 lowest level boxes, and 85 total boxes, ordered from lower left to
lower right to upper right to upper left to center. This is a highly regularized fractal
arrangement of ideas. It summarizes 64 ways all innovation disrupt old ways, arrangements,
systems, and markets. Repeated use of it, since it is well ordered (lower level boxes follow-
ing the order of topmost level items, and all boxes branch into 4 sub-items) commits its 64
items to memory rapidly and expands your ability to notice and amaze others.
One exercise, using this model of 64 disruptions, involves my students taking something--the
iWatch, for example--and re-designing it and its ecosystem surrounds to incorporate a half
dozen more disruptions than it does in its present form. Another exercise is finding, in
recent web news sites, examples of each of the 64 boxes/disruption-types. Another exer-
cise is putting in order, chronologically, which disruption types came first, in a certain
period, say, in 1960, then 1970, then 1980, then 1990, then 2000, then 2010 in Silicon Valley.
first-mover
64 planetary human live, see, act e-clothing ventures that product
ecosystem in subworld
advantage, deed replace- e-courseware sell out by machineguns =
not game built from GPS/interest- design by
competing = dogma- coalitions: ment index of your angel fund
breaking asteroid, parts indexed tours escalating first users
symbiotic needs,
partner-REVOLU- experi- mars, ULTIMIZE interests,SELF 76 not by ITERATIVE
allies TION ments warmg. GOALS capabilities CUSTOMIZE IPO MAKING
DYNAMICS homes, SELF drones 3D 75 big
80 79
offices, CONTROL via printing data:
the 200 feel as we go- death-less malls = engine policy/product
patents that ways, strategy, ness; aging space customized for balance by experiment
tourism
enable 1 profit- reversal who enters,
patent sourcing EXPOSE nears SOFT-
RUT, 84 WARI-
Trojan self DOGMA, global costs of crowd auction mainframe ZING 83 object health coach
products & document- AVOIDS emergent inequality: of micro- to PC to DOING oriented between
services: buy ing lives, self valid- services: smartphone to social hospital/dr.
simple now work, uses, ating
anxious system = fitness/diet
racist rich + Tutorvista iwatch to evolving
get new learning research
discovered DELIVER organizna VOID barriers DIS- ishirt institutn MIXED
world NEW 77 AVOIDED to wealth MEDIATION weaves METAPHOR
pioneer WAYS/ auto & RESEARCH bus flex MIXED professl
lead appliance bank- free
user 49 PRACTICES users as phone 78 ease
less- 73 main air speed MODE 74 mass
marketing, green into
co-designers
portability ness function = SWest Air; price +
new ways made motor pay for more, circus w/o
famous via new into micro-tutorials
blower 64 upgrades, animal with
things, delivered battery science = Home Depot
opera = cirque
made new ways Dyson ANCIENT & 33 links
science de ciel
big firms in big
MODERN
whole system anyone sells shirt smart- live global
bigger coali- firms DISRUPTION instant phones, MOOCs--
c multi-firm (Etsy), pub- delivery separate teams
courses/
lishes, reviews, tions, forming out TYPES 85 displays, together via
designs by events with
own (Netjets) dissolving sources till sensors, holograph &
suppliers- amazon mass global
irregu- core + displays EXPANDED
custmrs EXPANDED LOWERED drones INTERFACE audiences
larly
all DOER COORDI- coalition etc. & SYSTEM AUDIENCE
crowd crowd the job
NATION ventures CUSTOMER e-auto pub to gather
from
noticing as manyuCOSTS 67 core +
68
funding: average BASE EXPAND via friends, 71 sizeable
kickstarter, editing, tutor- for as many nearly all to extreme national to world, audience
peer to peer ing, identify- firms as want fns. outsourced (ages, work, recharge/ to profession via globe for
lending ing each week = = ecosystem battery/
places, risks, rare speciality
EXPAND part-time configuration interests, etc.) hydrogen DEMO- topics/interests
KNOW assemblies evolution systems
CRATIZED
81 experi- 8
most special- most 3 & USE events, sites,7 digital IDs curriculum KNOW- hub viral item
ized interests human SCOPE ence persons, shops present downshift ING 82 markets-- reaction,
lonely cuz 4 free time & sharing: meeting your
tailored to grad stats into craft for well news spreads
hard to abilities unused with friends, interests now 1st college yr. connected viral head-
us offers
find most of work- nearby etc. few lines &
WASTED KNOW- 66 world KNOWLEDGE FEEDBACK
schedule FACILITIES the time mates USE ads CONCENTRATE tags
1 SOLD 2 5 WHAT’S 6 best DISPERSE news, audience
65 micro-
persons, AROUND pricers, COLLECT instant reviews,
70
co-
most rooms most seats in places work, shopping, auctionners, expert advice, comments, composed
in homes cars unused nearby, touring best feature translating, likes, buys, concerts,
unused most most of the available, personalized finders, item label reading events,
of the time time discounted tours combiners 17 (for blind) games
This Digital World Model of Innovation is strange in its relationship to the Zenovation Model
of Innovation pioneered by the Jobs-return to Apple. Turning your self as founding-leader
into a Void Master, then doing the same to your employees, projects, products, and finally
customers is how you implement that model. The Digital World Model of Innovation is easy,
and a natural consequence of mastering that other--Zenovation Model. Being a Void Master
means you can direct your Void Masteries to the information technology matrix of today,
thereby voiding existing forms of industry and product, thereby “disrupting” older forms,
thereby seeing how information hoarded, too local, too un-distributed and how information
too dispersed, too various, too un-concentrated raise costs and delays, frustrate needs and
imagined boons. Void Masters with ease do the perceptual work at the core of the Digital
World Model of Innovation. One way to therefore do this Digital World model is to first do
the Zenovation model. If however you do not do it that way, you have to become, shall we
say, a “half” Void master--developing your ability to see every mundane routine, way, struc-
ture, product, need, want of all around you in information terms and imagine, were informa-
tion globalized, localized, real-time-ized, free, what would be different? Later, a Mundane
Change Model of Innovation will be presented and the Digital World Model is very close to
that because seeing all situations in information concentration, dispersion terms forces re-
seeing, re-doing mundane things almost never examined or changed (rooms empty in your
house every hour of every day, car seats unused in every car every day, under-employed peo-
ple hours and skills lying fallow every hour and day, etc.).

THE DIGITAL WORLD MODEL OF INNOVATION
the implementation
questions
HOW DO YOU DO THIS? The digital revolution can be viewed, and Steve Jobs ended up viewing
it, as tools spread over everything, connecting everything to everything
else, to the world wide web, and to everyone--that manipulate in vari-
ous ways the information that things are and use and about them. So
you view the world in information terms---suppose we had global infor-
mation free everywhere--what could change? what could we do? This
splits into: A) what if the entire world’s information were available in
this local place and time? B) what if this locale’s information were avail-
able elsewhere and globally? Another viewpoint is identifying humans,
groups, devices that handle information now, and imagining them
removed, with the information handled by our new info technologies,
devices, and web--dis-intermediation, for example. Another viewpoint
is the elimination of space and time--if systems join info from various
regions and time periods. What else changes? What else can be done?
This model of innovation involves changing your perception of the world,

in dozens of ways. More worryingly--you need to make dozens of such
changes of perception at the same time in order to fuse and select
among them wisely and see inter-relations, evolution paths, unintended
consequences of them.
WHAT ARE THE MAJOR OBSTA- This model of innovation starts with a thorough-going dislocation of
CLES YOU ENCOUNTER? usual perception--seeing differently in dozens of simultaneous ways.
The main obstacle is current executives and leaders are mentally
stunted, incapable of this level of abstract metaphoric seeing and imag-
ining. Their MBA and elite college educations made them calculators of
simple maths, not thinkers in abstract evolving new domains.
WHY DO MANY NEVER ATTEMPT Large organizations and colleges turn people into cowards, quite gener-
IT? ally. So seeing differently in dozens of simultaneous ways seems to such
people too much, and they seek some simple immediate fragment to
profit from now. This MBA short term easy stuff kills innovation as
indeed it should.
3. The Creativity & Novelty Sciences

Model of Innovation
..

&5($7,9,7< 129(/7<6&,(1&(6
6WHYHQ-REVOHG6LOLFRQ9DOOH\FUHDWLQJWKHZRUOG·VPRVWYDOXDEOHFRPSDQ\E\H[WHQGLQJIURPRQHFUHDWLYLW\VFLHQFHWRKDOID
GR]HQRUPRUHDV´WKHSURGXFWVµRIKLVFRPSDQ\WXUQLQJODXQFKHVLQWRSHUIRUPDQFHVSURGXFWXVHLQWRFRPSRVLQJVSURGXFW
SXUFKDVHLQWRUHWDLOVKRZSHUIRUPDQFHVSURGXFWGHYLFHVLQWRGRRUZD\VWRXVHUJHQHUDWHGOLEUDULHVRIFUHDWLRQV+HGLGQRW
DFFHSWWZHDNXVXDOHQJLQHHULQJEXWIRUFHGHQJLQHHUVWRZRUNWRLQYHQWWKHQHZ+HGLGQRWMXVWJHQHUDWHQHZSURGXFWVEXW
QHZLQGXVWULHVJHQHUDWHGE\VLQJOHQHZSURGXFWV+HVDYHGDQGLQYHQWHGLQGXVWULHVXVLQJ'(6,*167+$7/($':KDWLVWKH
FRUHRIKLVPHWKRGSDUWZDVVKHHUSRZHUKHZDVD&(2DQG2ZQHUZLWKPRUHSRZHUWKDQXVXDO&(2VWKHRWKHUSDUWLVKHUH
&UHDWLYLW\ 1RYHOW\6FLHQFHVWRH[WHQGDQ\RQHFUHDWLYLW\LQWR
&5($7,9,7<02'(/6 ,GHQWLI\QHZFUHDWLYLW\PRGHOVZLWKZKLFKWRH[WHQG\RXUGHVLJQ
1(:0(',$ ,17(5)$&(6 ,17(//(&78$/,17(5)$&(6 6KDSH\RXUGHVLJQWRXVHZRUNLQDQGHQDEOHVRPHQHZLQWHUIDFHV
&$86$/,17(5)$&(6 6KDSH\RXUGHVLJQWRXVHZRUNLQDQGHQDEOHQHZFDXVDOLQWHUIDFHV
62&,$/,17(5)$&(6 6KDSH\RXUGHVLJQWRXVHZRUNLQDQGHQDEOHQHZVRFLDOLQWHUIDFHV
&5($7,2123(5$7256 6(/)'<1$0,&6 6KDSH\RXUGHVLJQWRHQDEOHFKDQJLQJEHLQJ;WRKDYLQJ;
.12:/('*('<1$0,&6 6KDSH\RXUGHVLJQWRXVHDQGVXSSRUWSDUWLFXODUNQRZOHGJHG\QDPLFV
(;3(5,0(17 ',6&29(5< 6KDSH\RXUGHVLJQWRIRVWHUSDUWLFXODUH[SHULPHQW GLVFRYHU\W\SHV
$57 ,19(17,21 6KDSH\RXUGHVLJQWRHQWLFHXVHUVWRLQYHQWGHYLFHVZD\V DUWV
(;35(66 (;3/25( 6KDSH\RXUGHVLJQWRHOLFLWH[SORULQJ H[SUHVVLQJFXUUHQWXQNQRZQV
&5($7,2123(5 6(/)'<1$0,&6 ('8&$7('1(66 6KDSH\RXUGHVLJQWRLQYLWHSHRSOHEH\RQG,QLWLDO)DFWRU\6HWWLQJV
$1'6 &$5((56 6KDSH\RXUGHVLJQWRIRVWHUSRZHUIXOFDUHHUEXLOGG\QDPLFV
3$5(17,1* /($'(56+,3 6KDSH\RXUGHVLJQWRUHOHDVHSHQWXSIRUFHVDYDODQFKHVRIFKDQJH
.12:/('*( 6<67(06 6KDSH\RXUGHVLJQWRKDQGOHQRQOLQHDUUHDFWLRQVWRLWVILUVWRXWSXWV
'<1$0,&6 &8/785( 6KDSH\RXUGHVLJQWRFKDQJHSHQHWUDWHLPSURYHODWHQWFXOWXUHV
48$/,7< $LP\RXUGHVLJQDWHQDEOLQJFRUHHVVHQFHVRITXDOLW\EXVLQHVV
(;3(5,0(17 ,1129$7,21 ,GHQWLI\DGGLWLRQDOLQQRYDWLRQPRGHOVIRU\RXUGHVLJQWRHPERG\
',6&29(5< )281',1*9(1785(6 ,GHQWLI\YHQWXUHWHFKV\RXUGHVLJQFDQFRPPHUFLDOL]H
$57 '(6,*1 ([WHQGWRDQ\RIDOWHUQDWLYHGHVLJQDSSURDFKHV
,19(17,21 &20326,1* ([WHQG\RXUGHVLJQVRXVHRILWOHDGVWRJRRGFRPSRVLQJVE\XVHUV
(;35(66 )$6+,21 ([WHQG\RXUGHVLJQVRLWH[WHQGVEUDQGLPDJHLGHQWLWLHVRIXVHUV
(;3/25( 3(5)250$1&( 7XUQ ILQGLQJ SXUFKDVH XVH UHSDLU XSJUDGH RI \RXU GHVLJQ LQWR
SHUIRUPDQFHVDQGVKRZV
(92/87,21'<1$0,&6 7XUQWKHHYROXWLRQG\QDPLFVRI\RXUGHVLJQDQGLWVXVHFRPPXQLW\
LQWRVWRULHVFRPHGLHVKLVWRULHVGUDPDV
5($/,7<6&,(1&(6 6725<'<1$0,&6 7XUQWKHGHYHORSPHQWDQGXVHRI\RXUGHVLJQLQWRGUDPDWLFVWRULHV
&20('<'<1$0,&6 *HQHUDWHDPD]LQJLQFLGHQWVDQGFRPHGLFHYHQWVLQ\RXUGHVLJQDQG
FRPPHUFLDOUHOHDVHSURFHVVHV
*$0('<1$0,&6 (PEHGJDPHG\QDPLFVLQWRWKHGHVLJQFRPPHUFLDOL]DWLRQDQGXVH
G\QDPLFVRI\RXUSURGXFW
+,6725< 9$/8('<1$0,&6 &KDOOHQJHWKHIDNHDQGKDUPIXOSURGXFWWUDGLWLRQVRI&RNHFRODV
:DOO6WUHHWDQGRWKHUYHQDOKRUGHUV
&200216(16(6+,)7'<1$0,&6ELRVHQVH
VRFLDOZDUHVRIWZDUH (QWLFHXVHUVRI\RXUGHVLJQLQWRELRORJLFZD\VRIWKLQNLQJRSHUDWLQJ
&5($7,9,7< 129(/7<6&,(1&( 7+(&5($7,9,7<6&,(1&(6,17(55(/$7,216 2/LQNHDFKFUHDWLYLW\VFLHQFH\RXUGHVLJQHQJDJHVYLDJRRGLQWHUIDFHV
,17(55(/$7,21'<1$0,&6 WRRWKHUV
129(/7<$028176 7<3(6$&+,(9(' 'HVLJQ IRU JHWWLQJ XVHUV JHQHUDWLQJ PRUH DQG EHWWHU IRUPV RI
FUHDWLYLW\IURPXVHRI\RXUGHVLJQ
7+(025$/',0(16,216&UHDWLYLW\ ,QQRYDWLRQ 'HVLJQDOODURXQGDQGLQ\RXUSURGXFWWRFRXQWHUIDNH´IRUVKRZµ
1RLVH'\QDPLFV
FUHDWLYLWLHVJHQHUDWHGE\FDUHHUSURGXFWSODQQHGREVHOHQFHV\VWHPV
Above are 30 ways the new gets into our world--you innovate, in this model, when you simul-
taneously do several of them (as Jobs-Apple did). Consider the following list:
1) SELL NEW BUSINESSS MODELS (not use them)---save a dying industry--redo

their business model via a single new product systems--handheld device plus
web store
2) GREAT ARCHITECTURE CHANGES---re-invent architecture of retail--stores that
stand out on ANY street and that make customer convenience visibly central,
not retail money handling
3) PERFORMANCE EVENTS----global media event product launches--keep secrecy
so well and long, and present new user-powers and conveniences of products
so dramatically that each product launch event hits the nightly news for a
week or more
4) CONSUMER REACTION EVENTS----global consumer event product launches--long
multi-block strings of people waiting overnight for the next version of your
product
5) DEVELOPER LOVE DEVELOPMENT----internal beauty of product components
unseen by customers--make a drive for beauty of detail throughout, so devel-
opers love what they develop
6) CHASE EXCELLENCE NOT MONEY----strip “race for money and quick sales, first
mover advantage” away from all products and events and stores--work the
details, get it right, deliver new power to users not mere new bally-hoo-able
features
7) SELL SYSTEMS NOT PRODUCTS----see and sell replacement for large industries
and systems, not mere products--see the ecosystem of invisible dependencies
and human routines that sustains old ways and design a set of products and
services that ease, reduce, and improve that entire matrix of inter-locking
routines and expectations in users
8) RESURRECTION STORY--a business ruined by its founder, later ruined worse by
its take-over MBA manager, saved when the original founder returned
demanding not profit but excellence--a story loved by billions.
The above list is not complete--it is only long enough to make the main point of this model of
innovation---real innovation beyond mere substrate update following and slight change exag-
gerating, simultaneously deploys several different Creativity & Novelty Sciences.
The above list can be re-written to make this clear:
1) BUSINESS MODEL INVENTION

2) ARCHITECTURE INVENTION
3) COMPOSING & PERFORMANCE
4) DRAMA & THEATRE
5) DESIGN & AESTHETICS
6) EXCELLENCE SCIENCE
7) SYSTEMS SCIENCE
8) RESURRECTION STORY
These are some of the 30 known Creativity & Novelty Sciences, given in the figure above.
The apple story is repeated, fractally, with each Apple product. The iWatch for example was
late, after a dozen earlier net-connected watches. Its first version was watched and cri-
tiqued by techies and reviewers as inadequate. Its next versions were incrementally
improved in directions users were delighted by. Errors were made and found and fixed with
dependable regularity--while each version of the product left non-techie users above 95%
satisfied and techie users above 90% satisfied. Jobs took his PC idea and reworked it again
and again, with a Lisa disaster, a Scully bigger disaster, and Jobs-return heroic success story.
The tries, the drive for excellence, never faultered, or stopped--big failures merely produce
bigger later comebacks. The same story is repeated with each new product category
released. The products are entrepreneur stories as are the lives of those making them.
What makes no sense, in these stories, are the multi-dimensional drives for excellence--the
un-focused, un-necessary, side-issue directions of effort, development, perfection. Good
MBAs from Harvard have course after course to prevent that. While Fortune 500 firms a
tenth as profitable as Apple, led by Harvard MBA elites release the “minimal value equation
users will pay for”, Apple violates all those Harvard course principles and analyses, and ends
up more profitable than the entire rest of the world economy, and most groups in human his-
tory. Apple is the story of many simultaneous kinds of creativity and novelty synergistically
developed and woven together--the opposite of MBA analysis-derived “efficiency”. Appar-
ently 800 math GRE scores are as worthless and arrogant as they at first appear.
After visits to Apple and work with their teams, I always find myself, at an airport, leaving a
city, in business class, over-hearing usual business”men” talking “business”--with not a word
about any sort of excellence, delay, perfecting--aiming for and achieving the “minimal sell-
able value proposition”--hence, one guaranteed to bore everyone around, and make dog
food commercials on TV more exciting than their products and launches of product. It is an
entire global population of business”men” aiming at mediocrity, willing to settle for the first
achievable “innovative looking slight improvement” that will get them promoted--any tiny
improvement in their lifelong feeling of personal un-importance overwhelming any excel-
lence the world or their firm or their product might otherwise have achieved.
My students have developed measures of size and quality and degree of actualization in a
product, launch, story, performance, business of each of the 30 creativity & novelty sciences
above. Apple is robust along 12 of those 30. What would a company have to do and be to be
robust along 15 of them? 18 of them? 20 of them? 30 of them? Apple’s competitors are
robust along 2 or less of those 30, by the same measures. Excellence breeds further excel-
lence; creativity sciences breed further creativity sciences.
The 30 Creativity & Novelty Sciences have an internal structure that only Apple has explored
thus far. The diagram below was simplified to reveal this underlying structure among them.
If you are a business, aspiring to Apple-like fame and fortune--plotting where you and your
business/product dynamics are on this simplified diagram of 18 of the 30, is your best start-
ing point--for revealing how far you have to go and what direction you have to go in.
Readers my sit back, overwhelmed, and say--maybe I can break off a piece of two of these
18 or of these 30 and start there? This is actually harder to do than aiming at all 18 at
once. The pedestrian, one wants to say, habitual cowardice of businesses and the “men”
who do it, makes everything harder not easier to do. Aiming for more and investing in more
and taking more time than competitors pays back thousands of times more than Harvard
efficiencies do.
43
experience:
author, actor,
audience
P31
GROUNDING
41 performers
audience
as 42
memory: cues:
intellectual, plot, event,
physical, sensual, 44 sense, emotion
emotional
PERFECT PARTS
35 reasonableness 48 character,
39
create & unreas.. gesture,
reality of of each omphalotic role as
structural
script situatn. fragment stance of
life whole performance messge finding of
vs. wanted 45
audience reaction 46 TIMELESSNESS subtext
CONNECTION epiphantic journey EXPRESSION
33 celebrate vs. 34 till illusion is 37 38
substitute actor
critique the lost personal experience concen-
sing song vs. times habits of memory tration
see performer 47 expression menu
produces
sing piece of life 36 vs. see life block expressing 40 audience
concentration
CREATIVE PERFORMING
11 leader: lead 56 love: disclose 63 sports: 52 game: 27
by follow- Invent: vulnerable
ing society: can vs. war: search
see cognitive self will habit saves heuristics event vs.
eternity but 54 revolution success creates 50 thought
49
53 failure TRAINING plot
go on living COMPASSION
ILLUSORY REALITY high performance: BALANCE 62 business: ROLE EXPRESSES
9 10 historic dream 61 everyman as impression
out of life in community device: performer: interview: permits 25 internalize vs. 26
order to be broadcast
negative liberation read while reality express
respond to 55
live through in it trade-offs 64 writing 51 face vs. mask 28 physical vs.
a role 12 imaginary objects (self vs. tool)
as to real ones DISTINGUISH PERFORMANCES spiritual makeup
3
DESIGN EMERGENCE 7 artistrepeated (singer etc): public speaker:
60 teach audience MANAGE PARADOX
19 relaxation vs. 32 move audience 23
it creates own 16 find & keep inspira- daily life better self
require- concentra- dead vs. remain
itself stance mind as
tion performance: ments
consistent
show flow
tune self & open-ended tion unmoved rehearsal
14
(self consc. =
choking) 13 58 impression fame 57 vs. known 30 alive work vs.
29 performance
creativity NO MIND/OBSTRUCTION environment EMPATHY outcome DETACHED ENGAGEMENT work
INSPIRATION ON COMMAND true desire for SELF AS TOOL actor: REPETITION calculation vs. RECREATION
1 seeming
simultaneous 2 moksha
5 nature of life 6
reality 17 rehearse vs. 18 warmth 21 create not 22
creation is the appear imitate
evalution release performer message 59 improvised
illusion of insight as violinist &
relaxation = fresh vs. spontaneous 31 truth vs. reality private vs.
1st time 4 on cue 15 violin 8 tuning violin repeat 20 vs. script imitation 24 public privacy
128 Ways to Improve the Creativity of Performing and Composing

From Strasberg, Stanislavsky, Sawyer, Gardner, Barthes, Culler, Auerbach, Pinsky, Winters, Eliot
get in touch with get in touch with avoid demon- demonstrate what alternate & separate establish insight & entool to organize 68 entool to capture
best expressions 88 yourself 95 strating the
media by 84 the media can generating 72 production 79 scattered bits alternate chance insights/
in the history themselves make the
communicate 123 and evaluating maintain & disciplines & of various “in the business” inspira-
of your get in touch media collect keep to go beyond
reuse old projects time with tions
field with the lives
85
excel in what 82 help the 81 70 them past practice
86 of your audiences you excel in message cross-
generation
throwaways 69 66 hermit time 65
and how you
FIND CARES excel in it USE MEDIA mentors STRUCTURE FOR
PRODUCTIVITY
after mastering it STRUCTURE FOR
INSIGHT EMERGENCE
get in touch with EXCEL blend the media OPPORTUNITY after your best: EPIPHANTIC
DEVELOPMENT
mix stimulation &
your times 93 set up co-invent 94 roles for synergy EMERGENCE
seek outside opinion 77 target moments 78 formulation spaces
fully meet dialog go beyond
and unlikeli-
hood
seed success via
121 extreme 122 announce when lives balance throughout
then rewrite setting
your own community your field’s productivity & structure and each day
87 criteria of
96 past forms of 83 & distri- 71 storyline transform association; insight
excellence excellence
befriend
bution network early and clearly80 and form 67
124peers &
CONNECT TO SELF AND AUDIENCE connectors competitors WRESTLE LIFE INTO DIAMONDS
find the rhythms make room for MAKE ROOM FOR EMERGENCE peel back drive your work
of your field 92 76 through one of
arrange for
insight
115 build own
social 128 surprise
strings 119 defenses clear
prefer
life’s key
surprising practice movement fragments to moments
90 release of works 89 applying 126 en-school 74 confusing realities 73
foreign 125 bricolage
FIND TIMING frameworks CAREER LIFE ANCHOR
EMERGENCE
All jobs at
let your clear
find the rhythms INSIGHT EMERGENCE match attracted WORK EMERGENCE grasp of a
of your times
113 follow up 114 resources &
118 work are
powerful part
& audiences
keep slight hunches alternate
followers 117
create & plurify of life, not
116 engagement/
plural markets past
works performances
wording,
impress
91 environments 127 simultaneous 120 canibalize
rich & diverse detachment projects
75 as are all
CREATIVE COMPOSING products &
tune the inter- edit out elements drafts for feedback drafts for
delivery of
action of
elements till
good things
104 that don’t
further the 111 from others 100 self edits products.
seed emotive
emerge
point make drafts for 97 Use these to
102 avalanches 101 latent contents 98 impact
of field
VERSIONING
be and make
EDITING explicit
balance unlikeli-
BECOMING
drafts for observing
those
INCOMPARABLE
hood with
comprehen-
responses of
109 fit society best 110 strangers & performances
sability design revision
evaluators
watched, liked,
103 surprises 112 ofofyourcanon 99
field inspiring, & repeated.
PRODUCE Each day your whole LIFE can
anonymous
named tests tests take a MUCH better direction
108
106 IF you PERFORM each day
competitive 105
tests not just react all day to
TESTING others and your own
comparative past self.
tests
107
Each Creativity Science (or you can call them Novelty Sciences) is its own world of dynamics,
interactions, principles, cases, directions of development. So the diagrams above of 30 cre-
ativity sciences and of 18 of them, are simplifying a vast domain. To give readers of how
vast that domain actually is I include below a diagram on 64 dynamics from great composers
and another 64 from great performers. Before that I present another diagram of 60 models
of creativity. Each of those 60 models of creativity itself has 10 to 50 variables.
The territory is vast, do doing several creativity sciences simultaneously is a “flow” experi-
ence of full engagement at slightly beyond your current top capacity levels of effort. You
have to grow your self to simultaneously do several of them at once. We cannot do them as
who we now are, keeping the “us” we now use.
14These models
These
3 System see creativity
as social
4
models are
mixtures, blends, 13 Model relations &
and combinations dynamics
of things. p180 p135 p142 p147 of sorts.
8 p192
Disci- Com- Social 19 Process
p238
pline p91 munity Compu- Deploy-
Com- of tation
2
7 ment These
SOCIAL
bines Ideas Mass models see

p86 Tuning 15
9 Solving 20 p201 group-ness
Parti- p155 making
p183 procedures
These p132 Culture cipatory
p104 Social 24 Optimize creative
5
BL
P
models are
Paradox Art &
OU
Mixing Move- Demyst- Ideal
EN
giant collections Design Flow

GR
ment ification
D
based on single themes p81 Door- p168 17 p295

or matrix frameworks.
12 Idea way p228
Meta- 21
Question 3 Market- p120 18 p162
16 23 Cognition 25
2 Finding 10 Space p222
30 Dialectics 26
p37 ing Social p206
Scale Share p241
Traits p30 p126
Blend Connec- Simple
p24 Darwinian tion- 22 Programs Compilation
CATA Systems 4 11 ism D G E p248 Cycle
E
1
Recommen-
LOG p52
Combined
60 p281
p273 Fractal EV
L
KNOOWLUTION Relocating
1 dations Thought
Idea p257 These
Recurrence Idea Ecosystems dynamics models see
p77 p17
Garbage
6 Can p60
Types
5 Models of 29
28 p263
Waves 27
among
idea themselves that
become creativity
Within the mind dynamics
57 Percept p546 58 Creativity 36 p298
p327 Create by
6
p339
or constructs that p551
“create”. Invent Social Balancing Solution
Making Experience Copyright 2002 by
Automata
p333
59 Realizatn. Richard Tabor Greene
35 Culture
p539 Sense D All Rights Reserved
34 p320 EXPER 31
M IN p560 US Government
Fractal I M EN T Policy by
Cognitive 56 Substrate Registered
Operator Update 52 Career Adjacent 42 Model Experiments

Extremes Invent Investing Beyond Expan- Creation p305
Insight p493 p385 sion
p531 60 p500
p508 40 Population Events p314 32
55 p524
Interest 53 p443 33
54 46 41 Automaton
Ecstasy These models see
10
p451 p396
p566 51 Perfor- 47 Surprise solids disolved into
SY
mance Info Non- hypotheses making

LF
Extended
ST
Self Crea- Influence Design Linear

creativity.
SE
The p378
EM
dynamics Deve- tivity p414

PURITY
of creating p435 Systems

a self if lop- 50 p464 48 p343
39
extended
results in p483
creativity.
ment
p474
Anxiety
Channel 49
Courage
p521
45
Perfor-
mance
44
p418
Sub-
creations
System
Effects p348
These models
p361
38
37
Darwin-
7
9
p429 see non-linear ian
These aspects of reality
models see p459
that make creativity
some single p424 inevitable in
8
function or 43 the universe
aim that done
purely results Produc-
in creativity. tivity

THE CREATIVITY SCIENCES MODEL OF INNOVATION
the implementation
questions
HOW DO YOU DO THIS? Doing this is straightforward--grow one Creativity Science, tech ven-
tures, or inventions, or designs, into others (performances, theatre,
composing), then feed them back into the first one, in a loop.
WHAT ARE THE MAJOR OBSTA- These are different kinds of creativity--and most corporations especially
CLES YOU ENCOUNTER? if MBA led, settle for one or half of one--never even considering beyond
minimal sell-able function sets. The obstacles are short term cowardice
in leaders and inability of elite college grads to mentally handle plural
creativity types in multiple simultaneous directions.
WHY DO MANY NEVER ATTEMPT When leaders are mentally stunted, though elite, they use their power
IT? to hide incapability by forcing “focus” on others = not this model of
innovation.
4. The Monastic Change Model of Innova-

tion
With the vast majority of business”men” seeking to “look” creative not “be” creative, mak-
ing highly visible launches of things they do not hang around to make real (settling for a
quick promotion)--shunning, Descartianly, via Harvard MBA religion of business tenents, in
the trenches hard actualization of new things--a race for the “minimal sell-able functions
consumers will pay for” dominates “business” and adds to the general phony Innovation
Noise that fools, venal publishers, and academics take for “innovation”.
One opposite of this miserable but all too true tale is people working down in the depths,
shifting things so fundamental, unchanged for centuries, that “innovating” there is impossi-
ble for most people to even imagine. How can you change “prose text” “reading” “hearing”
“discussing” “brainstorming” “processing work” “meeting” “presenting” so radically that
mental productivity increases dozens to hundreds of times current levels, opening enormous
vistas of inventivity, innovation, and creativity?
What gives these sorts of changes, even slight ones in things so fundamental, their power? If
something is truly mundane, it is used hundreds of times a day and thousands of times a
week, by every living thinking human. Slight changes in something used that many times
daily by that many people can have immense effects. Often the effect is a change in per-
sonal productivity by a factor of 10 to 100 times the productivity of prior self and others.
Such leaps in intellectual and/or social productivity by themselves open new vistas of cre-
ativity, innovation, and ability to amaze self, others, and history (see the Productivity Model
of Creativity from my book Are You Creative? 60 Models).
There is a rich history of monastic innovations--with two meanings of the word “monastic”:
one, the invention of new mundanities we all know and use everyday by actual religious
Change what
all others
assume & use
without thinking
The Fate of Civilizations
The Destiny of Entire Cultures
DOMINANCE HISTORIC
OF MARKETS FAME
(iProduct LEVELS OF
Powers) CREATIVITY
PERSONAL GROUP & IDEA &

CAREER COMPANY PRODUCT
POWER POWER INVENTION
POWER
MEETINGS DISCUSSIONS PROCESSES & BRAINSTORMS PROSE

replaced by replaced by CLASSES replaced by replaced by
SCIENTIFIC STRATIFIED replaced by SOCIAL FRACTAL
RULES OF RESPONDINGS MASS DESIGN PAGE
ORDER WORKSHOP AUTOMATA FORMS
EVENTS
The POWER of Changing Basic

Fundamental Interfaces
Page 7 Copyright 2001 by Richard Tabor Greene, All Rights Reserved, Government Registered Email: richardtgreene@alum.mit.edu
monasteries; two, what is thusly invented or re-invented is immensely mundane, the sort of
thing only intense religious monastics pay attention to and reform. For example, Benedic-
tine monastics in Spain over 1000 years ago, and Rinzai zen monastics in Japan about the
same time, simultaneously and independenly of each other, invented “the job”--the tradi-
tion of each person works for their own food and essentials, rather than depending on slaves
or personal servants.
Much of the digital revolution model of innovation above, in terms of its power and its power
to continually amaze us, is its change of fundamentals used by all every day--getting a ride,
getting a room, telling tales to friends, keeping track of kids and spouse and family, sending
erotic vibrations via cell phone calls to your lovers. However changing economic and life-
style fundamentals is not as fundamental as changing intellectual and social relationship
fundmentals. The more fundamental the strata you change, the more amplification of the
results you get from even slight changes done there.

!" !"&
#$ %
% #$ %&
& )&
'(""!$!$) % $*$ '( "" !$!$ # :! $ -
)+ ,$ + ,$ $-,",;$$ $"5+ -$+ /$+
)$"!!"*$$$$-$$$$ -/+ $0>>> $, # . $
$!+ ) .-$+ # .""#?,$+.#$?,$
/ $$ ,$!,$ . $ $$-$ . $$ @% -/ $ $ :$ ( #$
$!+
. "" $$0 1( .$ *, $A ( #$ *, ." '$+ 1+ 2+
$+ ,! $- * -"$* 2( "$B(#$-$.$=.
"" !" ,! $ $A $A(#$
& $ -$ 3" 4 -5 -$ -$""$-+-*,.A
,( 6( !$7 - $- 8( ( #$ -$ . *, 3#
"+ $ .-$+ $- $0 9( *, $!$ $+ #$ $ . $( (
:,$ $ -$0
;
#$ $ :! /"" -5 *,

-$/<$-". "5"*
"5"* $ $5
-$!=$$-$$0 ."$.,$,A
!")
#$%
)%
) ,$ . !$+ $ -+ # $* 0 -,$
","* !$ 4 $. $$ & $ $$ 4 < 0
$+-*5/%
)%>>>$$#-*!$+$
-+#$*0.,$$+$!"!
#$->!#*.#$4".:,-$3-*,!$
+C:)+ (0
!")= !"
@
#$D) #$

'( !,$ !!" $ 8 9 F !
-$+ -$- !,$ $
'( . 9E -" . $/$*+ 86
-"./$+9E!!$+ -$ $ " $!" 1(
96$,""$*-+96-. -$"!$# =5*!>
"" ,"$,+ $0 $ !! . . $$ !$ $ * "
-* !""" #5! $- , $ *2($,"$-$/""
/$1(/"$-$./" ! = !$" ,"$ $ :$ " .
!$" !,$ $$ #"" - $ -5 !6(.#,1E$'EE,"$
!#.," /"" !,$ ,"$ $ . $ ,-,"$ . 8 $ F !
/$2(--"$$
./"$-!$"!,$$*! -$8(.$,,-,"$+5
6(!,.,.12 $ /" ,! $ !,$ ,"$
*'1>,*/$.'E$1EE!""" !,$ $ &- . &.. $"0
#5! $- -5 !$" !,$ $$ $!"$ :$!"$ - $
/$,""*-8( ,$!$!$ -$/$,$$"*#$0
" $ /$+ !," $ @D+ &+
+@,$$,"$0
FRACTAL 40
lose ego
= lose suffering
= lose need for death
THIS REPLACES PROSE
see count, names, &
death unneeded =
lose suffering in life
by dropping ego, self
PAGE
when self & mind
drop away what
38 remains-- 39
when compassion so empathy
mind goes death is
for creatures
order of points at a
what is left? unneeded tortured by
compassion their separatenesses
when mind drops 13 creatures torturing
what is left? compassion selves with separateness
FORMS
Dropping Self Drops Suffering
34 what we fear loss of creates all our worry so 37
our losing it brings happiness not trouble, so
when
mind is losing self in life makes death unneeded beyond
glance. Replace a
worry
creator, separations
shown by We fear the self-shut suffering goes
meditation downs we seek, but when see beyond
meditation reveals separation/worry
mind as worry creator dropping self suffering goes
relieves us of if escape our own
we seek yet fear loss
32 suffering mind & thought
we of self yet self 33 35 suffering goes 36
seek causes worry but caused by
bad 8000+ year

when away when
in ecstasy all our beyond
what we fear suffering
ego beyond mind
in death comes from self thoughts suffering goes
suffering goes
we seek what and its separateness when not led by when look beyond
death provides yet 11 buddha self gives 4 our own thoughts 12 own mind
fear death = strange us life as suffering suffering goes suffering goes
A Solution to the Fundamental Problem of Human Existence:
old interface!
22 Degrees of being a self from brain modules create religious experiences,
31
self is
drugs birth, anaesthesia, and ecstasy show us what death brings, namely, an ocean of joy, a petty
shut down so what we fear losing, our self/ego is what tortures us with worry--if we let self thing that
other modules, drop away in life we do not need death--we can be happy while alive. shuts out more
ex. flow of than it includes
consciousness one
example: drugs THE OVERALL ARGUMENT: self as pettyness
shut in-body module The degrees of being our selves come from that shuts out more
ways to shut down our self’s basis in interacting brain mod- what we most seek--
specific modules = ecstasy--equals
20 death in life or 21 ules some of which we can shut down 29 self drops away 30
religious in meditation, with drugs, in ecstasy, leaving ocean in ec-
various experiences zazen all of life of joy stasy self
religious shuts down all of which bring joy and meaning;
we seek drops away
practices shut I am in my body
down brain modules 7 module Dropping away of brain modules ecstasy
10 leaving oceanic joy
meditation shuts example: zazen brings oceanic pleasure, because ecstasy = self
down brain modules shuts in-body module suffering is generated by our life as ecstasy search drops away, joy ocean
Degrees of Being Me minds/egos; when we stop We’ve Already Been Dead
25 the answer to the death question of what 28
in birth, anaesthesia, ecstasy we all know
we fear the most what we week the most
16 degrees being our own minds,
of being and not being a self come 19
from particular brain modules suffering/separateness remains of awareness?
modules we wonder
as kids we Being a self is quantal interacting end bringing joy so
closed eyes
what is left Injury, birth, anaesthesia awoke hours
fear ego death
cuz self is inter- create us-ness we no longer need of awareness? and ecstasy shut down later, no sense
just as ego
starts developing acting brain mod- we are neuronal death for release what is left of parts of us, pre- noofsense time lost
see ego end at ego start ules some of tea party awareness? figuring death of gap
from suffering.
brain modules inter- the death question, we know the answer:
the question of our which we can
acting create our
experience before birth and in
14 existence? 15 shut down 17 sense of self/ego 18 23 when all modules 24
go, what aware-
26 anaesthesia 27
experiences
self is injury ness is left? death
we all what is from brain so there shuts down shuts down in surgery
are degrees modules, what was it
fear the point modules inter- some modules we lost sense
gradually or like before we
death of living if of being a self 1 of time elapse
5 2 acting = be partly us all at once 3 were born--
self = brain 6 degrees of
we die, we wonder. as modules join in 9
we fear death injury shuts 8 death shuts by we remember
point of living? system interplay being oneself modules by degree degree or at once seen it before born time loss in anaesthesia
Read in order from box 1 to box 40, or, inversely, read from box 14 to 40 first, then read from 5 to 13, then read from 2 to 4, then read box 1 last; these are top down reading and bottom up, respectively.
Now add to this simultaneous change in several mundane functions--what we write and
read, how we read and write, how we discuss, how we meet, etc. Changes in these done
simultaneously can expand intellectual and social productivity to hundreds of times prior
levels or levels of those around you--opening immense vistas of new creativity and innova-
tion. The stock valuations of Silicon Valley firms in the years around 2015, for example,
price in a host of “disruptions” in rather monastic basics of life and work.
Part of this monastic level of innovation from the web and software apps and smartphones is
a very slow gradual realization of how much of thought, feeling, action depend and come
from information we have or lack. Immense American amounts of worry whenever a child is
slightly late, is greatly alleviated when non-call realtime smartphone video snapshots allow
parents to check on location, threats, and overall safety in and around their remotely
located children. Being able to “be there” and “see/hear” there will enable an immense
layer of worry to be lifted from American parents and parents of other gun-toting, violent
societies. Smartphones in pockets will not achieve this but tiny camera sensors in shirts and
THE NEXT
A Fractal Concept Model Summary of All the Points Made in this Chapter
find heaven show own kids tools for fools the T-shirt cou- Manage Conquer Perceive Paradox Mental Travel
was always life of respect, = money for rage test: if you Emergence: commit to vic- embracing what the violation of
here, never slough trend/fad; fools = selling have to wear a set up automatons tory, establish does not work, all boundaries
creativity tools among populns. exceptionless fails to compute, and norms seek-
away, we just poise from an for $ while 60 suit, too wimpy
64 audience of the of ideas, then discipline, make frustrates, ing the
missed knowing to create
recog- Benefits unborn they do Not Tools, anything tune & The Model: creating disorients The Model: new &
WORD
prune 48 Use It to the norm
nizing it of 63 not work But 59
Create
47 44 Create a rare 43
fame, Create- eliminate meet 1 Create-79 coach Create Creative Think Make Creative Make
works, Analysis what
80
per 2 or Analysis bosses/ Creation Works 76 generate Interior Life 75 Exterior
4 week, execs of Machine associate Room Room
and sex; squanders full panoply of decompose, & the emotional the time and
works that rep- time, de-focusses track progress teams to permit
the subcreations
on 8 functions that enable preparatory sub- map analogies space for facilities for
resent you when you, and
creations that among creating creating
and where you belittles of the rec. final creative
PROCESSOR
your enable the final ideas
are not 61
worth 62 How to model 57 works 58
creative work45 46
Creation 41 42
loving what all going Create flow from the nastiness, Result = distin- Models of Clarity Any envt. Illusion: assess
others hate: where 84 tuning in- toughness, & quish creativity 54 83 that helps firm environmt.
from effective- orthogonal 1 or 2 models for creating--
failures, anoma- forbidden, teractions courage of flex-
& pruning noise ing parts of life,ness etc.; 7000 disciplines, of creating
lies, tangles, violating all, including thereby hinders how it hinders
paradox, using the till creations people, many more & enables
relations, creativity, other
delusions TheModel: discards appear The Model: ways of 9 years. effectiveness, models Creativity creating
PROJECT
52 Step Style 51of others 56 Step Style 55living 36 Creativity etc. 35 40 Represen- 39
Relationally 315, 5 in 150
get rid of and Feel:77 revising takes 8 and Feel:78 a lifetime ortho tationally Each
hassle Create Life all in your to 10 Create Works of mind fields = Defined 73 each of creators Defined74 model
generators; life till it years at extensions 63 strata, define has
12-16 hrs./day; that amplify you determines nominate 150 in
achieve great completely and who rises to each ortho field, their own models about 20 key
only supports those unable to and make top of variables and
productivity to
wait 8 years to you Tools don’t all tra- who define it = of creating =
get enough free your creating create; ditional Ortho Field 34 60 overall
required envir-
create are inca- intelligent models onmental con-
time to create49 50 Ordinary fields 33 Research Project
pable of it 53 54 37 ditions 38
Example 3:
each week,
Example 2: try Result: creation surveil-
try 2 jobs in to get two full hated there = lance
time jobs at the disguise, work- causes
highly different; same time, with arounds, scarf- extreme
= impossible full bene- ing, &
people don’t
create;
Only creators feel
create 85
conform- all 1st create
we all the world needs Lake Wobegone: if all of us are
more creativity where all kids creative then
creative than it now has are above
cuz we cuz it quickly
bores us as we
average!
none of us are
= the rarity of
being creative.
My studio will
change all of
ism + a self, as
in any Looking fits = skunk- Firms 67 risk aver- our 1st 32 Five quickly get Garbage
used to it
firm 16 Creative impossible 15 works 12 Prevent sion 11 creation Confusions 31 28 Can 27
extreme Not Being Example invention Sub- businesses all are within wanting effective, Words:71 contra-
72
rutted- Creative68 1: try to of life- creations outlaw creative Creating to be more educated, Creative dictory
ness & get 5 such =we all creative creative uses:
place & style subcreations generate
world history
cowardice in desks per person workplace & things; than we now are = words used we need more of X.
& add all cannot be = wanting everyone is X,
businesses = = impossible style innova- constant creative =
easily but with
we say both
tions pre- to stand
people look not in any Phony cede surveillance = creativity is rare, out, 30
foggy
be, creative 13 firm 14 stands out 29 be unique, Creativity 25meaning
Routes creations 9 no isolation 10 26
Confu-
to 81 interviews the model they exagger- to Western tests measure
via inventing
only people only tested against ate both their celebrate sions societies courageless,
creating new people Creating of 150 getting 82
tend to
11 others, gutless, body-
kinds of tools having creators found to be the tolerance for anything mentalize
creativity and even a little new creativity, less, revenge-
end up creating creative lives produced only 1creators their through bulky un-socializing less, wimpy
create highly identified business
Source achieve- Exagger- bureau- disem- Cerebral forms of
The similar with ment of it bodying
of ation cracies 19 it 24 Substitutes flexing 23
new fundamental
4 3 model 8 7 20
Tools These
busi- of 69 to look mental for 70 because
Illusion Absurd-
65 ities 66 nesses Creativity good for flexing Creativity it is flex
7000+ & per- career & asso- of easy
tools never ordinary recommenda- categorized purposes ciative breadth riskless test
make anyone people cannot tions by into 128, 64, sons exagger- items, not life-
on creativity
interfaces!
ate their
creative be creative, researchers of 32, 16, 4 cate- creativity tests has no style, spousal
ever creativity gories by relation to relations, views
1 2 5 grouping 6
constantly 17 18 creativity 21 of authorities 22
headbands or caps will enable this--serviced by dis-interested third party “guards” (human
or machine), such smartwear might track and protect children everywhere they go, with
enough privacy to let kids goof and grow.
So there are two frontiers--mundane innovations more fundamental than changes in informa-
tion parts of our lives that the digital revolution is only beginning to spot and modify and
those further changes in our lives that the digital revolution has yet to reach and modify.
This chapter’s model of innovation--the Monastic Innovation Model---concerns both, but pri-
marily the former--changes in things more mundane and ancient than information itself in
our lives. A good mix is the diagram provided here of simultaneous changes in five such
mundainities--how we read, write, discuss, meet, process work, brainstorm, and what we
read and write. Alternatives to prose, as a way of writing are given in two other diagrams--
both of them with an emotion-conveying image background, a main point in large font, and
then a new fractal page form way of writing that reveals instantly at a glance, that is, visu-
ally, the COUNT (number of points on a page), the NAMES (of all points on the page on sev-
eral levels), and the ORDER (how those point are ordered. Prose is an interface so very bad
that it hides those three--the count, names, and order. Prose requires elaborate de-coding
to find “the points” in it. In fact prose is such a bad interface that people who are good at
finding points in it end up at the world’s top universities--only geniuses can generally find all
the points in passages of prose text. Indeed, Harvard MIT grads when tested are unable to
get all three--the count of points present, the names of them all, and how all are ordered.
Indeed, in an ironic wrinkle, the digital revolution, is slowly, step by step, re-inventing “the
job” that the Benedictine monks and Rinzai zen monks co-invented. The people with in-
demand talent can now work for several firms at the same time, doing several jobs at the
same time, with pay for deliverables not time put in. Dutch people now often change from
all day one each week working in one company at one job, to combining several part-time
jobs, each in a different role and industry, each week--collecting pension and medical bene-
fits with each. The job is being dissolved into more fluid arrangements with more psychic
balance and health--enabled by the power of software to coordinate vastly faster and more
than administrative humans could.
Indeed there are many mundane unexamined aspects of our lives that are overly harsh, bor-
ing, simple, and unchanging today due to cognitive coordination ability limits of running
things with male “executives” trained at “top” schools--they never had the mental ability
that humane and creative working populations needed. So for centuries, people labored in
dull repetitive jobs uniform, steady, and simple enough for feeble executive brains to “coor-
dinate”. We are just now week by week, quarter by quarter, liberating humankind from
these leader-feeble-mentality-caused shackles and uniformities. Burn out, in jobs, comes
almost always due to asking people to do 5 days a week, all day every day, an activity that is
too intense, too narrow, too unhealthy. Just imagine jobs split between 3 days of “caring
for the elderly” and “selling iphones to techies”--the one repairs damage to people done by
the other, the one rests over-worked emotions or mentalities developed by the other, the
one restores humanity and sensitivities lost by the other. This is just splitting jobs into two
pieces balancing each other in one dimension. If we split jobs into 3 weekly parts--also bal-
ancing but across more types of dimensions, an even more humane, powerful, skilled society
with fewer cases of burn out becomes possible. The idea of the job as doing the same thing
all day for weeks and years at a time is clearly FOR keeping things simple for feeble execu-
tive mentalities. The cost humanity has paid for these simplifications of work is immense.
At a certain point, that cost becomes evil.

THE MONASTIC CHANGE MODEL OF INNOVATION
the implementation
questions
HOW DO YOU DO THIS? This model of innovation involves one simple step--choosing four or five
simultaneous mundane fundamentals of intellectual or social life to
make serious fundamental modifications in, and a second harder step--
making a change in something mundane that millions of other people can
be rather easily persuaded to make with you. Of course at first you may
need only a hundred in your firm or a few thousand customers to make
the change, but from a core, the change has to grow virallly.
WHAT ARE THE MAJOR OBSTA- Extremely few grads of top elite colleges are capable of imagining
CLES YOU ENCOUNTER? changes, that work and others would accept, in such fundamentals as
how we read, write, present, discuss, brainstorm, process work, and the
like.

THE MONASTIC CHANGE MODEL OF INNOVATION
the implementation
questions
WHY DO MANY NEVER ATTEMPT MBA types cannot see how vast the multipliers are for changes in things
IT? repeatedly used so many times a day by so many people. They simply
consider such thoughts too philosophical, too impractical, too dreamy
for their male-ish mindsets and images of self. Japan traditions of cog-
nitive competitiveness in every workgroup via every few years upgrading
of six tools for intellectual work, fit this mode of monastic change inno-
vation quite well.
5. The Innovation-as-Culture-Work Model

of Innovation
When we review the really major global changes in business practice of the last 120 years,
we find nothing from colleges of business, nothing from professorial analyses, nothing from
higher education. All the major global changes in business practice came from techniques
from one national business culture invading other business nations and cultures around the
world.
*

+,- ./ (0 (0
)8
&1 (0 3+453+#
3+453+#
2 !2 ( (
! ( 99

*9
++

) ( !&!
" 67 " ! # " ! :;
! 1 & $! . 2
$
( ( &

< ( 2 2
#2= >9
*
+ >

@
%
2 ( ! &
" A
$= (!! !
< > '(
! B( (
" C ). 2 (> "
7 (!
# ) !
$
$

%#!7 !

# (
#( ! + ( #
> % ( ! :#;
# ( ( ( (!! # >
( 2 ! +
(
( ( 8! > "
" #! #

" " (
&!# (
- ? " / ! >

CULTURE ONE CULTURE TWO

Where in 64 social processes
How do 64 dimensions of this
of all parts of society does each
culture interact with 64 dimen-
dimension interaction appear?
sions of another culture?
People with more theories notice more, live in larger worlds
THE CULTURE MIX MODEL

MIX CULTURE TYPES: ERA, GENDER, PROFESSION, DEVICE, USER, NATION, ORGANIZATION
modify cultures, apply operators to them: fuse/split, weaken/strengthen, soften/harden
BE WHERE MULTIPLE FRAMES-INTERPRETATIONS ABOUND
EXPANDED OTHER CULTURE
REPERTOIRES AS METAPHOR
see alternative FOR OTHERNESS
PENETRATING ANOTHER CULTURE IS AN OF SOLUTIONS
ways to do, see, INSIGHT PROCESS--BUILD FAILURE INDEX solutions as
and feel. CONSTANT TILL IT SPECIFIES EVENTUAL SOLUTIONS PRACTICE cultural others
SURPRISE MAPPING
DIFFERENCES
practice handling forces mental
the unexpected distinctions &
accurate
ABSENT rewordings
MESSAGE RELATIVIZE
NOISE OWN VALUES
no adds, dis- see entire system
interest in your AVAILABLE different than own “solve”
see/hear ideas yet it works other
things not EMOTION cultures
see an display & use of seeing by find core
imaginable entire emotions hidden predictive
in own two talking
culture
other world percept
vacuum
in own culture systems more exactly patterns as
made by without each thinks finer practice
other draws out only its ways distinctions
creativities hidden fuller experience of are right = better
self living, more feeling both namings
powers wrong
CREATIVITY
Effortless: solve X in A via
Y from B; Y is usual in B
but seen as creative in A
My father fighting Germans on the Western front could not say it or admit it openly, but
nearly everything about the German army that he fought was better than its corresponding
thing in the US army. So you shot your first German to get good boots, your second to get
bazookas that blew up the enemy tank not the shooter of it, and so on. German tanks had
two-way radios so tank commanders could communicate up local conditions and surprises
whereas American tanks had one way radios so central commander dictators could send five
tanks uphill against 200 enemy tanks to their death and no profit for lack of a way to find out
that central commander intelligence of battlefield conditions was flawed. Tens of thousands
of young boys died due to American battlefield dictatorship traditions.
The result--my father and his generation studied 1920s German management principles, in
American for two decades, after that war, with the word “German” stripped off of them,
and the words “management by objectives” put on them in its stead by an Austrian immi-
grant to America, Peter Drucker.
A later generation of Americans, no longer able to wait for top ten global colleges of busi-
ness to learn and respond, set up their own industry universities--the American Supplier
Institute, the Crosby College in Florida, and others--teaching not professorial analyses, but
Japanese quality methods and statistics. Total quality, the most far-reaching and global
change in business practice in history, came from Japan, not from colleges of business and
their professors. Similarly the web came from CERN and the touch interface came from
CERN--both Swiss. CATIA, the dominant CAD software in the world came from Franch and
French math-heavy education, and SAP, the dominant manufacturing process software in the
world came from German meister shops and their need for keeping expensive German-made
machne tools processing. Wave after wave of major business practice change came from
techniques crossing cultures. 30 years after Silicon Valley changed global business product,
process, and practice--East Coast USA top colleges reluctantly, datedly, superficially, sprin-
kled a few “entrepreneurship” courses around on their finance uberalles traditions and fac-
ulty. A pitiful display, one has to admit. It takes “top” faculty in the US’ “top” colleges 30
years to superficially “look like” they too understand and do something that decades earlier
changed the world. There is no better way to be 30 years out of date than attend a top
American college of business.
When you add to this the majority of founders of Silicon Valley ventures who are immigrants
holding non-US passports, and the entrepreneural diaporas around the world of Jews in
Amsterdam and Manhattan, Chinese in Southeast Asia, Japanese in Brazil, and so on--you get
a picture of culture crossing as at the core of innovation.
Indeed, in one of my other books I presented the Culture Mix Model of Creativity, shown
below. Innovation--changing the world with a creative idea--is fostered in corresponding
ways: 1) you see differently when into the other’s cultures new techniques/ways 2) you see
how they view your own culture and ways while learning foreign ways 3) you relativize your
local sense of rightness and best by the mere fact of examining others’ ways that have
marched around the world defeating you and others unexpectedly--freeing you up to love
you own ways less, and perhaps change 4) just look at the model and it is easy to find anal-
ogies in innovation for all the dynamics on that Culture Mix Model of Creativity.
WHAT IS THE CORE OF THIS INNOVATION MODEL

--You Innovate When you Counter 15 Cultures--
1) COUNTER WESTERN CULTURE’S DESCARTIAN DENIGRATION OF BODY--Jesus and
his followers did us in by showing and enshrining contempt for sex and the
body. Actually it was the people after Jesus in two waves--the first wave tak-
ing Greek philosophy and using it to split God into 3 parts while surviving on
the margins of Roman decline; the second wave, editing out of the bible all
books that gave people direct access to the divine--forcing them to depend
on priests. Millenia later, executives launch flashy initiatives that no one
bothers finishing; Japanese and Apple suffer through laborious mastery of
technologies that American and EU competitors offer slap-dash versions of;
foolish executives by the thousand soak up (and pay for) “top” college profes-
sor analyses having nothing to do with reality or results or impact; to inno-
vate you have to counter this culture.
2) COUNTER “TOP” GLOBAL COLLEGE ACADEMIC CULTURE OF ANALYSIS UBER-
ALLES--massive hordes of professors work assiduously every day in media,
articles, conferences, consults inserting betweeen passion and result, idea
and action, experiment and innovation--analysis, shallow MBA levels of
pseudo-maths, elite snobberies of desk size, wife size(s), pay size; stratifying
eating, parking, pay, pension, authority arrangements into European social
classes of the Louis XIV ilk. To innovate you have to strip analysis and
social class stratification traces left behind by massive professorial
injections of what they are good at (which is anything BUT business). It is
hard to emphasize enough how this culture of academia inserts analysis and
elite snobberies like an Alzheimer’s plaque between thought and deed, com-
mand and deed, initiative and change, creation and innovation, slowing
things down, gumming things up, drawing things out till all motive, passion,
enthusiasm peters out. Publications are particularly dangerous--all of them
because they depend directly or indirectly on academic for getting stuff to
stuff in their articles and pages--whether it is real or honest or decent or
effective is irrelevant--they have pages to pack and need stuff. But I come
into contact, again and again, with real business people, whose minds are
infected with analysis uberalles and elites uberalles diseases fostered in aca-
demia at “top” colleges--these have nothing to do with business but somehow
get into minds and make entire careers, lives, products, and corporations--
worthless.
3) COUNTER THE CULTURE OF BIG-NESS--big organizations, everywhere, ruin
innovation, ruin control, ruin coordinated action, ruin passion, ruin speed,
ruin thought, ruin initiative. We all completely know this yet only a few have
countered bigness powerfully--Gortex, for example, countering both bigness
and monkey hierarchy. Big organizations expose you to too much audience--
a vast number sort of see and know what you are up to but without complete
context--yet they react and undermine, often based on totally offbase inter-
pretations of things--making it such a hassle to try to do anything that, over
time, people give up initiating at all. Big organizations expose you to too lit-
tle audience at the same time--so much hubbub and noise, chaos and petty
continual exaggerated chances that nothing heads in a consistent direction

for more than a few days at a time--making it nearly impossible to hold a
direction, nearly impossible that the specs that created your program will be
there mid-way toward realizing it, unchanged, and nearly impossible to get
visibility to a great idea or breakthru till too late. To innovate you have to
counter these and other aspects of the culture of bigness.
4) COUNTER THE CULTURE OF CAPITALISM--the fake variety it generates (100
shampoos all with 99.8% identical ingrediants), the products and services that
directly harm health or side-effects of their production harm it, sedentary lif-
estyles generated by conveniences that in turn generate heart disease and
other causes of early disability and death, regular bouts of inequality as elites
become disgusted with the mores and smells of ordinary people in their soci-
eties, a constant braying noise of striving striving striving and inter-personal
comparison that erodes all happiness into anxiety, envy, and self destruction
via drugs and “outs”. New “innovative” products are constantly announced
to sell dis-satisfaction with products consumers have just bought--to speed up
new purchases. These and other traits of capitalist culture must be coun-
tered in order to do real substantial innovation.
5) COUNTER THE CULTURE OF MALES--it is hard to believe there are readers any-
where not already completely aware of this--but ordinary workplace behav-
iors every day contradict that, so here goes the obvious--males absolutely fill
workplaces with verticality, constantly taking attention off horizontal deliv-
ery of care and power to clients, emphasizing instead ass kissing, territory
fights, strutting displays of personal power, random acts of cruelty to under-
lings to keep them “in line”, backbiting and undermining of any good initia-
tive of others they compete with, and a litany almost endless. Women in the
workplace either absorb these absurdities or watch on the sidelines as most
of “work” gets filled with these monkey-isms, leaving actual “business” and
“work” to the margins or competitors. I watched corporate VPs at Xerox talk
male crotches in front of their one female VP for half an hour just to make
her feel unwelcome--she shifted the conversation to ball sizes to make them
eventually feel uncomfortable. Because of excesses of maleness in work-
places, not enough attention is given to horizontal client needs, products,
and care to sustain the business. To innovate you have to counter these
inane verticalizations of workplaces by male cultures. A subset of this
point is how actual business needs and conditions are not seen at work--male-
nesses direct all attention at territory, status, celebrity leaders and other
verticalities, making actual business needs and conditions invisible. Again
and again major corporations have chosen death to survival, as these internal
vertical agendas outweighted external business survival challenges invisible
within.
6) COUNTER THE CULTURE OF TOOLS AND TOOL USE--part of this is a giant excuse
for snobbery promoted by top American colleges of business. The first MBA
programs circa 1900, sprinkled “scientific management” tools on daddy’s
lady-chasing son to justify promoting him over the guys who built the business
with daddy. Major consultancies, then and now, have brochures that read
strangely---they are selling “hired brains” to such tool-cootie-sprinkled sons,
must in case girl-chasing left few mental capabilities in daddy’s son. So
there is a deep tradition of colleges of business providing method/tool cover
stories for class system mini-aristocracy dynamics that ruin businesses, but
perpetuate slightly family wealth and fame. It is hard to separate this

majority of top college of business research and teaching from the minority
of actual examination of real creativity, innovation, or work. Tools get
invented as improvisations by people having great motivation from crisis or
genius. They reach fame from associated deeds and get copied and taught to
others, who, lacking that great motivation, get far less from using them.
They lie fallow and get used for other purposes and wrong purposes for a
while, till they end up so added on to and distorted that no one can figure out
why anyone ever liked or used them. This evolution from effective begin-
nings as a marriage of great motive with improvised tooling to death from
mis-use and add-ons happens to all tools--cloud computing, QFD quality func-
tion deployment’s houses of quality, and all others. A subset of this sickness
is people trained too long and too much, sitting too long and too much, in col-
leges, practicing daily non-action, non-creation, non-innovation, told that
the pile of “tools” and “analyses” that professors fills them with, will some-
how become later on---power, results, impact. This is a lie. Colleges gener-
ate students who are exposed to a zillion tools with little or no motive, mis-
used casually by student teams in exercises so students expect the tool
itself to magically DO something good for them or their project. The
whole style of college, even in project and action-learning classes, is forcing
students with poor, wrong, or no motivation to “use proper tools properly”.
The results is making students into a primitive tribe believing that such tools
have a magical ability, by themselves, without students powerfully motivated
powerfully using them in a direction, to get things done. Tools become a
substitute for results and effort, not a help to them. To innovate you have
to counter this culture of tool use, and the magical hope in students that
tools by themselves will do things.
What if innovations themselves are a sort of tool, in

the sense of this section? Then innovations get
created out of powerful motives in crisis or genius
situations, but decay in direction and power of
doing as time goes on and they get passed into the
hands of non-originators. Eventually with people
of little motive mis-using them for purposes they
are not well suited for, all conclude the innovation
itself is poor and needs improvement by-----another
innovation!
7) COUNTER THE CULTURE OF THE U.S.A.--where almost no one lives in the

present, so the present is hugely ugly and dangerous; instead everyone lives
in their aims and dreams for next year or the year after next. Visiting East
Asians and Europeans are astonished at the daily life uglinesses that Ameri-
cans put up with, compared to conditions in their non-USA homes and they
are buoyed by how even the poorest and least advantaged Americans live out-
side the present in future aims and dreams, however modest. Elites in the
USA, unencumbered by responsibilities or funding of the lowest 1/4th of their
population, are mobile, flexible, and fundable for initiatives that are multi-
ples of what elites in East Asia and the EU attempt. The asperger’s nature of
Silicon Valley people and products--excesses of maleness in the USA tech
communities, make for innovations that do not seem to provide much

improvement in quality of life. Jobless people with smartphones do not look
or feel ideal to non-Americans. Yet more Americans are at work than people
in the EU, and educated middle class Americans are more at work than equiv-
alent middle class Chinese. Ugly present, unencumbered elites trying a
lot, excess maleness of producer and product making for innovations
that do not greatly improve quality of life for most people--these
aspects of American culture must be countered if you are to innovate.
8) COUNTER THE CULTURE OF MONKEY HIERARCHIES--British research (never
American) finds that the larger an organization and the higher your rank in it,
the more psychopathic aspects your personality has and the more primate the
contents of your treatment of self and others. Size increases insensitivity to
persons and verticality of goals and effort. Similarly, long projects cause
developers to replace customer requirements with conveniences for them-
selves, the developers, till products the customers dislike or dis-serve
emerge. Also, monkey see monkey do dominates so that all the monkeys
copy “what works” with other observed monkeys nearby till all the monkeys
are similar in capability and aim and viewpoint, then a giant change of envi-
ronment makes the entire workforce of monkeys unable to survive. Work,
projects, career moves gradually become more and more vertically, status
oriented, with anything shared or horizontal broken up by territory fights. To
innovate you have to counter these traits of monkey hierarchy cultures.
The culture of economic development requires a pop-

ulation of strivers--Grondana write in a chapter in
Samuel Huntington’s book Culture Matters. Such a
population of strivers you would think, on logic
grounds, could include striving vertically for status,
rank, promotion, visibility, riches, lording over infe-
riors, and could include striving horizontally to
please customers and more customers more than
anyone else. The Japanese invented total quality
as a counter to the monkey heirarchy verticality of
male Japanese traditions of management. They
encouraged a different direction of striving.
This amounts to countering the culture of monkey
hierarchies.
9) COUNTER THE CULTURE OF HIERARCHY AMONG PROFESSIONS--Bledstein in the

Culture of Professionalism described European class system snobberies re-
appearing in anti-class-system American in the form of snobberies and differ-
ences of status among professions--with medicine at the top, followed by law,
and the female service professions, at the bottom. The Concorde disaster,
that ended that plane and industry, was caused, official reports concluded,
by a contempt of highly elite French managers for their non-elite workers, so
workers left metal objects on a runway that the Concorde hit a high speed.
The Challenger and Columbia space shuttle disasters, similarly, came from
MBAs as a profession over-ruling engineer warnings (to keep to budget and
schedule at a cost of dead astronauts and public loss of support for the space
program (killing budgets for the next 20 years). Typical of MBA results---
impressive efficiency today at a cost of program death for ages afterwards,

GE research gutted to re-sell divisions at high prices, till the next chairman
repaired the unadmitted harms done. When different sources and kinds of
knowledge are ranked regardless of the knowledge importance and content--
disaster is a natural result. Status substitutes for correct thinking are pure
suicide, personally and industrially. To innovate you have to undo this sub-
stitution of rank valuing of knowledge types over contents of the knowl-
edge valuing of them.
10) COUNTER THE CULTURE OF ENGINEERS--The culture of engineers is rather
uniform across time and around the world--they test out as hiding behind
maths their personal dislike of and ineptitude at social and emotional things,
they study a vast repertoire of tools for everything but handling power and
money, they suffer late career bitterness at how great designs of theirs got
side-tracked or destroyed by managers, and other powerful others, they pre-
fer working alone in spite of being on countless teams, they tweak past
designs and performances for the most part and rarely do actual engineering
of new features, functions, capabilities, or product aspects. Budget and
schedule pressures constantly prevent and erode any excellence that they
might imagine or aim for. Steve Jobs fought these aspects of engineer culture
completely and relentlessly, but not impolitely--he was resented because he
did not suggest particular limited improvements but urged changes in atti-
tude and “culture of engineering”. To innovate you have to counter these
and other features of the culture of engineers and engineering.
11) COUNTER THE CULTURE OF M.B.A.s--selected by top colleges for self concern
(drive), analytic bent (test scores), ambition (male monkey hierarchy hor-
monal traits), and trained by faculty who were similarly selected, MBAs have
spread like a disease across world business, using econ theories as cover sto-
ries for rampant personal greeds and power plays, from the USA outward,
contaminating Spain, Australia, but not Japan or Germany, not Holland or
Sweden. They “professionalized” management the way the quality assur-
ance profession “professionalized” quality attainment. Japan demonstrated
that totalization of bodies of knowledge like quality, vastly outperformed US
professionalization of it. Germany demonstrated that composing manage-
ment as a committee function from narrow professions of meisters expert in
their limited domains, outperformed professional managers, and by a sub-
stantial margin the rest of Europe for decades in outcomes achieved. Silicon
Valley, recently invaded by departments moved from Harvard and MIT, and by
Wall Street finance types, and hedge funds, in finding, like an Alzheimer’s
plaque, status, snobberies, social class strata, analyses, elitenesses (and
other professorial delusions) inserting themselves in all innovation and other
work processes, slowing things down, misdirecting all, weakening the entire
fabric that made Silicon Valley great. The last act, of the East Coast religion
of business, is this invasion of the only remaining productivity leading area of
the USA. To innovate you have to counter just about every iota of what
top colleges do to MBAs minds and counter the kind of people who
become MBAs and who teach them.
12) COUNTER THE CULTURE OF USERS--toys for boys, bubbling male hormones, no
real improvements from techs used, do not find out what new techs can be
made to do, forced global substrate changes mistaken as innovations--are
some of the traits of users. Users tend to solve problems caused by depend-
ing on technologies by purchase of still more technologies--stupid to say the

least. It is clear that hormones of certain sorts drive user communities in
irrational directions. Perfecting neurotic, excessively male, techno-excess
traits, aims, functions of users may satisfy them but at the cost of keeping
them imbalanced, cruel, insentive to lives around them, and their own. To
innovate you have to counter these and other traits of the culture of
users.
13) COUNTER THE CULTURE OF TECHNOLOGIES AND VENDORS--toys for boys,
driven by male hormones towards useless new techs and tools, vendors push-
ing more connectedness, reducing difference and creativity, as if that is
always useful and safe (pulsed systems with rhythms of engagement and
detachment work better); minimal subsets of features are actually used by
users, cycle of tech delusions--the central control that caused mainframe
computing to be overthrown reappears a generation later as cloud computing
systems that are being similarly overthrown, big data and analysis tools pro-
moted everywhere tilting all business towards the neurotic psychopathic sub-
set of reality that has easy accurate data for it. To innovate you have to
counter these and other traits of the culture of technology and vendors.
14) COUNTER THE CULTURE OF DESIGN--design culture is split into an engineering
design half and an artistic aesthetic design half, the engineer half is well pai
but the other half is poor and rather powerless, buffetted about by more
powerful professions and persons, designers bitch at their conservative cli-
ents, who tend to want the least departure from safe present ways and things
they can get away with, rather than bold decisive designer ideas and moves.
Steve Jobs tilted the balance of power to make engineers work more rather
than tweak and he made aesthetic design much more central and powerful in
Apple and its products. To innovate you have to counter these and other
traits of the culture of design.
15) COUNTER THE CULTURE OF INDIVIDUALISM--the post-war dominance of
the world economy by the USA has led to a host of wrong conclusions
about how to think and act effectively. The two hundreds years of colo-
nial self rule accompanied with land that was in effect free (once its own-
ers were exterminated in ethnic cleansing) and isolation from massive
suicidal regular European wars--these three, not good quality leaders, not
the US constitution, not the US government, not economic genius, made
the US dominant. Research universities were invented by Liebig in Ger-
many but European wars plus USA robber baron monies in foundations for
graduate research, pulled Europe’s best minds to the USA, where post-war
competition in space, science, and economy with the Soviets, produced
ten+ year government funded programs, like the Apollo moon mission,
that evoked the emergence of Silicon Valley. Americans are singularly
ignorant of the sources of their power and wealth and hence rapidly losing
those bases as each generation, poorly educated (the poor without
schools, the elite made psychopathicly self concerned at Harvard), erodes
prior generation insights and institutional strengths. Most pernicious in
all this is the ideology of individualism which again and again makes Amer-
icans unable to spot and solve anything with a social not individual origin.
So giant prison populations burgeon as Americans think punishment solves
racist poverty divides in societies, their individualism blaming poor people
for their povety rather than freeing elites to spread schooling and health
and parenting to the poorest 1/6th of the US population. To innovate you

havfe to counter the culture of individualism and how it blinds leaders and
whole societies to actual institutional and social stratification causes of bad
outcomes.
Somewhat as the Zenovation Model of Innovation--the first in this book--above requires a

founder-leader Void Master (based on LSD, India, meditation, zen, Japan, design) who in turn
creates Void Masters of employees, products, then customers--this chapter’s model, the
Innovation as Culture Work Model, requires, perhaps, a Culture Master founder-leader who
selects/trains-up employees at Culture Masters, then makes products and finally customers
into Culture Masters.
To spot cultures takes a special perception and therefore emotion capability lacking in most
men and hierarchy-member monkeys. Again and again immense multi-decade business
disasters, like Euro-Disney, if caused by culture failure, remain, un-solved, un-resolved fes-
tering CEO after CEO. Men, especially the sub-set (sub in plural meanings) who become
CEO, are blind to cultures and hopeless at spotting and modifying them in spite of a lot of
professor-generated “case” articles on heroic male-monkey culture “deeds”.
I need here, in this point in this chapter a fast, powerful, convincing, hence visual image way
of getting readers intimidated by the vast work and powers of cultures and therefore the
vastness of work and talent needed to create, modify, and improve them. The figures below
should do the trick. First is a simplified model of 64 dimensions from four academic fields
for distinguishing any culture from any other at a level of detail specific enough to guide
action (unlike the hackneyed 40 year old Hofstede 8 categories that all the lazy academics
default, unthinkingly, to). Second, is a model of the 64 culture traits of high performance
teams of over 100 types studied by various people but most thoroughly by Vaill. Third is a
model of 64 types of culture--most work on culture in business tries to shift one type to
another type.
Since most innovation cultures in actual history countered, un-did, attacked cultures of
particular types (such as Japan’s TQM movement undoing the monkey veerticalities of tra-
ditional Japanese management culture), people, like naive academics, who try to sell you
“erecting special innovation-fostering cultures” are lying to you and wasting your time.
There is no one pro-innovation culture in history and the world. Anyone selling you one,
like Amabile at Harvard---all you have to do is ask for details on results of any one of their
bally-hoo-ed projects (bring a microscope). The amounts of “innovation” they actually
achieve will make you laugh out loud. THERE IS A REASON FOR THEIR LACK OF RESULTS--it
is not any one pro-innovation culture that produces “innovation” but rather, as THIS
chapter’s model has it, innovation comes from COUNTERING 15 CULTURES THAT ARE
THERE IN NEARLY ALL WORLD BUSINESSES.
I have already written the world’s (and history’s) best book on culture handling, so this sec-
tion of this book is not the place to explain all the details on the three models in detail. For
that I have other books. Here, it is enough for you to see the vast, detailed, global, emo-
tionally-rich land that culture spotting, modifying, and creating involve, via the Primer
below. That is my point here--countering 15 cultures is at least as much work as counter-
ing ONE culture! Scan the 3 models below, then read the Primer for details about them,
and some more models (a set of ten covers most of what we want to do with cultures).
P16 don’t
43
bother
others or
self
why can I not
make my own
story
CONTINGENCY
IMPACT
FUTILITY 42
41 will it/I make
a difference?
preserve:
peacefulness of
flaw:
death is exteriors
or
most real fairnness of ingratitude
or exteriors or
birth is Nisbet unfree
most real 44 why engage ugly
must I die? life
MORTALITY NAUSEA
EXISTENTIAL
QUESTIONS
Kukai, Lao Tsu, Sartre, Kierkegaard 39
35 SIN 48
Nisbet
TRAGEDY
why I don’t life is a how could I
do my plan my exper- have known adaptors
story of:
found situation or iences
the group
action or
or or experiences
play roles in
I or
made self am I heard/seen? work revolutionaries
meaning AUDIENCE 45
46 why does posses-
ing make me object
where is meaning?
EMPTINESS FLAW INAUTHENTICITY
NO ESCAPE
SITUATION why is not choos- CHOICE
ing also choosing 37 RESPONSE-ABILITY
what/who am I? 38
RELATIVITY
33 what is truth? 34 group acts the self is:
life/groups are or unitary across
people arrangements
tasks or
of:
ethnic selves act role = id
situations love the
or
or people groupbasis or varies by role
institutions Nisbet intent = id situation or
or Nisbet love the person
eternal function basis 47
why something?
36 why here, now? You can’t see me
40 why love dies?
MYSTERY ARBITRARYNS. FREEDOM LONELINESS
Dimensions for Distinguishing Cultures

11 Social Psych, Gender, Existential, Complexity, and Nisbett Models Combined
primacy: 56 gods: work: 52 27
life or immanent 63 pleasant end work to caring seniors:
or
quality substance
or or trans- or feel good
about self
one of life cendant unplea- or compe-
chance object sant work to critique titive
54 (attributes)
Nisbet 53 design means & improve self
exactitude
or
or 50
Nisbet 49 or
several chance
lives SACRED emergence WORK detail
TIME the world: COMPLEX results: PURPOSE
is sacred -ITY from effort
9 causation:
plural 10
or 61 world reality is: 62 or
25 preserve: 26
is fallen stable or in flux from talent save face or
distributed gradual [contracts
homo-
causes or always save truth
single local change renegotiable] geniety Nisbet
causes Nisbet or
or info
Nisbet avalanches 64 diversity
55 51
(mind to mind)
or 28 talk toorsolve
analysis 12 serial
or COMMUNITY
or relation
Geertz, Weisbord, Greene, Grunell, Todorov (person to person) talk for empathy
synthesis parallel
SOCIAL PSYCH self indulgent drive to center GENDER STYLE

asceticism or Tannen, de Beauvoir, Friedan
Hampden-Turner, Hofstede, Tropenaars or 60 drive to margins 19 23
3 contest 32 independent
humans 16 friends over 7 normalcy
Nisbet
or or
primary or rightness community
equal to Nisbet choice: Nisbet dependent
or right one pole contradiction:
other categories over harshness
friends or other tolerated
achieved
life or
14 relationships 13 inner or
tell
or
30 not tolerated 29 personalasrejection
or or 58 blended middle 57 or
outer or
ascribed
RELATION locus of control CREATION listen CONFLICT sign of respect
rank
right vs. right focus from single INPUT/ argumentative
EMOTION
RANK or
GROUP project OUTPUT or 21 22
2 right vs. wrong environment: 6
or 17 drive for 18 apologetic
backward
1 foreground item morality 5 focus from individual: reasoning
or
or controllable distinction
or parallel forward
background projects or reasoning
uncontrol- [vision is real fitting in
noticed lable Nisbet
Nisbet power from vs. case details
Nisbet feeling as mis-hearing
Nisbet are what is real] 31 as relation
hierarchy closeness individual universalist 59 status 20 exclusion interesting 24
or or 15 or or or or or
threat
egalitarian
4 power from communitarian 8 particularist connection inclusion as embarrassing
or
distance status threat
Copyright 2003 by Richard Tabor Greene, All Rights Reserved, Government Registered
Most businesses and academics use 8
Japan dimensions, 40 years old and too general

& vague to help--I use 64 recent ones
specific enough to fully describe a culture.
purity, self, know evolutn. conquer and create creation performance repertoire practice trans- practice
mind models experiment manage emer- machine & meshing management planting into innovating
system models gence think unusual venues
Switch Becoming Competitive Out-

Creativity Creative Entool Practice
Models
catalog social make mental peak pit automate practice
blend group interior travel perform perform acting, profes-
models models exterior spot reliable skippable reflecting, sionally
room paradox improving
reflecting
CREATE
P13 WAY
WARE
punch line despair prune tune interac- non-perfunc- value ruthless member-
last straw doorway noise tions till emer- tory commit- intrinsics bench- tactic omis-
gence ment marking sion doing
Insight Tuning Automate Process

Dynamics Automatons Processes Repertoire
alternate accumulate set up set up develop impro- no per- sudden

engage failure automa- reflec- predic- vise res- mission venue
detach index ton tion table ponse to style
system routines challenges no resource change
doing
HIGH
PERFORMANCE
CULTURE
TRAITS
replace winning puncture self- system causes radical monitor require higher vicarious instant team
with joy of play importance & solutions bets with expect- standards than competing try outs of
as goal inflation extra ation all noveties
effort excep-
tions
Playfulness Logic Recognize Coincidence
& Fun of Exceptions Dynamics
Extremes
adult- make larger + best & spot not view challenge instant
baby wrong smaller worst excep- future routines coaching
shifts approach size process tions thru
work scales as window emotions of
past successes
BAD GOOD
BOY GIRL
innovate conserve use scrounge earned engage omphalo- joint victory
radically in chosen proble- resources membership particu- size the ownership
chosen form form matic lars local
parts
Work Violate Know Combine

Contra- Social Thyself Real
dictorily Norms People
work in invest maintain be prob- skip non- address show commun-
historic energy boundaries lematic fitting overall unique- ity &
context in to others oppor- paradoxon ness mission
particulars tunities rites & rituals
in all units balance
If you want to EXCEL as a parent, as a MANAGER, as a LEADER, you want to

inspire high performance in others--these 64 are WHAT, therefore, you specifically
have to do---actions & systems & events that fosters these 64 achieve
high performance (in sports, in science, in commerce, in arts)
Denison, 1990; Vaill, 1989; Ghiselin, 1952; Klar et al, 1992; Mullen and Geothals, 1987; Tannen, ; Simonton, ;
Sternberg, ; Grint, ; Ozaki, ; Taguchi, ; Martindale, ; Cialdini, ; Gladwell, .
environment diversity driven technique liberalize normative/ open/closed; rational hierarchy

shift = disaster out (homogenity) specialization; rationalize pragmatic; loose/tight; control/ext control/int
ecologic global- crossed with crossed with plan/produce comminicate
ization process/results, normative/
person/role; pragmatic;
FAILING SECULARIZN. ORG MEANS/ENDS
SUCCESSES PSYCHE
success leaders: gui ld secularize process/ local/ group develop

Miller
narrow professes Argyis/Schon differentiate results; Hofstede
professnl; (fl/int) Quinn
(fl/ext)
search, person/ crossed morale readiness
block role; crossed with open/closed
dissent with local/profl. loose/tight;
PROCESS GROUPS
framework science heresy reliable near market pricing equality person/ task/achieve
future support “own role”
repertoire tolerant matching “own thing”
climate
KNOWING DEVELOPMENT RELATIONS CONTROL
magic myth action population communal authority power role“own

scope of risk/ sharing ranking “as told” how”
Campbell Fiske Cartwright
expanding Grondona initiative
infrastructures takers
CULTURE
TYPES
masculinity with collectivity with fatalism hierarchy of of hurt of conflict reduc- of renewal
power distance masculinity (capricious) (perverse) illusion tion & integra-
tion
DILEMMAS SECURITY CONQUEST RITES

social psych
power uncertainty individual egalitarian of time of space of of

passage degrade/
distance Hofstede avoidance (benign) Wildavsky (ephemeral)
Eliade Trice
with enhance
with
uncertainty collectivity
avoidance
BASICS MIND
nexus/desert mountain sex female dominance rituals/practice heros nature of nature of time &
denial hierarchy + human: space
being,
cloud of males activity,
relations
LANDMASS SEX ROLES MEANING ASSUMPTION
island continent male celebratory symbols values/ relation nature of

orgies to reality
dominance beliefs
Boas Kohl Levi-Straus environ- Schein
hierarchy + ment
harem
A PRIMER ON WHAT CULTURE IS & HOW IT IS

NOTICED, HANDLED, MODIFIED, & CREATED
(See my book Your Door to Culture Power for complete “how to do” culture models)
The Nine Sources of Culture’s Power. I start this primer with a careful examination of why
we all bother with ambiguous concepts like “culture”. Culture, looked at academically,
seems to mean everything and nothing. Culture, looked at practically, seems to mean very
specific and important things that one dare not ignore, disrespect, or slight.
Books say the style of buildings is culture, the trash on our streets is culture, moles on our
skin are culture, absolutely everything that humans notice and care in any way about is cul-
ture, one book or another maintains. “Culture” seems, intellectually, to be an appallingly
vague idea of dubious worth and precision. On the other hand, other books tell stories of
two teams alike in all but “culture”. The one with better “culture” than the other goes on
to year after year of competitive victory. Why is a concept that is so jejune academically so
powerful practically? Below I present a list of the powers of culture dealt with in this study.
The Powers of Culture
1 its invisibility = power to surprise us, pleasantly or unpleasantly

2 its ignorance of what it is ignorant of (we have no idea of alternatives from
other cultures we have not met--their alternative ways of doing things) =
power of running into realities we never imagined before
3 its ignorance of what it learned (we are not aware of all we are learning when
near someone, in a situation, or when growing up) = power of running
into realities inside us that we never realized were there
4 its abstract unity (example: Americans at Chinese dinners order their own
dish each, rather than ordering theirs but sharing it with everyone
present--similarly: Americans making points to win/stand-out in discus-
sions rather than to blend, etc.) = power of how abstract the patterns in
human behaviors end up being, abstractness means we miss how the
same pattern is governing enormously different behaviors or situations
5 its inconsistency (example: Americans struggle to stand out except in cloth-
ing--mass produced ugly “Gap” styles--ride trains from northern US to
Canadian cities, watch how fashions shift suddenly at the border) = power
of disappointing our guesses at abstract unity of behaviors as situations
that easily could follow the same principle for some reason do not, we
cannot make rules about where and when rule will apply and will not
apply
6 its vastness (in size) = power of its diversity and depth of contents; its vast-
ness (in granularity, scales involved) = power of its diversity and depth of
contents
7 its ability to shut down anxieties of trying to answer the questions of human
existence = power of soft stories to make all of existence peaceful and
joyful though we are tiny among immense forces in an immense uni-
verse.
8 scripting situations: ambiguous, conflicted, unclear, borderline = power of
energy released because all situations have scripts for quick unthinking
automatic response
9 its ability to produce high performances in individuals and teams = power of
results achieved but means hidden because automated procedures,
among people in a team, or within a single individual’s mind, so the gap
between results and no apparent means surprises and impresses.
Culture Power One--Invisibility. Culture deserves study because cases like EuroDisney show
billions of dollars being lost year after year due primarily to failure to appreciate and
respect the powers of culture. Culture deserves study, also, because of other cases, like
Cisco Systems, Microsoft, Intel, and the whole US Silicon Valley dominance of Route 128,
showing how culture alone suffices to allow, from roughly equivalent groups of resources,
one group to dominate and vanquish another. Culture surprises in cases of failure like Euro-
Disney because it is hard to see, and therefore, to measure, respect, hold in mind, change,
handle. Culture surprises in cases of success, like Silicon Valley, because slight intangible
soft things of culture suffice to produce significant differences in outcomes. There is an
invisibility aspect of culture that makes us respect it. High performance failure and high
performance success both depend absolutely on creating certain cultural conditions amidst
many other conditions of life and work.
The visible part of what many people call “culture”--that is, pop culture, high culture, rites
and rituals, shared assumptions that people are nearly all well aware of in a group, and the
like--lacks this power from invisibility. It is visible, therefore, there are books on it, guides
to it, publications, videos, shows, maps, courses, and the like. It can be considered not
“culture” at all, but economics, politics, sociology, anthropology, medicine, law, and con-
tents of any other traditional discipline. In other words, this primer defines culture as invis-
ible contents, not visible ones, because this primer maintains that all that visible stuff is just
what traditional disciplines map, distinguish, causally study, improve, and the like. If we
want to consider that visible stuff as “culture” we run into the problem of calling it “cul-
ture” sometimes and places and calling it economics, sociology, law, etc. at other times and
places, in important and debilitating inconsistency.
Culture’s Invisibility and Its Relations to Culture’s Powers. The prototype for culture
interactions--whether good or bad--is our encounters with the cultures of other nations or
ethnic groups. We insult people without intending to or we make a negotiation fail precisely
because we do what we know “works” (but that “what we do” and that “knowing” and that
“what works” are from an entirely different culture than where we now operate). In this
prototypic interaction of different cultures a number of different happenings can be distin-
guished:
1. unconscious actions--things that in my frameworks are not actions are seen and taken as
actions by others operating in their different frameworks and vice versa = “I am not
aware of all that I do”
2. meaning distortion--messages we send, in our frameworks, mean something entirely dif-
ferent when received by others having different frameworks and vice versa = “I am
not saying what I think I am saying”
3. tactic failure--actions that work and are feasible in our frameworks do not work and are
too expensive or otherwise infeasible in other people’s differing frameworks and vice
versa = “I am suggesting actions that look ridiculous when applied outside my own
turf”
4. unseen alternatives--the alternatives I imagine and suggest to myself and others omit
huge other possibilities I never consider because the frameworks that make them
“natural” are ones I have never experienced or thought of before and vice versa = “I
am limited in ways I am unaware of”
5. In Sum: unseen options, meanings, responses, assumptions--I and they are both doing,
saying, assuming, limiting things we are completely unaware of.
The problem is not error--we all handle error every day of our lives, more or less success-
fully. The problem is error and omission we are unaware of, and, therefore, that we cannot
fix or respond to. Being blind in ways we are not aware we are blind, being blind of things
we are not aware we are not seeing, slighting things we are not aware we are slighting
removes the possibility of growth and learning and improvement (save by busting up initial
such encounters clumsily and ignorantly done as we lumber around in someone else’s china
shop).
Where Does Culture’s Invisibility Come From. Perhaps the entire meaning of words
like “culture” is stuff acquired while we grow up, getting “socialized” into a particular fam-
ily, era, nation, gender, that we are not aware of. Culture would not have power, the ability
to bust up huge business ventures into giant multi-decade financial failures and to thrust a
few people and ideas into decades of wealth-building that self-amplifies, were we aware we
had it and they had it, could see its parts, and had tools for affecting such parts. Words like
“culture” mean we lack knowledge of what and who we are--what is us and what is inside us,
both idea and procedure. If we knew what is us and what is inside us, idea and procedure,
“culture” would not surprise us, pleasantly or unpleasantly. It would not be important. The
problem is stuff inside us that we are not aware of (later, in this primer, I deal with cultures
we deliberately create). The opposite to culture, then, is clear--educatedness. For educat-

edness is “e” = out from and “duco” = being led, that is, being led out from assumed ideas,
and automatic habits put in us as we grow up in particular families, genders, nations, and
eras. Culture theory, the power of culture, and associated phenomena are really “lack of
educatedness” theory, and the power of “not being educated”.
That makes the solution to handling culture well quite simple and distinct--get yourself edu-
cated, well educated.
Getting Yourself and Others Educated as the Primary Culture-Handling Prerequisite
and Skill. What makes educating yourself and others difficult as the route to handling cul-
ture differences well is being an adult. Handling cultures well usually comes to us as a
needed task when we are adults, already fully unaware of how our own birth cultures have
limited, distorted, empowered, and crippled us. As such adults we face having to make our-
selves aware of tens of thousands of values, habits, frameworks, ideas put in us by people in
“our” culture who were, probably, unaware that they we putting things into us and unaware
of what exactly they were putting into us (“the blind blinding the blind” we might call these
ordinary socialization processes). At the same time we face having to make ourselves aware
of similar tens of thousands of values, habits, frameworks and ideas put inside others we are
now encountering from another culture when those others are just as unaware of what is
inside them, operating every hour and minute, as we are unaware of what is inside us (the
blind encountering the blind” we might call these adult cross-culture encounters).
1. socialization (enculturation) of us--we learn ideas, values, habits, frameworks that we

are not aware we are learning while growing up
2. socialization (enculturation) of others--they learn ideas, values, habits, frameworks
that they are not aware they are learning while growing up
3. educating us, one--learning what is inside us that we are not aware of (Schon, reflec-
tive practitioners, Argyis, double loop learning)
4. educating others, two--learning how to get others to learn what is inside of them that
they are not aware of
5. educating us, three--learning what is inside of them that they are not aware of as stuff
inside them
6. educating others, four--learning how to get others to learn what is inside of us that
they were not aware of.
Operating across different cultures, handling culture’s power from its invisibility, requires
four educations done more or less at once--learning what is inside us that we are not aware
of, learning what is inside others that they are not aware of, learning how to get others to
learn what is inside of them that they are not aware of, and learning how to get others to
learn what is inside of us that they are not aware of. Learning what is inside us and what is
inside them prepares us to learn how to get others to do the same types of learning. Never-
theless, four educatings, all among adults, have to go on in any cross-cultural encounter, if it
is not to end in disaster or slop. The target of all these four educatings needs to be kept
clearly in mind--all the things inside us (and others) put there unconsciously while we grew
up inside particular families, genders, eras, nations (and other groupings) need to be
“learned”. That constitutes two huge scopes of contents:
What We Yet Need to Know about Culture’s Power from Invisibility:

If the analysis above is correct, the idea that there might be convenient short cuts to han-
dling culture well, perhaps some grand theory or neat empirical results, disappears. If “cul-
ture” is stuff inside us we were not aware of while imbibing it and if handling that stuff well
requires learning what it all is and how it now operates automatically and unconsciously
inside us to determine and limit what we think and do, then we need tools for reflection and
digging deep into highly unconscious and automated contents of our own minds and of the
minds of others (where things they imbibed but are unaware of operating inside them are
found). Only if we can compress all that our culture is into a few ideas, models, rules and
the like can we reduce the amount of work needed to educate ourselves and others well
enough to work well with culture.
Hofstede’s approach, the “dimensions of culture” approach consisting of doing factor-analy-

sis of dimensions distinguishing one culture from another--gave us hope of just such a short
cut. He reduced dozens of differing cultures to five or so dimensions (Bond later added a
Confucian one, others have added a few others) to master. Theoretically this does reveal
lots of overt differences in different cultures that co-vary so that one more abstract factor
“underneath” them explains them all (captures what co-varies in particular situations com-
pared). Do such reductions of many overt differences to a few factors “underneath” practi-
cally allow people to handle culture differences better? We can ask this another equivalent
way by asking “if I understand the degree to which I am communitarian rather than individu-
alist, close in power distance rather than distant in it, and the like, for five to ten dimen-
sions of cultures, do I handle myself, my culture, my tasks better?” The problem is trying to
be “more communitarian” when you are an American operating in Japan still leaves exactly
what any particular situation requires as the way to be communitarian in Japan, completely
undefined. The abstract dimension is so abstract it does not serve as a practical guide to
action. It simplified intellectual life but not practice life abroad. This is a matter of gaps
between espoused theory and enacted theory (Argyis, ), communities of idea versus commu-
nities of practice (Lave, Brown and Duguid, ), dis-embodied ideation versus embodied ideas
(Descartes, Saul, Yuasa), declarative knowledge compiled into procedural knowledge and
procedural knowledge abstracted into declarative knowledge (Nonaka, Minsky). Oceans of
research in dozens of fields have found that recognizing abstractions in diverse cases and
grounding features of any abstraction in cases where you intend application of the abstrac-
tion are extremely hard mental operations to do.
It is worth noting here that culture dimensions, of the Hofstede sort, are all ordinary dilem-
mas in social psychology, phrased in language that disguises their social psychology prove-
nance. By drawing the field of culture studies towards culture dimensions of difference,
such studies have delayed study of other more important aspects of culture (traits, types,
operations, tools, performances) and by phrasing factor-analysis derived factors in idiosyn-
cratic language they have exaggerated the novelty of the dimensions involved, delaying
application of many other equivalent social psych dimensions in culture study.
Argyis spent an entire career at Harvard and Schon spent an entire one at MIT trying to cre-
ate double loop learning and reflective practitioners, respectively. Making people conscious
of what is unconsciously inside them requires reflection that both of these scholar-practitio-
ners researched and promoted. The result of such reflection was discover of single abstract
ideas governing ideation or action that people had no idea that they had and alternatives to
which they had never imagined. The difficulty of getting people to do double loop learning
documented by Argyis and the difficulty of getting practitioners to be reflective that Schon
documented attest to the strict limits on severe abstract reductions like Hofstede’s factors
as guides to improve people and practice. Nonaka, Brown, and Duguid similarly have found
ideas travel readily between people sharing the same practice, often without words, but
ideas traveling between different practices, because they must be made conscious,
abstracted from automatic routines one can learningfully observe if from the same practice
then be made automatic and unconscious again as abstraction are turned into routines in the
new practice, go slowly if at all. This too attests to cultures, as different practices, impos-
ing noticing work, abstracting from cases work, re-articulating in own context work, ground-
ing in own cases, and automatization via training and practice work on those who would try
to use Hofstede type codes to shortcut growing up in a different context set for decades. As
much as we intellectually like having a model of four or five dimensions that distinguish doz-
ens of cultures, to do practical things with such abstract distinctions, we have to do a lot of
noticing work, abstracting from cases work, re-articulating in a different context work, and
grounding in our own cases work.
There is a granularity research question here--how many “dimensions” works best? Does
four or five dimensions help us intellectually and practically? A small number of dimensions
makes for few dimensions to remember but at a cost of huge abstracting and grounding work
to use such few concepts. Does ten or twelve help us more either intellectually or practi-
cally? A moderate number makes memorizing them harder but it reduces the cost of
abstracting and grounding work. Does fifty or sixty help us even more intellectually or prac-
tically? A large number of dimensions makes memorizing them hard (fixed by a unique for-
mat of well-ordered ideas in this study’s approach later in this primer), but reduces
abstracting and grounding work to almost nothing. This primer presents an unusual well-
ordered format of 64 dimensions for distinguishing cultures that allows us to test the relative
utility of low granulaity models compared to high granularity models.
Culture Power Two--Ignorance of What We Are Ignorant Of. Culture has power because
we do not know huge numbers of approaches, ideas, and other things that we are not aware
of not knowing. The problem is a meta-cognition one--we lack knowledge of what it is that
we do not know. That person from the other culture (whether gender, profession, era, or
other one) has spent two or more decades picking up lots of information, habits, values,
approaches that they are unaware of having operant inside them. We, having never met
that person, do not know any of that information, set of habits, values, and approaches. By
happenstance we may know a few, but even then, we do not know that we know those, hav-
ing not met the person yet. Most of the information, habits, values, approaches in the world
we do not now know and will die without ever knowing, because the world is so big and filled
with so many unique people.
If people from other cultures could tell us all about the “other culture” inside them, things
would be easier. We do not know what we do not know about them, so we ask them directly
to explain themselves to us. This does not work because other people do not know all the
“culture” inside of them. They cannot tell us what we do not know about them. The most
obvious source of a solution to our ignorance of other ways, does not work. This is a primary
source of culture’s power. “The Other” cannot explain itself to us in terms we could under-
stand directly, because “The Other” does not himself have access to the automated contents
inside of him. We do not know what we do not know and we cannot directly ask anyone for
it.
This means encountering other cultures entails, always and necessarily, complete surprise as
alternatives, approaches, ideas or other things that we never imagined, and never encoun-
tered in our own culture and area of growing up, appear. There is no education, training, or
anything else that can reduce or prevent this surprise. The best we can do is categorize
types of surprise possible to encounter, based on all the variations encountered by ourselves
or others in the world thus far. That means maps of types of utterly different ways of oper-
ating, ways of living, values to have, options for key life functions. To be of worth, such
maps have to be comprehensive, which means big, and because of that, well ordered so the
“bigness” does not prevent using the maps well. This study argues for concept models,
large well ordered categorical models, that can serve this mapping of surprise types function
better, perhaps, than current tools and models do.
Culture Power Three--Ignorance of What We Know. We do not know our selves. We do not
know our beliefs, ideas, habits, procedures, and a great deal more. We do not know all we
learned while growing up. The people who taught us while we grew up do not know all that
they taught us. We can see this directly when we write. We always need to write thrice,
once to find what we think about the topic, and a second time to organize that thinking bet-
ter, and a third time to convey that ordering well to a particular audience. While we live in
our birth culture we do not become aware of our not knowing what we know, because a
great deal of it is also stuff other people in that culture with us are not aware they know--we
know the same things. All of us, in that culture, operate using automated routines we
learned, without realizing it, from each other. None of us have consciously realized most of
these routines. When, however, we go to a different culture, all sorts of aspects of what we
think and do, do not work well, create trouble. We find that parts of us we never were
aware of or concerned about, are problematic, in the way. We discover all sorts of patterns
deeply inside us that we never realized were there before. Other cultures teach us our own
contents better than our own cultures do. Typically being in another culture for several
years, teaches us nearly nothing about the other culture but a great deal about our birth cul-
ture, the one we came from.
9
is
high performance
Performance
7 great automated results
without apparent scripts
8
stops means situations:
ambiguous,borderline,
anxieties contested, unclear
3 Culture’s 6
vast:
1
invisibility
Missing Meta-Cognition
culture is stuff we do not 2
Powers 4 size, scales
Iceberg Patterns
culture is patterns spottily 5
ignorant know that we know ignorant there among vastness
abstract inside us inconsistent
of what we patterns
of ignorance know unities
Plausible Causes of Culture’s Nine Powers

4
{
culture’s Each new idea combines with all previous ideas exponentially to make newer ones
abstract so any past idea shows up in myriad future ideas, unexpectedly. The same goes for
exponential unity behavior patterns we automate, they show up in myriad future areas combined with
ICEBERG PATTERNS
increases of ther mastered behavior patterns, like words in sentences based on grammars of
uses of ideas combination. Older, isolated, crisis intense cultures have more abstract unity.
culture’s Each new idea combines with all previous ideas exponentially to make newer ones,
inconsistency so any past idea shows up in some future ideas but not in other ones as not all
5 exponential combinations are useful, seen, realized, implemented, or envisioned.
Older, isolated, crisis intense cultures have less culture inconsistency.
artificial culture’s
vastness of
6 Humans erect an artificial world of hospitals, weddings that is much
gentler than nature, this artificial world is vast in size, history, and
human-built size scales, from sub-atomics to black holes.
world size/granularity
harsh
world
metaphor
{
anxieties culture’s stop- A most special part of the artificial world
myths of
of existence self-meeting-
ping anxieties = that human erect around them is myths,
reality journey released energy stories of how youth must self transform if
7 they are to see and travel safely in all of the
PERFORMANCE
real world around us, inside the safer

artificial human-built one and outside it.
script situations: Our drive for clear mind combines with our
ambiguous, un- anxieties about existing to force answers to
clear, borderline, aspects of existence/universe/world we cannot
control/understand so holes in knowledge get
contested
8 scripted fully without real answers/basis but
speeding thought and action, lowering energy
costs.
groups that culture’s High performance is an optical illusion of
automate coop- observing others who have automated what
erative act- high performance
teams/persons the obserer has not automated, so goals are
thought streams
9 obtained “effortlessly” it seems (the obser-
ver has not observed years of practice in-
{
volved). Magic = result + method unseen.
MISSING META-COGNITION
culture’s
invisibility Humans automate whatever they like doing reducing mental load on
conscious thought so we can do many things at once; we want to
conscious
direction drive for 3 forget the details of good behaviors and action streams.
clear mind Everything about

laborious high cost of us-them culture’s diverse others needs
diversity fear of others ignorance of laborious conscious
mindset its ignorance effort that we avoid.
1
exquisite years of culture’s While growing up we have, built into our hardware, a drive to watch
human “fit in” following the ignorance of others, be social, and fit in (as well as a drive to stand out), so we
propensity herd while coast, unconsciously, through all sorts of activities that end up pattern-
what it knows
growing up ing our behavior in ways we never realized or were aware of.
2
The idea of coming from one culture to another is a bit of over simplification as used above.
Though we typically think of cross-culture encounters as going from one nation to another,
inside our birth culture there are huge culture variations we seldom realize--men women,
old young, north south, immigrant founder-descendent, and others. Tools for reflection can
open our eyes to these local cultures and their differences and give us ways to practice flex-
ing our self-realization muscles. Gradually we can schedule local encounters, stays in
locally strange environments where all that we naturally think and do does not work well,
making us gradually aware of all the stuff inside us that we did not consciously put there our-
selves. This study presents such tools for reflection work.
Culture Power Four--Abstract Unity. Neural net pattern recognizers, principal components
analysis, and factor analysis all, from a deep mathematical perspective, seem to be doing
the same thing--recognizing multi-modal consistencies among varied cases, such that you
can examine not all the features of each case but a very limited number, typically less than
ten, and, from those ten, categorize the case correctly with other cases it shares lots of
other features, not examined, with. This ability to clump cases based on examining few of
their features rather than many of their features, saves time, effort, and makes people more
effective. The Hofstede, Triandis, and Bond work on finding, via factor analysis type tech-
nique, the “dimensions” that distinguish national cultures from each other, is solidly in this
camp. They have come up with factors like: power distance, uncertainty avoidance, indi-
vidualist-communitarian, and masculine-feminine. Is there anything solid in reality that
such math-derived factors actually correspond to? Are they real or just convenient categori-
zation labels?
They represent the abstractness of what unifies certain behaviors/thoughts in particular cul-
tures and the even greater abstractness that unifies certain behaviors/thoughts across sev-
eral different cultures. To get general patterns across the entire variety of work and life in
any culture (and across diverse cultures) you have to drop details and concrete appearances
and fall back on very abstract aspects of cases. Generality is bought with abstractness. The
abstractness required to spot patterns across behaviors/thoughts within or across cultures
makes it difficult for us ordinary people to spot such patterns. If even a little taint from the
particulars of a case remains in how we view it, we fail to see similarities and connections
with other cases. Since it is hard to spot such patterns, we end up constantly looking for
then without finding them and constantly finding them without looking for them. Their
basis is abstraction which makes it hard and unreliable to spot them. This is another source
of culture’s power to hurt and help us.
How do people get better at spotting such abstraction-based patterns? They have to prac-
tice abstract viewing, from afar, the case and encounters of their lives. There are specific
conversation and reflection techniques that aid people doing this, some presented later in
this primer.
Culture Power Five--Inconsistent Patterns. Cultures are not designed by engineers and
enforced by standards committees. They emerge and accumulate from myriad encounters
of person with person, group with group, idea with idea. Many of their contents emerge like
genes emerge to dominate species, a chance mutation in an idea transforming a marginal
idea into one that becomes central to some civilization, person, or organization for eons.
People have even coined the term “meme” for meaning gene, to denote such ideas. Every-
time a new idea arises, it can possibly be combined with all previously occurring ideas in
human history (that portion of them retained in some way). Most such combinations will be
flat, useless, and boring. A few, however, will become inventions or major insights. As each
new idea arises, the total number of possible combinations with past accumulated ideas,
increases exponentially. This means the actual idea combinations, that our lives and work
are built on, are tinier and tinier fractions of all the useful idea combinations possible (this is
true even though we get increasingly better at combining ideas). This makes for lots of pos-
sible, conceivable idea combinations of value that are never tried or explored.
So any one pattern in a “culture” shows up some conceivable places and not lots of other
equally conceivable places. For example, Japan is a communitarian culture, most social
roles are assigned to groups not individuals, but we find that academic research in Japan has
traditionally been very individualistic, with personal learning called “research” regardless of
the previous literature of what others researched in the same field: some parts of Japan are
more communal, other parts are more individual than in Western cultures. We think--”this is
a case where X could well be applied” but we find that X was never applied there while find-
ing that “wow, I never expected X here but there it is, fully worked out and implemented”.
The patterning of ideas, especially abstract ones, in our lives is inconsistent, with them
showing up in some locations of worth and missing other locations of equal or superior
worth. This is another power that culture has to surprise and stymie us.
The tool here is maps, huge, well ordered, maps of all the likely places an idea can pertain
to, make a contribution to, be combined with other ideas at. Fractal concept models, as
presented in compagnion primer to this primer are such a tool.
Culture Power Six--Vastness (of size, scales). The vastness of culture gives rise to several
illusions--that culture is everything whatsoever that humans do and think and notice, and
that culture can be reduced to a handful of abstract dimensions. Somewhat sloppy thinking
by researchers has, for years, led to revisiting and revisiting these illusions, in a confusing
manner. I hope to clarify things here a bit.
Since decades of learnings that we were not aware we were learning, fill us up and define
“culture”, as this primer views it, the amount of “culture” there, inside each of us, is huge.
First, it is a matter of sheer volume--decades of learning dozens of things an hour we were
unaware we were learning. Second, it is a matter of learning across many size scales-sec-
onds to eons, bath mats to galaxies, big bang to the next election, and so on. The vastness
of culture creates two distortions--the illusion of unity (it feels like it is everything, like it is
one thing)--and the illusion of short cuts (all culture is just four Hofstede dimensions, end of
story). We want vast things to be unified otherwise we have to learn and explore and map
the particulars of their unorganized vastness. We want vast things to have short cuts, only
five features of them are important, the other tens of thousands of details can be omitted.
We may want both of those but that does not make them reality. Wanting does not make
reality by itself.
When we reduce vastness to “culture dimensions” obtained by factor analysis, what have we
done? The fewer the dimensions, the easier the load on memory of remembering them, but
the greater the recognition work of spotting something abstract in any concrete case and the
greater the grounding work of mapping abstract features onto any one local case for taking
action. Reduction reduces memory loads while greatly increasing recognition and ground-
ing/application loads. It makes mental life easier while ruining practical life. Empires and
imperial Westerners spent a century showing this, face to face, to people’s all over the
world. Descartes, the monster, this felt like (or Voltaire’s Bastards, a recent book entirely
on this point). The solution is some moderately larger number of dimensions--small enough
and well ordered enough to be usable yet large enough that recognition and grounding work
is greatly reduced.
Fractal concept models can do this job, as explained in a compagnion primer to this primer.
Such mid-level categorical models of 50 to 100 factors combine factors as abstract as Hofst-
ede’s dimensions with successive layers of more numerous, less abstract factors, till a lowest
level of factors rather easy to recognize and ground in case situations is reached.
Culture Power Seven--Stops Anxieties. The human situation is basically terrifying--we are
tiny creatures in a huge universe, living on a planet that in 100 million years will be inside of
our sun, greatly expanded into a red giant on its way to star death. Genetic engineering
gives us a way to turn ourselves into bacteria so we might drift on interstellar clouds of gas
between suns, as they die off around us. That is the kind of hope we have today. As chil-
dren we ask our parents about death, “mommy, will I die”, and about responsibility,
“mommy, I did not mean to hit her”, and about fourteen other fundamental anxieties of liv-
ing. Our parents generally give us rote answers, the answers given them by their parents.
The answers tend to be the same generation after generation, in other words, a culture. It
is not clear that the answers work all that well--in most cases they merely shut up our ques-
tioning, giving us a verbal formula to apply whenever the anxiety bursts forth. In a few
cases, unusual parents give non-rote answers, a synopsis of the parent’s own journey of deal-
ing with that anxiety and with poor answers to that anxiety from “culture”. All of us, as we
grow up, do the same, work to reconcile the anxiety we feel with the rote answers we have
been given, and with real, live answers we forge ourselves, inside our own minds and emo-
tions. We all answer all the questions of existence, all of our lives. If we do not create
myths and symbols and stories and attitudes as answers we create alcohol, divorce, vio-
lence, or despair as answers.
At a minimum, it is a power of culture to stop an anxiety, reduce our interest in handling it,
and send our energy back to other tracks of engagement. Beyond minimum improvement, it
is a power of culture to allow us to see nearly all of reality in its awesomeness, where others
around us hide from the terrors of that, by going beyond rote inherited answers to questions
of existence and instead forging our own newly invented answers and explanations. If we
find a way to face more of scary reality than others, we prosper though at a cost of emo-
tional growth and change, and forging new stories and symbols. Myths are just collections
of such individually forged inventions of ways to face more of reality without fleeing into
magic, fundamentalism, or bigotry. Myths held onto and used magically that do not open us
to scary abysses underneath human existence, become blocks to reality, not bridges,
destroying entire cultures eventually, with magic, fundamentalism, and bigotry. Community
Quality Cabarets are tools for achieving this beyond-minimum power of culture, consistently,
year after year, personally and for large groups that we live or work with. Such cabaret
tools will be explained later in this primer.
It is important to note that culture shuts us off from reality, crippling entire lives, or it opens
us to reality, propelling lives into historic levels of happiness and fame. If the symbols and
myths of culture are taken literally, that is as facts not symbols pointing to complex reali-
ties, they become handling anxiety by lying. If, on the other hand, they are taken as meta-
phors for what pioneering other individuals or groups discovered about what reality is and
how to face it emotionally and rationally, they open our lives to facing and using more of
reality. For example religions that talk about living after death simply tell lies to people to
calm their fears of dying, whereas religions that talk about a second birth, a spiritual birth,
that happens while you are still alive, that allows you to detach from the biologic fate of
your own body and identify with what you were before you were born, expand lives to face
more of reality. For a more particular example, believing that Jesus’ body rises from the
dead, decided by a church council in the 4th century A.D. to help Northern Italian bishops
collect funds from rich people facing anxiety at their own deaths, is essentially fleeing real-
ity into magic. The immense stuff we learn unconsciously, while growing up, includes either
vital, alive religious content, that opens the door to realities that others flee from, or dead
overly-literal content, that shuts us off from reality, crippling entire lives without ever being
consciously considered or recognized. It is not the presence of culture or its absence that
does this, but whether the symbolic and mythic content inside such “culture vastness”, is
vital or dead. Any of us, can, unfortunately, inherit unconsciously, entirely dead symbol and
myth systems, that cripple us, without ever rising to conscious awareness. It is not just
mythic/symbolic culture contents unconsciously inside us that can hurt us by being dead--
theories of culture outside us in society, in the form of historic religions, can overtly teach
entirely dead, literal interpretations of symbols, promoting magic and shrinking from reality.
Such religions are as anti-spiritual as it is possible to be, using symbols to turn people from
spiritual awareness back into magical flight from awareness. Cynics note, such religions
tend to justify mass killing of other “infidel”, “idolatrous”, “deluded” such religions, so, in
the long term, such religions are not a problem as they kill each other off, regularly,
throughout history (witness the Middle East in recent millennia). Cultures unreflected on,
undiscovered by education, and un-mapped by fractal models, tend to suffer from such
problems. Similarly, past victories, in any organization or personal life, tend to become wor-
shipped (as well as their leaders) turning lived ambiguous efforts into sure-fire recipes that
bypass anxiety and effort, so that the victories themselves insure subsequent defeats. The
symbol taken literally (the victory taken as the power not the ambiguous strenuous efforts
that produced it) misleads people into facing less of reality and reducing effort with magical
trust in outside or past things that “guarantee” worth and future comfort (always falsely).
As Danny Miller (Miller, ) says: success breeds failure.
Two frontiers most people face in life, make them aware of culture “contents” inside them--
encountering another culture, and, being overwhelmed by the anxieties of existence
because the mythic/symbolic contents unconsciously inside of them and used by them fail to
address feelings and thoughts challenging our lives and confidence to live. Either of these
can force serious re-examination of all that stuff inside us that we did not consciously and
voluntarily put there.
Culture Power Eight--Scripts Borderline, Ambiguous, Unclear, Contested Situations.

Humans live inside an artificial world that protects us all from the harshness of nature. We
have civilization, irrigation, agriculture, arts, professions, families and all the rest that treat
us more nicely than raw nature does. Our artificial world, however, is incomplete. It han-
dles feeding us very well indeed (if you are in the industrial world where working 20 hours a
year buys all the food you need to subsist each year). It handles lots of our needs very well,
but not infrequently we run into needs it handles poorly, inconsistently, badly, or not at all.
There are even needs it pretends are not there, denying us when we bring them up. For
example, we come across a recent Russian immigrant interviewing us for a job we really
want. John Wayne talking to Indians, Harvard MBA courses on negotiation tactics, popular
books on getting to “yes”, and all sorts of scripts immediately come into our minds as ways
to respond, ways to guide us in confronting the unexpected at that interview because the
interviewer is a recent immigrant from a nation we are not very familiar with. Inside us are
hosts of similar scripts for all sorts of situations we have never really faced, that we can call
on to show us instantly what to do or think next when confronted, confused, dismayed, dis-
combobulated. This frees up energy we would otherwise waste in anxiety. Freeing up
energy and speeding up responses in this way is another power of culture.
The repertoire of scripts we accumulated while growing up in one nation, era, gender, fam-
ily, and the like while huge is very partial--omitting what hundreds of other cultures have
invented. Systematic searching through others and other ways can greatly expand the
choices, the scripts, we apply to unexpected, ill-fitting situations. Fractal concept models,
produced by encoding what others in books or speeches or talks with us have conveyed about
their scripts for handling things, are a tool presented in a compagnion primer to this primer,
for this purpose.
Culture Power Nine--High Performance. If we plot creative people by level of fame we
find it correlates almost perfectly with hours of professional practice, regardless of field:
10,000 hours equals city fame, 13,000 hours equals regional fame, 18,000 hours equals
national fame, 25,000 hours equals national prizes, 30,000 hours equals international fame,
35,000 hours equals international prizes (and similar patterns for all professions). What is
going on in all those hours of practice that is producing high performance in these people? It
is building culture via automating things so conscious minds can be clear to tackle new fron-
tiers in performance problems. More and more routines get automated, then forgotten,
becoming automatic, unconscious in execution, not taxing conscious minds during perfor-
mance. All high performance is merely culture and all cultures are merely high perfor-
mance. The only distinction is in the competitive quality of the routines automated--if you
automate ordinary routines for years that becomes high performance, but you have the
option of comparing routines and automating competitively superior ones too, that makes
one high performance an even higher performance.
Naive people, untraveled people, when first abroad, encountering a culture new to them,
experience many daily life aspects of the foreign culture as high performances--”my, look
how that woman handles that huge flying circle of bread dough, no one does that where I
come from”, and like comments. The only reason we do not ordinarily realize that all other
cultures are high performances is other cultures tend to aim for performances that do not
necessarily mean much to outsiders--they expertly achieve things we outsiders do not value
or appreciate. Also, some of the high performances they achieve come to outsiders as bur-
densome “rituals” or behavioral requirements, not found in the outsiders’ own cultures.
Nevertheless, high performance is all that culture is and culture is all that high performing
is. Both culture and high performance use the Magician Effect. The Magician Effect is peo-
ple greatly impressed, in awe even, because they have seen a performance but not the
means used to do the performance and they cannot readily imagine any means that would
suffice. The gap between performance attained and means visible and imaginable is awe,
the Magician Effect. Nearly all of leadership depends on it too--leaders are people who
achieve moderate things but with no visible means being employed so the effect looks magi-
cal, based on some great talent we cannot even specify. In fact, a great portion of all lead-
ers spend a great portion of their time hiding their means of attainment to achieve the
Magician Effect in their careers. Cultures are applications of the Magician Effect to people
not from the same culture, hence, unable to see or imagine the means used for daily life
attainments there. High performances are applications of the Magician Effect to people not
doing similar feats, hence, unable to see or imagine the means used for attain some out-
come.
If culture and high performance are synonymous, then all the tools for culture handling in
this primer, explained later, are also how you attain high performance.
Culture Power Ten--Norms? Excuse? Etc. This primer presents only nine powers of cul-
ture. All the other powers of culture normal people imagine, this primer classifies not as
powers of culture but as uses to which culture is put. One big one that most people think of
as a power of culture is norms. We all have met Japanese who self doubt whether they are
good Japanese or not because they dislike certain sushi or certain office rituals in Japan. We
have all met Germans, Americans, and others similarly in self doubt about matters consid-
ered defining for their own cultures. Cultures do act as norms and such norms are so power-
ful that everyone who is Japanese pays a price for not conforming to the general norms
about what Japanese expect other Japanese, and themselves, to be like. If I am Japanese
and I do not do a Japanese-like thing in a certain situation, I am free to thusly depart from
Japanese norms but I pay inside myself a price for that departure, even if the price is only
reminding myself of why I hate parts of my Japanese background so much. If I am American
and I do not do a Japanese like thing in that situation, I pay no cost, no one, including
myself, expects me to do Japanese-like things. So cultures powerfully act as norms. But
that is not what cultures are--they are not norms, they are too confused, accumulated hap-
penstancely, to be that coherent. That is, instead, a purpose to which cultures are put--
people choose to use generalized ideas about a culture as norms for evaluating their own
behavior and the behavior of others.
The ultimate issue at stake here, in whether norms are culture or a use of culture, is the dif-
ference between a culture and theories of that culture held by people in the culture and
people from without viewing it. Some cultures even have specific words for such theories of
their own cultures, and government funding of such theories (Japan for example funds
Nihonjinron “Japaneseness theory”). The norm power of culture comes not from the cul-
ture, whose contents, afterall, are largely unconsciously learned stuff not available to con-
sciousness, but from theories of a culture held by members of it, who apply those theories as
norms for how to think or behave. Such theories are not automated, unconscious, and vast,
but deliberate, conscious, and specific.
The Powers of Culture and Their Sources

The above discussion has taken us fairly deeply into one approach to defining culture. Now
it is time to flesh out this approach with precise detail. The powers of culture are enumer-
ated in the diagram below. These also are definition of culture--it is only encountering
these powers all of which come from ways we do not know what we know, we do not know
our own selves, and we do not know what we do not know.
The Definitions of Culture and High Performance
--The Meta-Cognition Definition of Culture: Culture is the name for eight powers--
from the invisibility, vastness (size/granularity), abstract unity, inconsistency, igno-
rance of what it does not know, ignorance of what it does know, ability to shut down
anxieties--all of which come from the ways we do not know what we know, we do
not know our own selves, we do not know what we do not know--all of which comes
from automating routines to clear our minds for new work (creating an iceberg of
unconscious contents in us). Culture is a failure of or lack of meta-knowledge.
--The Iceberg Definition of Culture: Culture is patterns among the vast amount of
things inside us that we learned unconsciously while growing up in some particular
place and time or while intensely working with some particular group. The vastness
of culture is directly responsible for the existence of patterns among that vastness
and for the inconsistency of where in the vastness such patterns appear and fail to
appear.
--The Performance Definition of Culture: Culture is energy freed up by using oth-

ers’ scripts for ambiguous situations and others’ answers to questions of existence,
at a cost in not engaging reality ourselves directly, with the benefit of having
energy left over for directions of energy investment we consciously choose. Cul-
ture is thought freed up via automating procedure sequences till they drop from
consciousness. Culture is high performance attainment of doing such procedures.
Culture is also energy found when scripts, stories, symbols, or myths inside us
expose us to more reality others can handle, enabling higher performance.
--The High Performance Definition of Culture (& the Culture Definition of High
Performance): High performance is only culture (from automating competitively
superior routines or non-competitive routines); Culture is only high performance
(from automating competitive or non-competitive routines). Both culture and
high performance produce the Magician Effect.
--Definition of the Magician Effect: Results attained by means that are not
apparent or easy to imagine (the magician effect), high performance is the
production of a performance the means of attaining which are not apparent or
easy to imagine (and hard for any particular observer to match);
--Corollary Definition of the Equivalence of Culture & High-Performance:

Every particular culture, found in the world, is also a corresponding high per-
formance; Every particular high performance, found in the world, is also a
corresponding culture. Both can be specified by what routines in particular
were automated, how they were automated, in cooperation with what other
people and routines they were automated (and when and where they were
lost to consciousness).
--Definition of the Uses of Culture: Many “powers” of culture, as ordinary

folk cognition considers it, turn out to be better understood as uses to which
culture powers are put. In particular, there is the culture of a group or per-
son or technology and there is the theory of their culture of that or other
groups, persons, and technologies. There are effects of the culture that can
and should be distinguished from powers of the conscious theory that a per-
son, group, or technology has of its own or others’ cultures. Many supposed
powers of any culture are really effects of the theory of that culture con-
sciously held by someone. For example, culture is a powerful norm set for
people, who worry if they depart from what their own culture’s norms in cer-
tain situations require, we think; however, such norms come from the theory
of what their own culture is that people hold, not from the unconscious enor-
mity inside them that is their actual culture (as this primer defines it).
--Definition of Fractal Concept Models: Rather than reducing the vastness of

culture contents in any one individual or group to five or ten highly abstract
factors, that, though easy to memorize for intellectual work, greatly increase
the error rate and workload of recognizing abstraction features in cases faced
and grounding abstraction features when applying the abstractions to cases,
we have an alternative. We can create hierarchical, fractal (patterns
repeated on each level), categorical models of factors, with a top level of
highly abstract factors, like Hofstede’s dimensions, and subsequent levels of
more numerous factors, each less abstract than the previous till a lowest level
of many factors quite easy to recognize and ground in cases is reached. A
regularized form of fractal concept model exists that makes it as easy to
remember and handle 50 to 100 factors as it is to remember and handle five
to ten factors in ordinary models.
The Powers of Culture
1 its invisibility = power to surprise us, pleasantly or unpleasantly

2 its ignorance of what it is ignorant of (we have no idea of alternatives from other cul-
tures we have not met--their alternative ways of doing things) = power of running
into realities we never imagined before
3 its ignorance of what it learned (we are not aware of all we are learning when near
someone, in a situation, or when growing up) = power of running into realities
inside us that we never realized were there
4 its abstract unity (example: Americans at Chinese dinners order their own dish each,
rather than ordering theirs but sharing it with everyone present--similarly: Ameri-
cans making points to win/stand-out in discussions rather than to blend, etc.) =
power of how abstract the patterns in human behaviors end up being, abstract-
ness means we miss how the same pattern is governing enormously different
behaviors or situations
5 its inconsistency (example: Americans struggle to stand out except in clothing--mass
produced ugly “Gap” styles--ride trains from northern US to Canadian cities, watch
how fashions shift suddenly at the border) = power of disappointing our guesses at
abstract unity of behaviors as situations that easily could follow the same prin-
ciple for some reason do not, we cannot make rules about where and when rule
will apply and will not apply
6 its vastness (in size) = power of its diversity and depth of contents; its vastness (in
granularity, scales involved) = power of its diversity and depth of contents
7 its ability to shut down anxieties of trying to answer the questions of human exist-
ence = power of soft stories to make all of existence peaceful and joyful though
we are tiny among immense forces in an immense universe.
8 its scripting of situations: ambiguous, conflicted, unclear, borderline = power of
energy released because all situations have scripts for quick unthinking auto-
matic response
9 its ability to produce high performances in individuals and teams = power of results
achieved but means hidden because automated procedures, among people in a
team, or within a single individual’s mind, so the gap between results and no
apparent means surprises and impresses.
The Interlevel Problem: Situations (Culture) or Individuals as Causes

We know that presenting the same stimulus to a human in the same situation is impossible to
do--human systems have memories that prevent them from ever being in exactly the same
situation, twice (neural chemical bases to post traumatic stress syndrome notwithstanding).
We know, on the other hand, that in a great many cases humans are stunningly unimagina-
tive, unoriginal, unchanging, therefore producing exactly the same response to the same or
similar stimuli. It is like Nobel laureates in economics investing in the stock market, using
the algorithms for pricing derivatives they won their prizes for--most of the time they rake in
winnings, but, at times they cannot predict, their algorithms go terribly wrong, bankrupting
them. We can assume that people are always original until something suddenly proves that
wrong or we can assume that people are always conservative herd-like conformists (to them-
selves if not always to others) until something proves that wrong. The problem is discover-
ing when either of those rules breaks down. The interlevel problem here is translated into a
boundary condition determination problem. When, exactly, do people stop being deter-
mined by their situations? When, exactly, do people stop determining their situations?
Researchers who suggest schema, merely transfer the scale of ambiguity from a situation-
self-determination dilemma to a use-old-schema versus change-schema dilemma. Research-
ers who suggest non-linear system dynamics emergence phenomena merely shift the scale of
ambiguity from the situation-self-determination dilemma to the “what conditions ‘cause’
the emergence of particular types of conditions” dilemma. If ultimately whatever we per-
ceive or know of situations and of our selves is coded in neural nets (parallel non-representa-
tional layers of nodes with no node corresponding to any idea or word in any language),
there can be no boundary between situation causation and self determination, both blending
without boundary. Organizational learning theorists have long supposed () that organiza-
tional learning is expanding one’s repertoire of possible responses and of things to possibly
notice and respond to” so that organizations learn even when they do nothing different,
they merely acquire an ability to notice something and respond someday to it that they
lacked hitherto fore, for example. Impacts of situations on individual humans can take this
form--merely expanding repertoires of possible noticings and reactions--and impacts of indi-
vidual humans on situations can take this form as well--merely expanding repertoires of pos-
sible noticings and reactions of people or groups in the situation. Talcott Parsons, long ago
(Parsons, ), emphasized the code aspects of human life, actions of entirely different nature
and results come from slight differences in the codes in people’s minds, whether those codes
be consciously or unconsciously acquired and used. Culture is such coding. Culture affect-
ing culture includes such subtle, unnoticeable effects as a code change in an individual
effecting a code change in a group and vice versa. Nothing overt happens but potentials for
the future of both are changed and if relevant future conditions never appear, the individu-
als and group die with nothing whatsoever having resulted from the encounter (either of
them may or may not manage to pass on the code change to subsequent generations). This
interlevel issue, in this way, ends up merely emphasizing the unseenness and unconscious
acquisition aspect to culture that is the basis of its practical interest and power in the world.
Note that the ecological fallacy--taking individuals in communal cultures as being communal
themselves, when in fact, whole nations are merely “on average” more communal than
other nations, so individuals in communal nations can easily be more individualistic than
individuals in more individualistic nations, for one example--is a different, simpler, inter-
level issue of less portent.
The Issue of Creating Cultures and Using Them

This primer holds that culture is unseen things operating inside people that influence how
they think and behave and that such unseen things are vast because they include what peo-
ple unconsciously learned during decades of growing up sometime somewhere. Also people
are not aware of what they culturally are missing (what alternative things they did not get
exposed to while growing up and hence did not learn as alternatives to the things they did
learn). If, however, you consider people who create new cultures, say for example, Phil
Jackson the coach of the six time champion Chicago Bulls basketball team, and the cultures
that they create, there is less than two decades of time and there are adult people imbibing
more things consciously than babies and kids imbibe consciously. This makes the amount of
culture, defined as this primer defines it, less, diminished by reduced time and reduced
degree of unconscious imbibing. Nevertheless, sects that spontaneously kill themselves,
urged on by megalomanic leaders, attest to the power of such reduced cultures to over-
whelm ordinary while-growing-up acquired cultures, producing more or less voluntary stren-
uous results. If such reduced created cultures have such power, the cultures we all absorb
while growing up some where and some time have potential for even more power (though
since some such cultures of era, nation, gender, family, etc. that grow us up obtain for huge
populations a diluted intensity, power, can be expected). Small groups deliberately erecting
their own invented cultures can use focus and small scale to reach intensity of practice,
belief, coherence, unconscious automatic execution that overwhelm imbibed-while-growing-
up cultures from gender, nation, era, and the like. Winning teams like the champion Chicago
Bulls basketball team with Michael Jordan, based their winning on tens of thousands of hours
of practice together. What goes on in such practicing is inventing routines and repeating
them till they become fully automated and unconscious. Eventually they become forgotten,
though still in the repertoire, called on, and used. Practice, the primary culture creation
means of such teams, is merely consciously selected and accelerated gathering of experi-
ence, as if to make up for lack of decades of growing up as kids with intensity and focus of
experience as adults.
Similarly, as people become aware of culture inside themselves determining or influencing

them or inside others determining or influencing those others, they use such discoveries.
They learn to excuse behaviors using their own culture as excuse; they learn to reject cer-
tain behaviors of others as “merely” rote projection of their own local culture (or as harsh
rejection of their nice local culture). They use culture in negotiating, contracting, merging,
divorcing, founding, enticing, selling, persuading, influencing, predicting, and the like. The
meaning of particular culture contents in this way becomes double--what people uncon-
sciously influenced by them do with them and what particular purpose people aware of them
use them for. When groups of interrelated people thusly use culture for certain enduring
purposes, over a period of time, the purposes may be forgotten, automated, and lost from
consciousness, with the result that the cultural contents operate, unseen, in contexts now
unseen as well, making the contents into new culture contents, it can be said. This can be
viewed as a second way that new cultures get established, an unconscious, unseen way.
This is so powerful that (Jervis, ) nations who labored hard to do X, which had foreseeable
consequence Y, when faced with Y claim utter surprise, claiming Y an attack on them by bad-
minded others, trying to take no responsibility for it, even though Y is merely the direct
product of their efforts toward X.
The Components of Culture and Their Causal Links

An engineer, given culture as a technology to master and apply, would check out its proper-
ties, its boundaries, ways it can be manipulated, goals it can be made to achieve or enable.
All that hinges, however, on getting to know the “material” culture and what its properties
are. An engineer, though, would worry about having good interfaces. Research on culture
includes a confusing variety of culture components with causal relations among them
unstated, implied, uninvestigated, or contradictorily presented. Research on culture, an
engineer would say, needs a clear causal flow interface. Secondly, all models and views of
culture see it as vast, decades of automated routines inside people and groups that they are
largely unaware of, though they all may have theories about what all that stuff is and means
and does (the distinction between culture theory and culture from this primer’s compagnion
primer mentioned in the abstract). In spite of that vastness, most currently published cul-
ture research works to reduce that vastness to four to ten factor models so abstract and gen-
eral that they offer next to nothing in the way of useful guidance to practitioners. Research
on culture, an engineer would say, needs a clear way to display and handle ten times as
many factors in a model as is commonly done now, with those extra numbers of factors
somehow made manageable and orderly so researchers and practitioners can change the
granularity of a model up (few but abstract factors) and down (many but concrete ground-
able factors) as needed. This primer proposes answers to both of these culture research
interface needs.
A review of hundreds of books on culture-related topics produced the following basics of the
“culture material”, the following components of culture that somehow (it seldom is made
clear) cause whatever culture-related stuff we all notice and research:
culture aspects/purposes
• operations--what manipulations change various properties and combinations of
properties that cultures have
• tools--means that make particular operations easier, faster, less costly, higher in
quality, more accurate and the like
• definitions/uses--the goals that cultures, when operated on, can be expected
reasonably to enable or attain
culture space
• traits--what properties do all cultures have
• dimensions--the particulars about any one culture that best distinguish it from
other cultures or earlier versions of itself
• social processes--the parts of any society that each can have distinct cultures or
combinations of dimensions of particular cultures
culture results
• culture types--the most frequent and most important clumpings of culture traits
and/or dimensions found in actual cultures in the world
• culture powers--the particular powers that all cultures have
• culture power profiles--the particular profile of amounts of each of those pow-
ers that any particular type of culture has
• high performance dynamics--the traits especially evident in high performance
groups/individuals and their particular cultures
deliberate culture design processes
• culture design dynamics (community quality cabaret dynamics)--the procedures
of achieving large-scale regular designed changes in particular cultures.
All of the above depend on how culture is defined. That is dealt with in a compagnion
primer, that distinguishes culture (all the stuff learned unconsciously as we grow up or join
groups) and culture theories (all that people want cultures to be or say cultures are). This
definition implies a vastness to culture contents (decades of unconscious learnings while
growing up or joining groups) that demands comprehensive maps as tools. This definition
also implies unseenness, invisibility to culture contents (we learned so much that we were
not aware we were learning) that demands reflection tools for turning interior contents into
articulated conscious models. Deliberate culture design processes heavily depend on these
two types of tool--mapping ones and reflection ones.
Defined this way, culture has been examined before in lots of fields that did not call it cul-
ture. Brown and Duguid studied “communities of practice” noting how knowledge flowed
within such communities, across organizations, well but flowed across communities of prac-
tice poorly. Nonaka and colleagues studied how tacit knowledge gets surfaced by reflection
tools that compile it into explicit knowledge and how, in turn, explicit knowledge gets prac-
ticed into becoming automatic unconscious routine procedures. Sternberg and colleagues
43
don’t
bother
others or
self
why can I not
make my own
story
CONTINGENCY
IMPACT
FUTILITY 42
41 will it/I make
a difference?
preserve:
death is peacefulness
exteriors
of flaw:
or
or exteriors or
must I die? life
MORTALITY NAUSEA
EXISTENTIAL
QUESTIONS
35 SIN 48
Nisbet
TRAGEDY
do my plan my exper- have known
story of:
adaptors
the group
action or
or or experiences I
play roles in
or
meaning AUDIENCE 45 why does posses-
46 ing make me object
where is meaning?
NO ESCAPE
what/who am I? 38
RELATIVITY
people arrangements
tasks or
of:
ethnic selves act role = id
situations love the
or
intent = id situation or
institutions Nisbet or Nisbet love the person
why something?
40 why love dies?

52 27
primacy:
life or
56 immanentgods: 63 work:
pleasant end work to caring seniors:
or
quality substance
about self
or
54 (attributes)
exactitude
or 50
Nisbet 49 or
several chance
causation: or 61 62 preserve:
9 plural 10 is fallen
world reality is:
stable or in flux
or
from talent 25 26
distributed [contracts
save face or
causes or gradual always homo- save truth
causes Nisbet or
or info
55 51
(mind to mind)
analysis 12 serial
or COMMUNITY
or relation
synthesis parallel

Nisbet
or or
or right contradiction:
other categories over one pole harshness
life friends or other tolerated as
or or or 29 personal rejection
achieved 14 relationships 13 inner
58 tell 30 not tolerated
or or blended middle 57 or or
outer
ascribed
rank
EMOTION
RANK GROUP project OUTPUT 21
2
or
drive for 18 or backward 22
1 foreground item
right vs. wrong
5 environment: 6 or 17 individual: apologetic reasoning
morality controllable focus from or
or parallel distinction forward
background or projects or reasoning
Nisbet power from
vs. case details
Nisbet are what is real]
hierarchy closeness individual universalist 59 status 20 exclusion 31 interesting 24 as relation
threat
egalitarian
or
Japan
interpretative institutionalized fame haven non-linear social automata secularity religion

assimilative nurture system dynamics
clarity battles
Conserving Historic Diversity Symbol

Novelty Dream
unsup- personal drama show the fatal tamper- language art
ported nurture way success ing
baby
Change Culture
initiative no man’s action public exercises meanings benevo- structures
land happiness lence
Liberation Freedom Wisdom Style

miracle promise novelty covenant skills know- genera- families
ledge tions
SOCIAL
PROCESSES
innovation measurement incentives consum- inputs purposes opportunity checks
ption
Productivity Distribution Anticipation Welfare

resource variation property markets interests plans spaces rights
Economy Polity
time technology quality systems norms laws mediation execution
Resources Production Peace Justice

natural human tools forces defense police legisla- juridica-
tion tion
and hence miss the “home-runs for free” experiences of the individualists. Technology is, to
some extent, adding an entirely new environment that human kind operate in that changes
the worlds possible and the rules of transition. Or at least that is the illusion of technologi-
cal individualists. New world or illusion--that is a matter for future research to decide.
The social psych dilemmas viewpoint sees most of the human brain supporting social func-
tions in evolution. It produces “dimensions” for distinguishing one culture from another.
These dimensions for many years were worded idiosyncratically by Hofstede and others but
from the beginning it was apparent that such dimensions corresponded, one to one, to tradi-
tional dilemmas in social psychology. In the model of culture favored by this primer,
“dimensions” are separate from and earlier than culture “types”. However, it is possible
(and for 30 years commonly done) to define types of culture by combing to or more dimen-
sions (usually a 2-dimensional graph with low-high horizontal axis of one dimension, and low-
high vertical axis of the other dimension, and 4 quadrants each being a “type” of culture).
Below such combinations and the types they define are listed for Hofstede’s first four social
psych dilemmas. Below the culture types listing is a listing of common social psych dilem-
mas from a beginner’s text, showing Hofstede’s four plus equivalent others.
• power distance crossed with uncertainty avoidance--HH = steep prescriptive

hierarchy; HL = consultative hierarchy; LH = rigid dyadic networks; LL =
anarchic reconfigurable networks
• uncertainty avoidance crossed with collectivity--HH = perfectionist egalitari-
ans; HL = perfectionist free agent pools; LH = voluntarist civitas; LL = ato-
mist individualism
• collectivity crossed with masculinity--HH = aggressive sectarians; HL = artistic
communes; LH = dog eat dog free for all; LL = care networks
• masculinity crossed with power distance--HH = primate status fights (band of
heros); HL = mentor net; LH = monastery; LL = romance nets
Twelve of Many Social Psychology Dilemmas for Defining Culture Dimensions that Combine
to Define Culture Types
• power distance--personal closeness reduces power (= high H) or increases it:
emotive distance empowers or disempowers
• uncertainty avoidance--tolerates (= low L) or does not tolerate uncertainty:
comfortable or uncomfortable with uncertainty
• individual or collective--prefers self determination (= L low) or communal deter-
mination: inventing self versus script reading self
• masculine or feminine--mind to mind (= H or M, high or masculine) versus person
to person communication: sharing information/status or intimacies/emo-
tions
• intrinsic/extrinsic motivation--values process because of the goal versus values

process because of experience of it: value from function or process
• interior/exterior locus of control--self determining versus determined by envi-
ronment: blame self or situation
• attribution--polar attribution (either self or others is to blame) versus blend
attribution (both parties contribute to outcomes): local causes versus sys-
tem causes
• grid--status from violating rules versus status from following rules: rebel or
conformist
• hierarchy--vertical hierarchy of few at top with expanded scope/authority ver-

sus horizontal hierarchy of few customers at ends of processes with expanded
authority and scope: promotion or mission
• careerism--personally designed path-thru-society based destiny versus socially
designed path-thru-society based destiny: scripted or self-invented lives
• messaging--packaging key to communication versus truth content key to com-
munication: message is frame or content
• contexting--high context encounters versus low context encounters: situated
meaning or specified meaning
• plus many others.
The culture types above, derived by crossing one culture dimension with another (limited to
Hofstede’s four main factor-analysis derived dimensions) seem to lack diversity and compre-
hensiveness. We can easily imagine distinct culture types not covered by the sixteen com-
binations gotten by crossing four dimensions. When we limit ourselves to national cultures
(Hofstede’s concern), forgetting the great majority of cultures from genders, families, eras,
professions, organizations and the like, we can be more satisfied with the sixteen gotten in
this way. But nations are a small fragment of the culture universe and not a solid basis of
generalization to other culture bases. In fact, the sixteen types gotten by crossing Hofst-
ede’s four dimensions very closely follow Wildavsky’s et al’s security types of culture (which
was derived not from factor analysis of IBM employees but from basic abstract dimensions in
the anthropology, political science, and social psychology literatures). .
The Mind Typologies of Culture: What is it in the human mind that generates culture
behavior? The mind typologies derive from different within-mind contents. Moreover,
these typologies tend to present themselves as abstract dimensions, but when one group
emphasizes one dimension over the others we get types. A cycling among such types is
found. Groups emphasizing one type transition to emphasizing a different type later, driven
by gaps and surprises between expected experience and experience delivered.
The meaning types of culture come from what one derives meaning from. This sounds sim-
plistic but is a powerful visible dynamic in history. Martin Luther surprised himself by creat-
ing something much bigger than he imagined. He sought to reform a Catholic Church
brought low by popes that murdered other people, the Borgias, and ended up splitting the
civilized (Western) world. By suggesting that meaning could be derived by a person individu-
ally reading a book, instead of following prescriptions of a priest, he unleashed a revolution
far beyond his own imagining and an accompanying war that killed over two thirds of the
population of Germany in 30 years, tens of millions dying.
• meaning from symbols--societies built bottom up, status from interpretative

abilities: interpretive skill
• meaning from values and beliefs--societies of mutual surveillance, status from
embodied goodness: embodiment skill
• meaning from heros--societies of great deeds and engagement in stories, status
from launching great actions: great deeds
• meaning from rituals and practices--societies of correct procedure, status from
expert or masterful doing: mastery
The meaning types divide cultures by source of meaning in people’s lives. All societies have
all these sources of meaning but each society emphasizes one over the others, usually by for-
mally making one primary. That primacy to one source of meaning becomes a style pervad-
ing all sorts of practices and cognitions throughout the group. These are powerful types and
one can directly feel and sense them in places like Germany where mastery is so much a part
of personal aspiration, family economics, work promotion, and national exporting. Simi-
larly, Latin American nations have a fascination with heros as the source of personal meaning
in ordinary people’s lives that puzzles people not a part of these cultures but reappears
again in history in widely different political system form and national development stages.
The assumption types of culture come from unspoken contents in culture, akin to this
primer’s favored definition of culture. Though the creator of this typology saw these as
dimensions that all cultures have and can be compared along, people using this model found
that some groups emphasized one type of assumptions over others, defining highly abstract
types of culture. This is like the meaning types dealt with immediately above.
• define ourselves via our relation to our environments--who we are comes from
the environments we face and how we relate to them; some respond to their
social environment, others to their political one, others to their geographic
or cultural or economic one; environment defined
• define ourselves via our image of the nature of reality--who we are comes from
our view of the nature of reality and what it requires of humans; some
respond to a reality that is unknowable and perverse, some respond to a real-
ity that is benevolent and everywhere, some respond to a reality that is dis-
tant and disappointed, some respond to a reality that is complicated and rule
bound; reality defined
• define ourselves via our view of the nature of time and space--who we are
comes from how we see the nature of time and space; some respond so as to
erase the elapse of time, some respond so as to shrink space and bring it
together at one point, some respond so as to distribute themselves in space,
some respond so as to endure throughout all time; cosmos defined
• define ourselves via our view of the nature of human: beings, activities, and
relations--who we are comes from our view of human nature; some respond
to the treacherous nature of human beings, some respond to the beauty of
human beings, some response to the goodness of human beings, some
respond to the competitiveness of human beings, some respond to optimize
the diversity and plurality among human beings, some respond so as to
expand what is common and shared among human beings; human nature
defined
The assumption types distinguish cultures into type via what they assume about, that is,
what they assume and what those assumptions are about. Societies can respond primarily to
environment, reality, space/time, and human nature in defining themselves. At different
times societies can transition among these types, with terrible wars and disasters from with-
out switching a society from human nature defined to environment defined, for example.
We can see this switch in the European Union, driven, more than by political forces, by indi-
vidual millions of people environment defined by a century of wars and suffering. The emo-
tions of union are beyond practical and political in this sense and have defeated the
predictions of pundits and commentators of all sorts as a result. The populations of Europe
switched to environment defined type from one or another of the other three types in the
middle of the 20th century.
The rite types of culture come from social purposes, represented in various rites and rituals.
Though most societies have rites and rituals for all these social purposes, each society
emphasizes and makes primary one of these purposes. That primacy percolates through the
society becoming a style and criterion of decision in myriad quotidian encounters.
• passage rite cultures--what is important is marking passage through phase gates

(social, psychic, theologic, attainment etc.); paths count; process confor-
mity
• degradation/enhancement rite cultures--what is important is marking deviation
and end of deviation from norm; repairing pride counts; boundary confor-
mity
• renewal rite cultures--what is important is marking correction of time’s eroding
influences; repairing focus counts; effort conformity
• conflict reduction/integration rite cultures--what is important is marking heal-
ing of diversity and difference into sameness and agreement; repairing
agreement counts; belief conformity.
Rites are primarily reminders--maps to what counts. They are a way for a group to keep its
focus. They recur in time and are distributed in space in order to cover all of existence with
signs reminding people of what counts. Dividing cultures into types by the what they remind
themselves of as “counting” for them makes perfect sense. Though all cultures have rites
for all four functions, each culture emphasizes one type over the others. One function
counts more than the others, is the foundation of the others. That function becomes a style
and priority, habit and method set the permeates many other aspects of the life of the com-
munity. For example, when you join a business organization you frequently find, from older
people, that certain rites of degradation or enhancement are meaningless while other rites
of passage, say, are very important.
The conquest types of culture see humanity at risk and culture as response to that risk. The
different threats that humanity is faced with determine the different types of culture that
humans erect.
• conquering time--the eternal return; the eschatological return; restarting again
fresh without sin, remorse, regret, or blame; reliving life again and again till
one gets it right, ceremonially cancel the elapse of time: everything can be
redone and redone--the ceremony solution
• conquering space--the eternal pioneer; the eschatological spring; re-implanting
the center of the world; relativity of travel; civilizing wilderness; wild-ifying
civilizations, the diving center is everywhere: everywhere can be central--
the expansion solution
• conquering hurt--the impossibility of loss; the illusion of possession; the reifica-
tion of the human, the personal, the relationship; the constantly opening
unexpected horizons; the center sympathizes with the periphery, continually
admit non-centrality: every hurt is built on human hubris--the modesty
solution
• conquering illusion--the mind a worry-generating machine; “my life” as egoistic
illusion; experience as sheer suffering; letting go of locality gets it back via
cosmic globality, letting go of locality gets it back divinely: every concern is
flight from tranquil reality--the clear mind solution.
The conquest types are primarily preferred solution types found throughout a culture. You
can separate cultures by the style of solution found everywhere within them. When things
go wrong, cultures have a characteristic way of approaching solution and a characteristic
type of solution they seek. This is so much so that all cultures have certain types of recur-
ring problems, never solved because the style of solution needed is not in the repertoire of
that culture, in not one of the preferred ways of solving assumed and handed down through-
out that group.
The Group Typologies of Culture. These typologies come from looking at how groups in
general differ from each other, then zooming down to the culture parts of that. These are
very important because so much of the other typologies come from anthropology, study of
ethnic groups, or study of nationalities. Study of business organizations, civic groups, social
movements, and the like tell us just as much about culture as study of nations and what they
reveal is often a bit more practically useful that what study of nationalities produces.
The relations types of culture distinguish fundamental types of ways humans relate to each
other and cultures show up being dominated by one or another of them. Though all cultures
are mixtures of all four types, each culture is dominated by one, with departures from its
use, excused, explained, or made marginal.
• communal sharing--equivalence among persons; kindness uberalles; I am the

group I am in; interest in merging identity/feelings; punish transgression with
immediate pain; fault as impurity; handle misfortune by outcasting victims;
god as friend next to you all day; people give what can take what need; sub-
merged self--blend
• authority ranking--inequality among persons, status uberalles; I am the rank I
am in; interest in exercise of power; punish transgression with equivalent
pain; fault as disobedience; handle misfortune by loss of rank; god as distant
judge; superiors control resources but owe benevolent care to subordinates;
ranked self--roleplay
• equality matching--separate but equal relations among persons; reciprocity
uberalles; I am the balances I maintain;interest in fairness; punish transgres-
sion with restitution; fault as imbalance; handle misfortune by doing nothing
(misfortune comes from envy or envied lucky breaks and balances them
restoring equality); god as tough love parent; tit for tat; equivalent self--
match
• market pricing--pricing among persons; exchange uberalles; I am what people’s
bid say I am; interest in achievement; punish transgression with custom tai-
lored negative incentive; fault as violation of crafted rules (rules as “price”
community bids for behavior corrections); handle misfortune as a price of
risks they deliberately took; god as investment in translifespan perspectives;
pay what competitive bidders cannot pay; bid self--attain.
The above culture types blend and weave in real societies. Every society is a particular pro-
file of emphasis on each of the above four in each social process. These types draw atten-
tion to types of ways humans related to each other in various parts of life and society. As is
true of all other types in this primer, the style and habits and associations from one domi-
nant type spread through groups, tinging it with the overall “color” of that dominant strain.
The control types of culture distinguish sources of and uses of power in groups and individu-
als. Most interesting in this is the way a person inside his own mind controls himself and
whether this way spread to how he relates to others or not. Eventually how he relates to
others may invade how he manages himself inside his own mind as he works to improve,
evaluate, and direct himself. To a certain extent these control types evolve throughout the
lifespan, as slowly doubt and weakness get replaced by trust and competence in self and
others. People end up ranked by whether they stay fixated at early types late in life when
they should have evolved beyond them to more trusting and competence-expecting types.
• power cultures--coordinate by command; fears disloyalty to boss; talent for

speed and precision of decision; weak at long term survival; live by com-
mand
• role cultures--coordinate by procedures; fears violation of one’s place in hierar-
chy; talent for consistent responses; weak at spotting and handling new
challenges; live by protocol
• achievement cultures--coordinate by internalized goals/values; fears organiza-
tion suppressing members’ creativity; talent for tackling entirely new tasks;
weak at consistent execution; live by deeds done
• person cultures--coordinate by recognition and mutual support; fears loss of
diversity by favoring temporary successes; talent for attracting talent; weak
at collaborative complex configurations of organization talents; live by con-
straintlessness.
If you examine your own family in the context of these types, or your own local community,
firm, or school, you find blends of the above four types but each institutional area of your
life dominated by one of the above, regardless of blending. In rare cases there are nearly
equal blends, but when social processes are examined in detail, that equality disappears; it
comes from averaging across lots of social processes, each of which is an non-equal blend,
most likely, of the above four culture types. The control types of culture emphasize how
power is handled, not in the sense of generating new power from nothing, but in the sense of
allocating already existing role, institutional, or positional power. This is a somewhat static
and bureaucratic mindset and this model of types comes from studying business organiza-
tions, even the most fluid and forward-thinking of which are significantly bureaucratic.
Customers demand consistent quality and execution for the most part, driving production
organization towards bureaucracy except in rare markets where customers demand, more,
timely release of entirely new technical capabilities in products (bureaucratic producers fail
in these technology markets).
The means/ends types of culture distinguish what culture aim for and how they attempt
attainment of it. These types come from study of business organizations so they are a bit
tainted by bureaucracy as were the control types immediately above. Compared to the con-
trol types, the means/ends types are a bit less financial in cast and more sociological. They
take a broader look at the humanity that all organizations consist of and treat businesses less
as special important organization forms and more as cultures for anthropologists and other
social scientists to study as primitive cultures worldwide used to be studied in the formative
years of the field of anthropology.
• group cultures--means = morale; ends = develop people; comply because of

affiliation; form = clan; craftsmen (guilds)
• development cultures--means = readiness; ends = growth; comply because of
shared ideology; form = adhocracy; improvisers (entrepreneurs)
• hierarchy cultures--means = communication; ends = stable performance; comply
because of rules enforced; form = hierarchy; proceduralists (bureaucrats)
• rational cultures--means = planning; ends = efficient production; comply
because of contract enforced; form = market; engineers (project teams).
environment diversity driven technique liberalize normative/ open/closed; rational hierarchy

shift = disaster out (homogenity) specialization; rationalize pragmatic; loose/tight; control/ext control/int
ecologic global- crossed with crossed with plan/produce comminicate
ization process/results, normative/
person/role; pragmatic;
FAILING SECULARIZN. ORG MEANS/ENDS
SUCCESSES PSYCHE
success leaders: gui ld secularize process/ local/ group develop

Miller
narrow professes Argyis/Schon differentiate results; Hofstede
professnl; (fl/int) Quinn
(fl/ext)
search, person/ crossed morale readiness
block role; crossed with open/closed
dissent with local/profl. loose/tight;
PROCESS GROUPS
framework science heresy reliable near market pricing equality person/ task/achieve
future support “own role”
repertoire tolerant matching “own thing”
climate
KNOWING DEVELOPMENT RELATIONS CONTROL
magic myth action population communal authority power role“own

scope of risk/ sharing ranking “as told” how”
Campbell Fiske Cartwright
expanding Grondona initiative
infrastructures takers
CULTURE
TYPES
masculinity with collectivity with fatalism hierarchy of of hurt of conflict reduc- of renewal
power distance masculinity (capricious) (perverse) illusion tion & integra-
tion
DILEMMAS SECURITY CONQUEST RITES

social psych
power uncertainty individual egalitarian of time of space of of

passage degrade/
distance Hofstede avoidance (benign) Wildavsky (ephemeral)
Eliade Trice
with enhance
with
uncertainty collectivity
avoidance
BASICS MIND
nexus/desert mountain sex female dominance rituals/practice heros nature of nature of time &
denial hierarchy + human: space
being,
cloud of males activity,
relations
LANDMASS SEX ROLES MEANING ASSUMPTION
island continent male celebratory symbols values/ relation nature of

orgies to reality
dominance beliefs
Boas Kohl Levi-Straus environ- Schein
hierarchy + ment
harem

Models
reflecting
CREATE WAY
WARE


doing
HIGH
PERFORMANCE
CULTURE
TRAITS
effort excep-
tions
Extremes
past successes
BAD GOOD
BOY GIRL
parts

The means/ends types of culture emphasize different ways of producing things, whether cul-
ture soft things or economic hard sellable things. The scale of what is to be produced and
the technology type involved together tend to determine type here. The history of indus-
trial development in particular nations and regions of the world flows among these types
(viewed quite generally, though each age has a mix of all four types).
The org psych types of culture come from extension of Hofstede dimensions work to business
organizations. As done earlier, for each two dimensions crossed with each other we get four
quadrants as four types of culture those dimensions define. Each type is, here, the crossing
of two dimensions of difference among cultures, as a stand in for the four types that crossing
produces.
• processH/resultsL ( nearly = person/role) crossed with localH/professionalL--HH

= cultic; HL = our way boutiques; LH = heroic; LL = word/deed polis
• local(org id)H/professional(job id)L crossed with openH/closedL (nearly = loose/
tight)--HH = missionary; HL = clique; LH = expansive practice; LL = monop-
olist priesthood
• openH/closedL (nearly = loose/tight) crossed with normativeH/pragmaticL--HH
= expansive brand; HL = agile alliances; LH = aristocratic elite; LL = monas-
tic
• normative(principle driven)H/pragmatic(customer driven)L crossed with pro-
cessH/resultsL (nearly = person/role)--HH = my way; HL = calvinist; LH =
total quality; LL = service competitors
These org psych types, all sixteen of them listed, differ from usual views of cultures as self-
contained entities. The self-containedness of usual images of “cultures” is probably an illu-
sion just as the static images of “culture” from early (and as late as Geertz) anthropologists
were. A historic perspective makes these culture types come alive. Genghis Khan, the
Jesuits, Greenpeace, Toyota, and Hollywood call to mind, readily, particular ones of the
above types. Though developed for business, these types seem to capture well NGOs, gov-
ernmental, private, and commercial organization cultures.
The Process Typologies of Culture. Here stages of development are viewed as types.
Cultures are stages in ongoing evolution processes in groups of people. However, these
stages are not linear but spiral in nature, repeating steps on later bases, built up by prior
steps. The same steps are revisited but applied to evolving strata and bases in societies.
The knowing types of cultures distinguish cultures by their ways of knowing. As is true for all
types, blends of the below four are what is usually found in reality.
• magic--I know what to do in each situation; if we all believe in X it will work;

face the unknown via traditional reactions; togetherness conquers
• myth--I know what to interpret for each situation; if we all embody X’s meaning
it will work; face the unknown by seeing correspondences with my past victo-
ries; faith conquers
• science--I know what evidence to gather for each situation; if we all research X
it will work; face the unknown by mapping it; research conquers
• ways-of-knowing/framework repertoire--I know what diversity of viewpoints or
ways-of-knowing to assemble for each situation; if we all view X from multi-
ple diverse vantage points it will work; face the unknown via not trusting any
one viewpoint; diversity conquers.
These are tricky types to apply practically. For one reason, scientific seeming ways of
knowing can be magically used, dead facts paraded as if research. Research is a live process
of inquiry not past books of facts. As people age they tend to grow through these types--
from magic, through myth, to science, and possibly getting to diverse repertoires of ways of
knowing. Cultures also collapse suddenly from diverse ways-of-knowing, for example, to
magic or from science to myth.
The development types of culture emphasize what intentional development by any society of
itself requires in culture terms. Cultures can either stimulate development or block it
entirely. The types of development are pluriform--cultural development, political, eco-
nomic, social change, or others. Intentional development, a community making a future

that it itself designs, is not all of life but it is an important part, in that communities incapa-
ble of such development become easy victims of situations and changes.
• infrastructures that expand the scope of actions--things that multiply individual

actions/ideas into society-wide consequences/improvements; societies rec-
ognizing and utilizing talents within/without; multiplying talent
• population of risk and initiative takers--escape velocity of frustration or hope
reached by sizeable fraction of ordinary people releasing them toward build-
ing new futures; societies supporting their own replacement; authorizing
change
• reliable near future establishment--certain disciplines and lawfulness of institu-
tions/behaviors established so a stable future is there to invest in; societies
sustaining spaces of fair play; stable target for improvement
• heresy tolerant climate--balance ambition, goal attainment, lawfulness with
enough exception, diversity, and rebellion to continually expand ideas to try
and try for; societies maintaining modesty about what they know and can
know; expanding repertoire of ideas.
These types call to mind societies stuck at particular types--Asian cultures achieving wonder-
ful stability for centuries, but not for improvement; Western media multiplying celebrity not
talent hence enfeebling their societies. Individual families or workteams can be readily
viewed via these types. We have all seen families that notice and multiply talent of their
members and families that do next to nothing of that sort. We have all seen workgroups
that notice and multiply talents of their members and others that work hard to make sure
that that does not happen (lest the “boss” feel threatened). Think of Russia under Peter the
Great doing all the above at the same time versus China two hundred years ago, doing none
of the above. This is measuring “strength” or “health” of culture by whether any culture
exists or not. A culture that denies change altogether is not only dead but not even there as
a culture. It is automatic unconscious routines that do not handle anything, that take noth-
ing as input and maintain nothing as output. Not a few families and workteams fall into this
pattern as well.
The secularization types of culture distinguish how knowledge evolves from divinity to ecol-
ogy. It distinguishes how new areas of knowledge appear from how well established appear.
Societies evolve in a spiral way through these types. They revisit them applied to different,
evolved, substrates.
• guilds professing--a calling to a certain type of knowledge; knowledge is secret;

knowing the secrets of something; new knowledge from craft process muta-
tions; mysteries
• secularizing and differentiating knowledge--knowledge as non-sacred and dis-
tinct types; knowledge is ours; knowing the uniqueness of something; new
knowledge from distinguishing knowledge areas; fields
• liberalizing and rationalizing knowledge--knowledge for use; knowledge is
everybody’s; knowing the use of something; new knowledge from standard
innovation/research processes; practices
• technique specialization and ecologic globalization meshing fields--dependency
on experts countered by ecologically meshing fields for global solutions;
knowledge is unitary and collaborative; knowing the entirety of something;
new knowledge from blending existing fields to make new ones; collabora-
tions.
Some cultures organize themselves to handle certain mysteries. Other organize themselves
to handle certain fields, practices, or to form collaborations. There is a movement from
mystical, unclear knowing through distinct knowledge types, to using knowledge, and com-
bining diverse types, practices, and fields, into big projects going beyond what any one nar-
row specialty can do. Knowledge moves from a center of worship to something practical to
something of an event wherein parts of society come together.
So Whats and Implied Research Agenda

This primer has presented culture definitions that imply particular uses of culture. Opera-
tions enabled by tools on traits of culture showing up in particular culture dimensions
located in particular social processes are what implement these intended culture uses by
changing cultures from one type to a different type, the latter having a profile of weightings
among nine culture power elements that get the particular high performance you desire. All
cultures are high performances (see the compagnion primer to this one on culture powers)
and all high performances are cultures. People want, however, not any high performance
but particular ones, so they tilt culture types to get ones having the exact combinations of
culture powers that constitute the high performances they need.
This primer has presented this causal chain in the form of fractal concept models, most of
which had 64 elements organized in groups of 4 and 16. Expanding culture definitions, uses,
operations, tools, traits, dimensions, social processes, types, powers, high performance
characteristics from the four to ten usual in most published research on culture to 16 to 64
(the latter for most of them in this primer) has a distinct purpose--mapping culture’s vast-
ness and moving abstractions two steps more concrete so as to reduce recognition and
grounding work when handling them. It is virtually useless to go to Japan knowing that it is
highly communal, for example, one of Hofstede’ four dimensions. There are tens of thou-
sands of different ways to be communal in any particular situation. Even if I constrain it to
being communal in a feminine, uncertainty avoiding, power from closeness way (using Hofst-
ede’s other 3 dimensions instantiated for Japan), there are hundreds of ways to be that.
The cogency that makes four to ten dimensions appealing for physics theory building, ruins
social engagement and application. It underspecifies hugely. I expanded models from four
to 64 factors in order to present middle ground theorizing that reduces abstraction while
increasing number of factors, but in a regularized fractal well ordered format making it just
as easy to remember and handle 64 ideas as it is to handle ten (after a bit of familiarity with
the fractal concept model format).
It is not common to find a research piece on culture that makes as many distinctions as made
above. It is also not common to have 16 or 64 factor versions of such culture components,
not just mentioned but defined, if not illustrated. A first pass at articulating the research
agenda implied by the model above might look something like this:
--using “uses of culture” more usefully:

• people use cultures, as excuses, as ideals, as illusions, as weapons, as
distractors, as entertainment, as education, and lots of others; we
need to stop researching culture as if it merely exists and start
taking more seriously how it is being used and by whom it is being
used whenever and wherever and however it appears
--operationalizing “operations on cultures”
• there are particular operations that individuals and groups perform
on cultures--what are they? how many are they? which ones does
each culture most use? most omit? why? how do people and cul-
ture evolve among them? why?
--tooling academia and tooling practice
• researchers tend to be researchers, hence, academic, and like tools
that help themselves, though they may try to get consulting and
monies using such tools; practitioners like four dimension culture
typologies because they are easy to understand but eventually
they all find you cannot do very much with four very very general
and very very abstract constructs; we need to distinguish rigor-
ously tools for academics and tools for practice and devote real
testing and power measurement to tools for practice instead of
assuming tools that academics like, because abstract and general
and simple, will appeal to practitioners wondering “how can I be
communal rather than individualist now that I am in a Japanese
police station?”
--un-jumbling un-tangling discombobulating traits, dimensions, social pro-
cesses, types
• when we strengthen a culture, what exactly is getting stronger?

when we perform any operation on a culture, it is the situated real
version of that culture not anyone’s culture theory that we oper-
ate on, therefore: we always operate on traits located in dimen-
sions located in social processes and the results of such operations
change us from one type to another type, or invent an entirely
new unheard of type; we must stop loose language that sounds
like culture is unitary, located equivalently everywhere in every
social institution, and is defined by a few factor-analysis dimen-
sions because we like cogent numbers of abstractions as academ-
ics;
--getting serious about the power/powers of culture
• research has done a very poor job of explaining how something as
woozy and soft as culture can be as powerful in the practical world
as it actually is; research has also done a poor job of explaining
why people in the real world handle culture so woefully and inade-
quately; if culture has power let us define it precisely and mea-
sure changes in it precisely and show how changes in traits and
dimensions affect culture power
--high performance and culture and vice versa
• the real world constantly looks for and pays well for high perfor-
mances and how to attain and maintain them; the real world does
not look for and pay so well for culture generation and how to
attain and maintain that; yet it is readily apparent that high per-
formance is nothing but culture creation and culture creation is
nothing but heightening certain performances by automating and
loosing them as a cost in consciousness; if we want study of cul-
ture to be of practical import, we have to stop pretending that
culture is something mysterious and special and distinct when the
data push us towards researching if it is common, everywhere, and
unavoidable, without much mystery or the need for mysterious
explanations; the fields of anthropology and research in general
have mystified culture for their own selfish purposes and lost its
power and their own power as a result.
--how many: definitions, uses, operations, tools, traits, dimensions, pro-
cesses, types, powers, high performance traits is enough?
• preference for four to ten factors, rampant all over academia, is cul-
ture based and has a rather narrow, unexperimentally verified and
validated basis; has anyone seriously examined competition for
explanatory power and for influence on practice of five factor, fif-
teen factor, and fifty factor models of an outcome of interest?
journals have their prejudices and you cannot publish anything
with ten or more factors, we all know; perhaps we need to open
up our own academic cultures a bit and do the experiments to jus-
tify with real data and results our prejudice in favor of five fac-
tors; fractal concept models allow (experimentation results are in
that prove it, submitted variously) 64 to 128 factors to be man-
aged with the same accuracy, speed, and quality as we ordinarily
manage five to ten factors; by changing our granularity of expla-
nation towards more concreteness we operate at a middle ground
between physics theory of the e = mc2 sort and practice world-
wide.
These seven research agenda items are but a halting start but they position us and culture
study in a powerful new direction and light. Be assurred that my grad students will be
releasing scales, factors, structural equations, and all the rest, based on testing the above
model over the next years, in dozens of fields and journals. My dream is that many others
may as well, by extending and pruning this model in their own light and inspiration (and
methods and resources).
.
Ten Components of Culture: for the culture itself and for the theory that the culture has of itself
Culture Aspects Culture Space Culture Results
Defini- Uses Opera- Tools Traits Dimen- Processes Types Powers High Perfor-
items
tions tions sions mance

Traits
what we once we tools the traits the the result of each type when all cultures
think we oper- enable that cul- dimen- operating on of culture someone are high
culture know ate on us to tures have sions particular has a dis- empha- perfor-
is deter- how cul- per- are found that traits (as tribution of sizes mances
mines we ture form in spe- distin- found in weighting some (things we
how we wish traits opera- cific guish dimensions across the powers of do fast, eas-
use it to use (streng tions dimen- cul- and pro- nine pow- culture ily, and well
one item to the next
a cul- th, we sions that tures cesses) is ers of cul- and de- from prac-
causal links from
ture coher- want on distin- from changing the ture, so empha- tice); and
trait ence, particu- guish cul- each type of a changing sizes oth- all high per-
we etc.) lar tures other culture types also ers, the formances
can using traits are changes result is are cul-
choos tools to that found this pat- achieve- tures
e enable cul- in cer- tern of ment of a (things that
opera- such tures tain emphasis different work when
tions opera- have proof the vari- type of in a particu-
to tions cesses ous pow- high per- lar group or
apply on such of soci- ers of formance context,
to it traits ety culture not when
outside it)
particu- chang recog- maps of coherence humans conserving sex deny- culture’s innovate
lar dis- e how nize the of a cul- are first novelties-- ing cul- vastness-- radically but
tinctions we culture stages ture--how among defending tures--sex it is every- only within
we make live; dimen- of pene- well its species innovations is danger- thing chosen form
in how sions, trating bits fit versus from old ous and to humans
example 1
we live; traits, any cul- together; humans established be care- think and
etc. ture; are powers fully con- do
equals trolled
to other
species
of ani-
mals;
differ- chang strengt respons exception my cir- polis pro- market culture’s use others’
ent e what hen cul- e stop- recogni- cum- cesses-- pricing--the uncon- rejects as
types of type ture ping-- tion--how stances spaces for value of scious- star play-
excel- of traits stop- much a cause appearing everything ness--we ers; scarf
lence excel- ping our culture my situ- among peers is deter- do not resources
example 2
achieved lence easy tolerates ation to exchange mined by know others dis-
; we auto- and versus I word and what oth- what con- miss
achiev matic acknowl- cause deed and ers are will- trols our
e respons edges my situ- contribute to ing to pay own
es to sit- excep- ation; collective for it in beliefs
uations; tions to its well being some cur- and habits
rules/ rency
ways;
The Culture
Itself
Theory of Itself
The Culture’s
The Gap:
END OF PRIMER ON CULTURE HANDLING
mm
Above I end the Primer section with a model of ten components by which we can spot, mod-
ify, handle, and create cultures. It is a visual way to summarize the 50 pages that went
before it. Those ten components work in sets--definitions determine uses and vice versa,
operations depend on tools and vice versa, traits are aspects we wish to change whereas
dimensions are aspects we leave as they are though someday we may wish to change them
too. Cultures are tricky because traits and dimensions of them appear in some processes
going on in groups/individuals and not in others--that is, in some social processes and not
others. There are types of culture, each types with its own unique profile of powers, which
we can adjust to reach “high performance” at times by operations applied to traits/dimen-
sions/types of culture via tools. Note--none of these are “true” in some deep rules of phys-
ics sense. Rather, these are convenient ways to model something as vast, invisible, yet
powerful as culture--a way to aim at vital aspects of it and modify them as meets human
needs.

THE INNOVATION AS CULTURE WORK MODEL OF INNOVATION
the implementation
questions
HOW DO YOU DO THIS? I am tempted to write--become a Culture Master, then make employees
into Culture Masters, then products and finally your customers. That is
absolutely essential and will happen if you try innovation via this model.
However, “become a Culture Master” is not fully specified. Buy my book
Your Door to Culture Power to get the step by step instructions and
examples for becoming such a master.
There are people who, because orphaned like Jobs, or Army brats who
grew up in a dozen nations, or psychos ruined by missionary parents who
denigrated several cultures they somewhat “lived” in, confusing their
kids with “right ways” that were quite harmful in each locale--these
three and many other types of life produce people at age 20 or 30 who
naturally see all cultures around them, from an emotional distance, as
limited, biased, dubious enterprises. They are emotion, routine, val-
ues, viewpoint skeptics of all around them--never buying into what
everyone else loves and assumes and does without thinking. Modern cor-
porations HATE these people--they do not “fit” into any culture at all.
YET they are the born Culture Masters who will effortlessly and natu-
rally always do the model of innovation of this chapter. Make them
CEO, let them hire similar types and populate the firm’s leadership, and
massive innovation will effortlessly later appear.
WHAT ARE THE MAJOR OBSTA- Even a moron viewing the 15 cultures “to counter” in order to “inno-
CLES YOU ENCOUNTER? vate” of this chapter’s model, will sense a problem---nearly every aspect
of every business and business”man” you know has to be countered, un-
done, thwarted, destroyed, and run roughshod over in order to innovate
if this chapter is right. What business”men” do you right now know with
this sort of guts? See? This model of creating is nearly impossible--it
means countering all that business is and does, countering all the
cowardly grovelling “men” who do business daily everywhere.
Maybe women are best prepared for this, or maybe very young Silicon
Valley upstart billionaires like Jobs. Nevertheless, I personally used this
model of innovation most of my career in good and bad corporations
with a huge amount of fun and success--so it CAN be done!
WHY DO MANY NEVER ATTEMPT Why would the entire management of all major firms in Japan imple-
IT? ment a culture countering all that was natural and traditional to their
way of managing? They lost a war--that was ONE reason. Can you and
your firm do such a deed--like TQM countering the verticalities of Japa-
nese management--without losing a war? That is the issue in attempting
this mode of innovating.
6. The Computational System Type Dialog

Model of Innovation
There are easily 80 to 100 major inventions and tools used by all of us world-wide, brought
to us by the information systems revolution, the Digital World revolution since 1950. When
you plot them by similarity of technology or market, origin or component, and chronologi-
cally, you get a dialog among five fundamental type of computational systems--mind, brain,
society, biology, machine. Whenever a new form of computation emerges or is spotted in
one of these domains, immediately we spot similar ones in others or we design and imple-
ment similar ones on other substrates in other domains of computation. For example we
find new aspects--the inheritance of learned behaviors encoded in how DNA is wrapped
(mythelation)--in biology then we modify genetic algorithms in machines to have similar lev-
els of inheritance--a slow compiling of repeated experiences into RNA protein responses,
then DNA wrappings control system dynamics, then into DNA methyl group wrappings, then
into DNA genes. In this way spotting a computational system type become the design and
invention of a similar new computational system in/on another substrate.
This dialog among five types of computational system has generated over 80 to 100 new
inventions and devices thus far, and is accelerating as I write this sentence today. Seeing
this dialog map as a whole and plotting developments by others on it, allows you to spot and
invent further new forms of computational system yourself--it makes you innovate.
Indeed, past forms of innovation circa 1500 and the water wheel, 1800 and steam, 1900 and
autos-tele-rail-air, are obvious sub-dialogs on a more abstract version of the same dialog
among the same five computational system types. This is a general model of all innovation
not just a model of information system innovations. Seeing organization arrangements,
leadership, deeds as social computations, perhaps in dialog with mind computations, driven
by brain computations, makes clear how all historic innovations come from this overall dia-
log.
In recent years, emotive comutational systems have split off from social ones, and people
have started re-founding old areas of knowledge like physics, on a computational basis. Sim-
ilarly the web and a meta-computational system uniting all other computational systems has
split off of mind computers. This makes a new list in dialog:
1) biologic computational systems

2) social computational systems
3) emotional computational systems
4) machine computational systems
5) mind computational systems
6) web computational systems
7) brain comutational systems
8) physics computional systems.
We can expect this list, also, to gradually grow. Especially when kids get gradually taught
physics views of the nature of the universe itself as a computational system, we can expect a
burgeoning list of computational system types. Wolfram’s book A New Kind of Science re-
interprets all of physics including space and time as emergents from the simplest think-able
machines--one dimensional cellular automata. If you want to do innovation a la this chap-

ter’s model, start there--with that book’s social automata view. Practice seeing every social,
biologic, tool, brain, emotional, machine, device, mental, web thing as an automaton. This
reveals a unity among diverse things and makes one’s view of them all--computational. This
unveils a lot of innovation potential in otherwise normal assumed ways and things.
What is at work here, is, again, repeating some models already presented in this book, a dis-
location of perception--seeing differently--seeing automaton-ly, seeing computationally, see-
ing dialogically.
Consider, as my students did, a pharmaceutical sales process computationally and dialogi-

cally.
1) EMOTIVE COMPUTATION--send in the clowns--shapely

young girls with samples for physicians
CAN THE PRODUCT ITSELF GET ATTENTION?
2) MIND COMPUTATION--reminding via small samples

frequently delivered
DOES SHEER MESSAGE FREQUENCY STICK?
3) WEB COMPUTATION--instant fact-checking of sales claims

CAN COMPANIES HIDE BRIBES, LIES, BIAS TODAY?
4) MIND COMPUTATION--scheduling small time segments for

pretty girls delivering info bites and samples
DO INTERRUPTIONS OF CUSTOMER SCHEDULE WORK?
5) BIOLOGIC COMPUTATION--obvious long term biologic

systems drugs come from, but early commercializations
based on slight or dangerously partial models of them--
physicians suspect exaggerations and lies from pharma
CAN COMPANIES HIDE OWN IGNORANCE THESE DAYS?
6) SOCIAL COMPUTATION--bribes from drug firms to

physician “speakers” to recommend bad drugs.
DOES PARTIAL DISHONESTY STAY PARTIAL?
What would a computationally more effective pharma sales process look like?
1) professional attention from famous med researcher presentations

2) sales “partners” beside each physician during those presentations
3) more professionally modest sales materials and claims face to face
4) research presentations at twice or once a month Friday breakfasts
5) questions answered by top researchers not ignorant biased sales people
6) foster pharma break ups and competition to undermine the bribe ways today.
Zeneca Pharmaceutical Chicago, at the time the world’s number one sales district, imple-
mented 1 through 6 above, a new sales process almost opposite of the one listed above. It
was based on viewing the sales process computationally and dialogically.
VIEWING X COMPUTATIONALLY AND DIALOGICALLY

X = iPod
1) biologic computational systems computational devices evolve smaller = portable =
personal = interact with other devices ecologically
not mechanically
2) social computational systems music buys heavily influence by primary groups of
individuals
3) emotional computational sys- a dozen ways emotions index what you want next,
tems buy next, listen to next, share with nearby others
4) machine computational systems a personal portable device that holds personal music
libraries and connects to the WORLD’S overall such
library
5) mind computational systems not own, own; hear, buy; see, try out;--technology
removing the distance between these, easing transi-
tion from one to other
6) web computational systems personal lifetime music library will fit into portable
personal devices, BUT web connects allow WORLD’S
overall music library to live stream personally
7) brain comutational systems playlists emerge because the brain needs/wants
kinds of experience in/at kinds of situation
8) physics computional systems. music is info, deliver info to persons portably
9) industry computational systems CD prices made hatred of music firms and musicians,
made global theft of music = music industry to sur-
vive MUST lower prices increase access, de-bundle
albums, BE MANAGED BY SMARTER PEOPLE FROM
COMPUTER COMPANIES.
SOCIAL BIOLOGIC
COMPUTERS COMPUTERS
DNA Computers
Invent Events Protein Computers
Crowd Source Inventings Natural Selection Algorithms
Social Automata ling the e
fee erve o hat w
rs
obs feel w
The interest module

negates the liking
.
We
module--we dislike
what interests us
EMOTIVE Idea
COMPUTERS Web Waves
Envy Events
UNIVERSES CREATE WEB
Imitation
BRAINS that CREATE COMPUTERS
Empathy UNIVERSES Big Data
7 Types of Computer
Interact to Inspire & The web is the Mining
We have raw cortex of all global
Spawn Other New
percepts but
PHYSICS no access, our
Computations cultures, indexing them.
We spot or
COMPUTERS cortex indexes =
filters them.
Invent MACHINE
Quantum Info COMPUTERS
ret ow what ting r
te
int tice ts on pt se fas
Cosmologics Genetic Algorithms

e
no ntex once avels
w
t
Neural Nets
co n c n tr
we
Animal Perception
tha otio
erp & h
Em
it
Human Language
NEURONAL
COMPUTERS
General Empirical Computational Processes

6 Com- 18 Com- 150 Computation What gets Representative
putation- puta- Approaches computed from Hierarchy of
alSystemT tionalSys- 39 Com- what: Codes:
ypes tems putation
Types
Machine Social Social blackboards, demo- social decisions preferences, coali-

interaction cratic electronics, from individual tions, votes
Comput- compu- simulated societies, preferences
electronic democracy
ers Mim- tation
Massive cellular automata, self emergent unit states, neigh-
icking parallelism population computa- overall patterns borhoods, interac-
Social tions from local agent tions
conditions
Ones Virtual Sociable robot societies, intel- self emergent pat- cooperations, rela-
units ligent agents (soft- terns of work and tionships, communi-
and bots) task accomplish- ties
ment from individ-
cyber ual unit
realities assignments
Intelligent multi-media, organi- self emergent tasks, roles, pro-
message zational computing, organization form cesses
processware, self from work pro-
contents emerging organiza- cess/capability
tions, agile economies agglomeration
Personal virtual persons, vir- task accomplish- physics, geometry,
fictive tual organizations, ment from per- geology
cyber persons, cyber sonal relationships
interfaces spaces
Ubiqui- Prefer- badging, personal personal informa- locations, prefer-
ence fol- locales, personal area tion from locations ences, facilities set-
tous lowing
networks tings
comput- Prefer- politicized settings, group interfaces persons present,
ing ence com- politicized proce- from individual preferences
dures, computed orga- preferences present, facilities
bining nizations settings

ypes tems putation
Types
Getting Compu- Social manage by movement emergent out- basic unit states,
array pro- building, micro insti- comes from basic neighborhoods,
social tational tution development, unit interactions interactions
cesses manage by events,
comput- sociality global quality, social
ers to automata leadership
mimic Personal structural reading dia- models from vari- topic names, topic
array programs, fractal model ety count, topic order-
machine cesses
building, fractal filing, ings
fractal interfaces,
ones chatroom movement
building
Virtual Cellularity all people in one cel- group space from interests, communi-
lular space, all places individual space ties, events
plane- 24 hour connected
tary Internet- democratized broad- decentralized sys- homepages, gate-
ting casting, broadcasting tems from central- ways, search
society unique computational ized systems engines
resources, automated
social movement
building routine
libraries
Function just-in-time manag- function type, polling, protocols,
specifica- ing, participatory art, amount, and time social delivery
protocol communities needed from regu- means
tion lar polling
Social Virtual one group as 30, plu- population of teams, teams of
groups ral leadership intelligent agents teams
virtual- regimes, marketiza- from single group (superteams),
tion of functions teams of
ity superteams
Inversion transport locales, out- the presence of a function, opportu-
virtuality source virtuality function from the nity broadcast,
absence of the market bids
function

ypes tems putation
Types
Getting Ontoge- Organism fractal growth, self structures from populations of

develop- organization, cell self organizing agents interacting,
biologi- nesis types as attractors processes self-organized criti-
ment cality, avalanche
cal com- events
puters Organism directing attention, decisions from attention alterna-
to behavior natural selection of natural selection tives, fitness con-
behaviors, selfish processes tests, attention
mimic gene use of organisms decisions
social Animal Social identity maintenance relationships from local behaviors,
mainte- activities, mutual local behaviors interactions, rela-
ones societ- grooming, role interacting tionships
nance salience dependency
ies activities
Social ant hill move deci- group actions from basic unit states,
decisions sions, bird migration basic unit interac- neighborhoods,
decisions, community tions interactions
fight/flight decisions
Ecosys- Ecosys- succession, niche evo- community struc- natural selection
tems lution, avalanche ture/function processes, species
tem events, symbiosis, changes from evolutionary
adapting parasitism interacting natu- streams, commu-
evolu- ral selection pro- nity structures
tion cesses
Adapting affordances, attune- adaptation to an exploration actions,
to ecosys- ments, effectivities environment from attunements to
exploration affordances, effec-
tems tivities
Above I provided a simplified example of applying the Computational System Type Dialog
Model of Innovaton to a part of business--the pharmaceutical industry sales process. Imme-
diately above I provide a table applying slightly more thoroughly that same model to the iPod
(doing this in retrospect as all business school professors do is largely invalid, and trivially
easy). There is a missing element in both the pharmaceutical sales process example and in
the iPod example---many of these computational system types to affect and impact a busi-
ness or product must operate on or thru influence processes.
Leadership, if anything other than male strutting, displays, territory fights, and other mon-
key-isms, is sheer influence. Products that are innovative, are, by definition, ones that
change = influence the future nature and direction of their overall industry. To innovate is
to thusly influence, so it is useful to have at hand a MODEL OF INFLUENCE FORMS that is glo-
bal, not American, practical not merely academic, detailed so can be applied, and techno-
logically up to date with computational understandings of the mind, brain, emotions, social
life, the web, and all else--i. e. covers all the types of computational system in this chap-
ter’s model of innovation. Such a model of influence types and tactics is given in the table
below with sources of each of the 18 approaches to influence provided in column titles.
Every box in the following table needs to be understood, modeled, seen computationally and
as a dialog among two or more computational system types--that is the agenda of re-seeing
all of business for innovation via this chapter’s model.
PERSUADE
Cialdini
reciprocate--do a favor 1st to indebt people to you
consistency--entice people to commit publically to X so they keep X for their
repute
validate--get friends and reference group members of a person doing X then he
will follow (we do what people like us do)
liking--be likable and do X or get people that A likes to do X the A will do it too
authority--find whom A sees as aiuthoritative then get them to do X and A will
follow
scarcity--make A think X is rare, special, will not longer be available
the automaticity of human judging causes much influence via unconscious

means
perceptual contrast--expose someone 1st to a poor version of X then to X and
they will see the second X as better than usual
articulation--when asking A for X provide a “because” reason
rejection then retreat to smaller request--composition of reciprocate + percept
contrast principles
LEAD
Chemers, Grint, March
rationality leadership: image projection, relationship development, resource
utilization: project images, find and relate to key persons, mobi-
lize resources towards goals
leading by mettle: leaders as energy sources, inspiration sources, story tellers,
follower dream elicitors, courageous fighters, pioneering spirits,
unflapable when others are down, super-human heroics
emergent leadership: leadership as emergent phenomena created by interac-
tions in a group, with everyone leader of some function or other,
and some leaders of those emergent speciality leaders for some
purposes not others
thought leadership: finding sources beyond others, finding patterns beyond
others, applying patterns faster deeper farther than others
emotive leadership: inventing new forms of care, inviting people beyond their
self destructive compacencies and comforts, putting people in
touch with all of life and its possibilities beyond smaller worlds
individuals inhabit
leadership as magic: leaders do things but hide how they do them so their
results surprise us just as results of magicians hiding their means
surprise us
leadership as illusion: the fundamental attribution error causes people to
ascribe outcomes to individual leaders when in reality plural fac-
tors or luck were involved (leadership is an illusion based on men-
tal flaws in individuals or cultures)
leadership dichotomy = mastery of situation versus mastery of the people in the
situation (mission leaders abuse people healed by follow up main-
tenance leaders)
appearance is realilty = people want to feel like they are going somewhere
more than they need or allow themselves to be led somewhere
dis-believe self-generated self importance/self correctness myths = allow
genba critiques to affect leader actions
NEGOTIATE
Lord
ubiquitous negotiating: stop taking any situation, price, terms as given and
negotiate leeway in all transactions (practical leeways/advan-
tages and other-party-growth leeways/advantages)
image demystification: first images come from fears, media, rumor, interior
self doubts, and must be cleared, debunked, for valid seeing to
begin
talk is not communication: mini-crisis events punctuate the negotiation pro-
cess, each event putting the other party into tension that causes
them to experience, in miniature, what formed you and the
frameworks via which you see the world (and vice versa, get you
to experience in miniature what created their frameworks)
meaning = message + package + receiver framework + context around recep-
tion: messasges need packaging that takes into account receivers
having different frames, and contexts of receiving the message
forming the negotiation success culture community: the negotiators have to
develop a solace system of caring about making all involved suc-
cessful by coming to like each other and the chances for win-win
in the negotiation circumstances
extending the negotiation success-culture community: the success-culture
invented by particular parties must be extended to sponsors and
authorities within their respective organizations to whom they
report via clever social involvement tactics
using success-cultures to make final negotiations succeed via making initial
ones fail badly: adjusting own organization authorities and
expectations may require trying rigid “believed” approaches till

they badly fail then retrying with more flexible beliefs
emergent goals, terms, negotiations: any negotiation process may expose
aspects of self or other that are better more important opportuni-
ties than what is being negotiated
internally negotiate beyond own culture/organization limits on the negotiation
process: negotiate with your own authorities leeway to extend
beyond personnel, times, costs normal to your culture/organiza-
tion so such limits cannot be used as pressure by the other parties
break trust/negotiation into smallest, viable pieces, then do easy small succes-
sive “finite element” style negotiations till big success
REASON & ARGUE

Stanovich
argue rationally which means 3 things--normative rationality as closure over:
alternatives pursued (subjective expected utility), logical impli-
cation (belief consistency), bayesian conditionalization
avoid false excuses for irrationality--gaps between normative and descriptive
rationality: meliorists = irrationality exists; apologists = computa-
tional limitations; panglosians = transient performance errors or
wrong norm applied or alternative framing of the task
be rational on all three levels--intentional (goal management and creation and
implementation), algorithmic (combining built-in hardware/soft-
ware modules of the mind to get mental tasks done), biological
(design and working details of modules in the mind)
be rational theoretically and practically--theoretical or epistemic rationality =
how well beliefs represent the reality of the world; practical
rationality = how well a person maximizes satisfaction of their
desires , given their beliefs
monitor own irrationality of desire--irrational desires = ones we would rather
eliminate, ones based on false beliefs, goals whose expected util-
ity keeps differing from their experienced utility, conflicting
desires; but, desires that lead to actions that lead to results that
fulfill those desires even though the desires were based on false
beliefs are rational (I think my lover faithful, act so, she relents)
measure goal mutuality-of-enablement (seek tipping point goals)--the more a
person’s beliefs track the world accurately the more chasing one
of their goals will enable rather than hinder fulfilling others of
their goals = goals can be derived to enable attainment of others
so can be evaluated as to goal comprehensiveness
admit own irrationality limits--arguments for the impossibility of human irratio-
nality: principle of charity (we must assume other’s are rational
to detect their beliefs etc.; but mothers-in-law complain against
all), evolution chose our present ways of reasoning (but over-fear
protects life not truth), reflective equilibrium (we adjust intui-

tions to implications of them for consistency, but norms evolve in
culture faster than in biology, so new updating constantly is
needed yearly if not weekly)
reframe problems to maximally use built-in evolution-built mind modules and
allow time for slow culture-built mind modules--dual processing
hypothesis: humans have two reasoning systems a fast, hard-
wired evolution-built one that works on inputs like our ancestors
faced and a slow, soft-wired human culture-built one that works
on civilized inputs and continue to evolve with human culture (it
maximizes personal utility)
study particular fallacies of human thought and particular modern framings of
issues that transgress framings our ancestral minds faced and
learn compensations for both the fallacies and the framings
regularly update own images of normative rationality as improvements else-
where in culture modify it
COMMUNICATE
Gladwell
20/80 rule’s people types: connectors = weak ties, mavens = fanatic knowing,
persuaders = infectious emoting, translators = droping/focusing
detail then assimilate to customer frames, pioneers = early
adopter experiments, creators = exponential choice growth
selling dimensions: non-verbality = cues we don’t see affect us; subtlety =
slight meaningless cues shift our preferences; emotion = is outside
in not inside out; infection = certain others infect us with their
emotions; mimicry = we copy emotions we see; rhythms = conver-
sations have micro-rhythms that draw us in
powers of context: graffiti =small disrespects escalate into crime; emotion gen-
erator = emotions are outide in; blame blindness = blame is
escape from context powers; immediacy = what is there is 1st,
interpretations derivative; social channel capacity = sympathy
groups 12, sociability groups 150; social mind extentions = cogni-
tive functions groups do for us
message sticking principles: fit customer capacity; build confidence = start
easy; fit daily life; fit customer purposes, fit participation need;
multiplicity = delivery means, ocassion, structure, contents all
are the message
non-linearity dimensions: similar inputs different results, slight input huge
results, growth where growth, local inputs whole system change
results, nearly identical input switches system to entirely differ-
ent endpoint, path dependence of results, first mover advantage,
your past actions = your current environment
use 20/80 people types as channel for message
use sellling dimensions as media in channel for message

design message contents to link/set up context and to stick
aim message at tipping points inside minds and social groups
choose channel and media, design message to establish context and stick, aim
messages at tipping points
TRANSPLANT ACROSS CULTURES

Greene
find or build a model of all the dimensions that can be used to discriminate the
culture of any two parts of the world or of selves
use that culture model to specify exactly the culture dimensions of the culture
of a set of practices
use that culture model to specify exactly the culture traits of the culture that
that set of practices originated in
use that culture model to specify exactly the culture traits of the culture that
you wish to apply those practices in or to (the target culture)
form a matrix of culture traits of the practices’ culture and traits of the origin
culture (that they originated in), and mark intersections where
culture of origin supported strongly or hindered strongly traits of
practices’ culture
form a matrix of culture traits of the practices’ culture and traits of the target
culture, and mark where target culture strongly supports or hin-
ders traits of practices’ culture
invent tactics to handle supports in origin culture missing in target culture
invent tactice to handle hinderances in origin culture missing in target culture
invent tactics to handle supports in target culture missing in origin culture
invent tactics to handle hinderances in target culture missing in origin culture
CHANGE MINDS
Gardner
change across many scales--historic, national/organizational, works of science/
art, education, interpersonal, self change
change plural channels/media--ideas, feelings, associations, concepts, stories,
theories, skills
deploy appropriate combinations of intelligence types--symbolic (linguistic,
logical-mathematic), performative (music, spatial, body-kines-
thetic, categoric-naturalist), personal (interpersonal, intraper-
sonal), existential
levers for change--reason, research, resonance (connection to audience), rep-

resentational redescriptions (telling the old story inside the new
story), resources and rewards, real world events, resistances
demystify childhood theories--of matter, life, mind, human relations; demystify
adult theories
find tipping points (using the 80/20 rule)--read own experience and writings/
experiences of others for where slight inputs have huge outcomes
and where much input has slight outcomes
appeal to second-born and young turks in fields--people without vested interest
in old ideas most willingly try on new ones
audiences to change are four types--direct appeal versus indirect appeal,
diverse versus homogeneous,
articulate present mind content and desired content and spot countercontents
that resist the desired content’s specifics
speak to large audiences with entire life you design, speak to small audiences
with specific works you design; speak to large heterogenous audi-
ences with simple stories, speak to small homogeneous with deep
expert stories
use direct change for short term visible impacts but indirect change has longer
historic term possible impact
SELL
Underhill
measures--% of visitors/customers who buy; density = customers per display at
time T1; duration = time customers spend in the store; intercep-
tion rate = % of customers in store who meet employee; waiting
time; capture rate = % customers who see a product type; boo-
merang rate = times customer starts down aisle but does not fin-
ish,
space trade-offs: body (touch) spaces, eye spaces, ear spaces, nose spaces,
search spaces, buy spaces, inquire spaces, try on spaces--each of
these for young, middle, elderly, men, women, hip, button
downs, etc. types of people
buying logistics--reaching, reading without being brushed against, holding,
transporting, paying, leaving
recognize sign possibilities and impossibilities--reading time versus standing/
traversing time, eyesight ability versus font size/contrast, mes-
sage located where “door” to area is (where people actually
enter space), sequence messages by customer paths traversed
use rules of how people move--people drift right from entrances, people speed
past banks, people slow for mirrors, people walk past displays
(but displays stupidly are designed for people staring orthogonally
directly at them--so use chevroning = angles), fractal sighting pur-
poses (distant seeables for searchers, middle seeables for orient-

ing to a display, local seeables for product attention),
the person seen and cared for buys--strollers, seating appropriate, eye refresh-
ment, ear refreshment, self refreshment
men versus women shopping--missional men, learning men, reading men,
enjoying the experience women, socializing women, asking for
help women
environment enticements--sizes for big and small, men and women, room tem-
perature for big and small, men and women,
trends--fashionization of home repair and reform, fashionization of men’s look,
older shoppers need readable signs reachable displays walkable
aisles rest-stations hearable service help, touch and try on--dress-
ing rooms as deep sales closing spaces not cheap boxes; subjec-
tively reduce waits by initial contact, finite definite period,
people to talk to, distractions
trade-offs between design, merchandizing, and operations--optimizing one
often hurts the others more
event sales--by time of day = who comes in, by season of year, by media and
news linkages
FIX OR USE MENTAL FLAWS

Piattelli-Palmerini, Goleman, Sartre, Myers
Using/Compensating for Perceptual (Framework) Illusions: modules in our mind
that operate separately enough that reason and evidence do not
affect they way they distort reality in how they make us perceive
it = there may be other such modules in our mind that do the
same for argument, belief, relationships, emotions, and so on
Using/Compensating for Probability Illusions: uniformity = randomness illusion,
short sequence frequency = long sequence frequency illusion, sub-
jective utility flattens out not follows objective utility, we risk to
avoid loss we conserve to gain profits, framing illusion = different
frame cause computing different baselines so different prefer-
ences, segregation effect = we take too many problems as pre-
sented without global search, typicals are seen as frequents so we
judge conjuncted conditions as more likely that their individual
components (typicality overrides base rates in population), we
judge more likely X is librarian than farmer if description of nerd
given ignoring base rate of more farmers by far than librarians
(we do know more, the base rate, but ignore it), we computer
frequencies higher for a cause than an effect of a relationship
(21% false pos. test, 1 in 100 base rate, probability sick is? most
say 80% or so, bayes theorem shows its is 8%), we pay more for
total elimination of a risk than reduction by same amount of the
risk = certainty illusion, the disjunction illusion = we act when an
outcome is possible but not when it or another equal but different

is possible (uncertainty cancels action)
Using/Compensating for Rational Illusions: overconfidence in own answers,
illusory correlations (magical thinking = we explain supposed posi-
tive causal relations), we think we could have predicted things
that really did happen, anchoring (prior exposure biases answers),
we confound easier to imagine and more emotionally impactive
with more frequent, reducing to zero has more value for us than
equivalent reductions from 2 in 10 to 1 in 10, plausible but ficti-
tious stories that end in an effect get more and more belief link
by link though compounding such link probabilities reduces final
probability
Using/Compensating for Emotive Illusions: self awareness of feelings, aware-
ness of feelings in others; expressing own feelings situationally
appropriately, eliciting situationally appropriate expression of
feelings of others; delay gratification/control impulse in self and
others; separate action contents from feeling reactions in self and
others; understanding unspoken frames coloring/biasing own per-
ceptions and others
Using/Compensating for Crowd Illusions: [beloning] identity illusion--seek
group that accepts me as I am, group seek people willing to deny
their own identity; involvement illusion--must detach well to
involve fully, must involve fully to have reason to detach and
reflect; individuality illusion--withold self to test group but that
causes heroic self making groups worth witholding from; boundary
illusion--boundaries create possibility by eliminating possibilities;
disclosure illusion--I will disclose myself if you disclose yourself
first; [engaging] trust illusion--trust is created by sharing fears
(we need trust in order to trust); intimacy illusion--precondition
for other awareness is self awareness; regression illusion--go to
the past to recover the present hindered by groups wanting
progress only not regress; [speaking] authority illusion--resistance
key to acceptance of authority (authority is accepting the resis-
tance), we create own power by empowering others; dependency
illusion--being independent in a group requires accepting one’s
dependency in the group; creativity illusion--creating is done via
destroying; courage illusion--self doubt and self questionning are
prerequisites of courage and self assertion; [context] individual ID
is the groups we belong, any group is continual negotiating
within/among us of the representations of the groups that we
“are”; [intergroup] scarcity illusion--resources given to other seen
as taken from self not given from self; perception illusion--differ-
ences that form basis of any group also threaten and isolate the
group; power illusion--when power among groups is unequal the
lesser power group sees itself as utterly powerless;
Using/Compensating for Culture Illusions: the message meaning illusion--we
think it means in their frames what it means in our, unconscious
unadmitted, frames; the co-acting support illusion--we think that
they act with us implies agreement with what and how we act;
the culture uniformity illusion--we talk/think about cultures as if
all their members thought and acted the same ways; the culture
changelessness illusion--we talk/think about cultures as if they
today are identical to they, 30 years ago, and they tomorrow; the
they-realize illusion--we assume the other culture knows its oth-
ernesses from us; the choice illusion--we assume we have to
choose our own way or their other way instead of blending with
thought and effort
Using/Compensating for Interface Limitations: the skilled performance illu-
sion--we think because we are masters of prose that it is not a
terrible medium for communicating and we are not cognitively
sloppy when using it perfectly; the search illusion--we fix bushy
inputs and choice spaces by elaborate search functions rather
than functions to input less bushy things; the one representation
illusion--we give directions via operations to perform (street turns
for example) and leave out by distance and direction from here
and leave out paths of landmarks; the perfected single medium
illusion--we think Nobel prize quality in one medium makes simul-
taneous transmission in parallel other media/channels unneces-
sary;
Using/Compensating for Existential Limitations: the meaning illusion--we
assume having any goals at all has meaning for others, rather than
making meaning for having goals at all against futility of all life;
the performance illusion--we outdo others or allow others to
outdo others and us as if achievements in society can hide us from
the futility of all life; the self as central illusion--we judge all
around with us as the baseline of “normal” ignoring the arbitrary
identities we inherited without choice at birth (male, Canadian,
lawyer parent, etc.); the could-not-predict excuse--we excuse
ourselves from responsibility for unforeseen consequences of our
acts;
Using/Compensating for Cognitive Limitations: the single idea illusion--we
apply mental procedures to single ideas instead of ordered pat-
terns of ideas; the single framework illusion--we apply one view-
point to a case rather than exploring dozens and justifying which
of them we select and apply; the experimentrics illusion--we
present our choices as right rather than admit many if not most
are probes meant to reveal situation aspects as responses;
Using/Compensating for Neurosis: the normal self illusion--we judge all others
using our selves as the base line for defining “normal”; the omit-
ted costs of talent--we increasingly see our talents as pure posi-
tives, ignoring the stuff we ignored while developing them by
focussing; the all-situation-are-nails illusion--we have a hammar
and suddenly all situations look like nails;
Using/Compensating for Intuition Limitations: memory construction illusion--
we invent memories out of self consistency drive; misreading our-
selves illusion--we often do not know why we do things; mispre-
dicting feeling--we badly mis-guess intensity and duration and

impacts of emotions we feel; behavior midpredicting illusion--we
badly mispredict our own reactions and behavior steps; hindsight
bias illusion--we say we knew or guessed things that in reality
utterly puzzled/confused us at the time; self inflation illusion--we
use our selves as baseline for normal far too often; fundamental
attribution error--we attribute errors of others to their character
and errors of ourselves to situations faced; confirmation bias illu-
sion--our drive for self consistency and positive self regard causes
us to continue utterly false beliefs; framing illusion--we produce
different answers to same questions when frame/representation
is changed; illusory corelations--we see causal connections where
none exist
BEAUTIFY
Etcoff, Barrow
Beautify to Succeed: beautiful people get more attention and promotion
within organizations
Beautify to Attract: beautiful things and people attract attention
Beautify to Befuddle Good Judgement: beautiful things and people put us in
reverie, get us thinking in ideal terms, pulling us beyond practi-
calities and compromises of reality
Beautify to Order Chaos: beauty sometimes comes from reveal/imposing pat-
terns across diverse phenomena that reduce the diversity of what
we see and input
Beautify to Distinguish Qualities and Potentials: beauty often comes from mak-
ing a character that something has purer, less encumbered, less
filtered, less jumbled, less competed with for attention
Beautify to Make Progency or Enjoy Sex: beauty of person and thing seduces
the opposite sex into pleasing the pleasure centers of the brain
and/or transmitting genetic endowments to other beings
Beautify to Liberate from Convention: beauty comes also from revealing a con-
vention that we did not realize we were following and within
Beautify to Express Unique Inner Experience: beauty comes from stylizing
shared external objects, scenes, and interactions so as to express
deep internal experience and feelings that may otherwise go
unrecognized
Beautify to Reveal Boundaries within and between Brain Modules: many art-
works and designs fascinate us because they work at the limits
within and among hardware modules in the brain revealing to our
perception and thought how our mind is divided functionally, how
those functions work, and limitations in how we think and per-
ceive coming from those hardware modules in our brains
Beautify to Provide Tools that Put us in Moods we Want: beauty can be used to
set our moods, overcoming influences from social relationships,
personal stress, background memories, and making present envi-
ronments that make us more imaginative, creative, and produc-
tive
Beautify to Reveal Mysteries and Hidden Scales: beauty can come from turning
the obvious into the unobvious, from getting us to think and men-
tally operate on larger or smaller size scales than we are used to
ENTHUSE
Hatfield et al
People tend in all situations to mimic each other’s bodily expressed moods and
reactions.
People tend to interact so that their respective emotions converge more and
more as the interaction proceeds.
The bodily package of how an emotion gets expressed can considerably alter
the emotion itself, attenuating or exacerbating it, regardless of
the reasons for the emotion and the immediate causes of it.
Angry people asked to talk their anger in an reasonable tone of
voice reliably become less angry, for example. Actors mimicking
the gestures of a person find they get the emotions of that person
from just doing the gestures in many cases.
In interactions we identify the otherness of someone, then incorporate that as
our feeling, then monitor our version of their feelings along with
our own feelings in parallel, then step back and reflect on differ-
ences and similarities thusly experienced.
Even slight, entirely false images of a person can so bias how someone interacts
with them that the other person thusly treated becomes like the
false image as the interaction goes on. Men who thought they
were talking by phone to beautiful sexy women tried so much
harder that the women, in turn, changed into more beautiful
sexy, animated responders.
The power of sensing another’s emotion but not mimicking it--some people can
sense others’ emotions but keep distance so the emotions of oth-
ers do not become their own. This allows great power when
harmful emotions are involved.
People can be sensitizers (seeking emotions of others), repressors (avoiding
them) or alexithymic (denying their own and others’ emotions).
Minute emotive steps of drawing near or drawing back in another person are
matched if we feel the same way about them or countered if we
do not, so that both close in or draw out from each other in
synch.
The physicl cues of emotion are so subtle that an expressive person can by
merely sitting beside another person for a minute, infect them
with whatever mood they had at the time, without any interac-
tion, or words spoken.
If people are so sensitive to emotions of others and so given to mimicking and
approaching/drawing-back in synch, then people who choose
what to feel and confidently project it in situation after situation,
in effect recruit others into the same emotional state. They
align others around the emotions they project.
Religious and charismatic leaders project strong emotions that align thousands
and tens of thousands of others around them, often quite irratio-
nally and self destructively. Emotional alignment is powerful
enough that it can bypass much rational, reasoning, moral, invest-
ment, past relationship experience and content.
INVENT SOLUTION CULTURE

Bernstein
Select or build a model of dimensions that can be used to distinguish one cul-
ture from another and to somewhat comprehensively characterize
what any one culture is and does and tends towards
Use that model to characterize the Failure Culture of a person or organization
that causes them to fail again and again to achieve a goal impor-
tant to them. For example Americans in the US for fifty years
have failed to provide decent public schooling for the lowest third
of their population while nearly all other industrial nations have
easily accomplished this, with the lowest thirds of their nations
outperforming the lowest third of the US population by consider-
able margins for periods of fifty years or longer.
Reverse the traits of the Failure Culture to define a Solution Culture.
Apply the Solution Culture to invent a new way of work.
Apply the Solution Culture to invent a new product of work
Select or build a model of all the solution types that have already been
attempted and that failed.
Specify for each attempted but failed solution exactly how and why it failed,
what aspect of the situation caused it to fail or that it failed to
handle adequately.
For each attempted/failed solution and how/why it failed, state explicitly
what this tells you about any traits that the eventual overall solu-
tion must have (or any part of it).
Combine carefully all of these specifications of traits of the eventual solution,
both logically, causally, and categorically, reconfiguring them
freely, as interesting coalitions among them emerge
Add new solution attempts in this way, till you have tried fully everything you
can possibly think of, and till the failure of all that pushes you
into full blown absolute despair at anything in your current frame-
works, repertories, and thinking ever working to solve this situa-

tion.
Note all new frameworks you invent or notice when you despair over all the
existing ones you have tried, and use them to organize the specs
of eventual solution, till a full solution emerge.
STOP RESPONSES & MAKE BRIDGE COMMUNITY

Klar et al
Note poor responses you make that you wish to stop
Note situations that call forth such poor respones from you
Note cues in such situations that immediately precede such responses
Start a personal campaign one week of delay--everytime that such cues appear,
merely delay you habitual response by 2 seconds, and state it
with a strange ironic insincere style
Start an escalation in this campagin a few days later--everytime that such cues
appear, delay your habitual response by 2 seconds, and during
that time, invent a better response, then fully state and enact
that new wanted response
Notice the kinds of people and primary group friends who dislike or resist your
new response types.
Notice the kinds of people and possible future friends who like and welcome
your new response types
Research when and where to meet and work with such new people and start
spending more and more time with them
Match all your old groups and times with new groups and time more supportive
of the new responses you now make, and switch each old one to a
new one, your bridge community
Formalize your role and respect in your new bridge community after some
months, so you get fully committed in it and enact and keep
promises with its members all of which use the new responses you
built.
PSYCHIC GROWTH: DESPAIR BE TO HAVE

Kegan
Notice wonderful goals you have that you fail to reach or even try seriously for
due to who you are, some deep part of your identity
What part of who you are blocks you from reaching or attempting those goals
How do you depend on that part of you as part of who you are, your identity?
Imagine fundamental changes in that part of you, say, the opposite of that part
of you, and what new identity you would have if that were
installed instead.
Imagine updating that part of you yearly or sooner, at regular intervals, as
options and alternatives appear.
What emotion must you give up, what source or illusions of security must you
give up, if you give up that part of your identity blocking wonder-
ful goal attainment in this case?
Emotionally, how can you live without that emotion or how can you find a
source for that emotion in what remains of your identity with the
part at issue removed?
Try for one day to no longer react to that part of your self as part of you, rather
manage things that involve that part of you and manage that part
of you so you no longer emotionally depend on it and react emo-
tionally when it is attacked in any way.
Try the response stopping method at left applied to stopping use of that old
part of you as part of your identity that sourses habitual responses
from you.
Get a new community of people around you who support the new responses you
make when removing that part of you blocking the goal in this
case.
CHANGE ENVIRONMENT & DEMYSTIFY

Derrida, Illych
For every fundamental dimension of your identity--family, friends, era, nation,
profession, gender, etc.--list what it is supposed to do for you and
what you assume it has done for you thus far
For every fundamental dimension from above, list how it insists that it is help-
ing or out to help you, how did it posture that its interests were
the same as your interests?
Now list for each dimension how its interests are not the same as your and how
it abuse you, in effect, to promote its own hidden interests--list
your interests explicitly and its interest and compare them
What dimensions of life have already been thusly demystified to you via hap-
penstance events that revealed where assumed coincidence of
interests was false and falsely promoted to you?
What dimensions of life have not been thusly demystified to you and hence you
are probably being abused in ways you are not aware of or you are
probably submerging your own interests under differing other
ones you are not now aware of? Investigate such areas seriously
now in detail.
The single great messasge illusion--we believe that one great messsage by itself
has the power to transform a person, a person’s attitude, or a sit-
uation a person influences. People do not change due to single

great messages.
Message plus frame-handling package as the communicandum--what communi-
cates is a messsage plus an assortment of frameworks in the
receiver of the message put there by the package the message
appear in
The environment is the message--not the medium, not the text/words, not the
package. People simultaneously absorb from plural media and
channels and absorb across periods of time. If both all media/
channels and the period of time are soaked with the same mean-
ing, people will adapt to that environment by tinkering with par-
ticular beliefs. In that way your message may get heard.
You communicate by putting people into environments long enough they adapt
to them, and by adapting in effect “get” the message you wanted
to communicate.
The physical, social, time, task, status, procedural environments each have
plural media and channels and packages per message. Approxi-
mately 50 “messages” each packages, channelled, media-ed envi-
ronmented differently are needed to convey one message well,
that is, as an environment others adapt to.
TELL STORIES
Campbell, Sartre,
Kegan & Lahey
The concept of truncated stories: there is only one story slices of which consti-
tute our real stories; cost/benefit stories versus questions of
existence stories as two poles along continuum
The Insight Process as The Story: as the same as the one story that all actual
stories are truncating slices of; alternations of engagement/
detachment, cumulation of failed solution attempts, despair
when all you know fails as doorway to new frameworks that pro-
duce success
Journey Out Steps: call to adventure (life is dead), refusal of the call (the
external enemy is really internal = fear), first threshold (battle,
crossing, fall from grace, etc.), journey in the wild (what you are
does not work), tests (trying all we know and can do, but it is not
enough, new abilities called for), helpers (show us growth is pos-
sible), temptress (sex and pleasure are dead ends), magic charm
or false wizard (power is dead end), supreme ordeal (face to face
with 16 anxieties of existence), elixir theft (proving our grown
new abilities work), second threshold (trying out and proving our
newly grown abilities)
Journey Back Steps: refusal of return (temptation of living in mystical but use-
less ecstasy), flight from heaven (new abilities called for in jour-
ney home), rescue from within (discovery of new abilities from

Journey Out in us that we were not aware of), return struggle for
acceptance (innovator’s struggle of fighting enemies of change),
third threshold (trying all we can tolerate = facing the ugliness of
the world), exlixir benefits renew the world (befriended anxieties
used as new powers of us and society)
Twelve Anxiety Types: mystery, arbitraryness, emptiness, freedom, loneliness,
inauthenticity, mortality, nausea, contingency, tragedy, sin, no
escape
Life Role Archetypes Encountered in The Story: unawakened self, herald, false
mentors, mentor, minions, threshold guardian, allies, shape-
shifter, trickster, clown, shadow, awakened self, committed self,
hero
Basic Story Dynamics: all the world is fails us = boredom, all we are fails us =
call to grow; hope-despair alternation as alternation of engage-
ment and detachment, accumulating failed solution attempts,
despair as all we are and know fails us becomes doorway to new
framework, new framework allows solution to emerge, possibly
from pieces already examined and thrown away because we failed
to recognize worth in or among them
Stratified Responding to Story Incidents: noticings, feelings, patterns, remind-
ings, interpretings, decidings
Story Packages: setting, characters, plot type, subplots density and interac-
tions, narration type, narration types interactions, calculative
residue work left for audience imaginative fill in
Story Impact Types: I am not alone (others share my most unique and personal
and secret experiences/fears/tragedies), there is hope (I have
acted more weakly than others facing the same challenges), the
valueless if valuable (what I discard, avoid, hate, is my salvation
if only I will change attitude), friends are enemies and enemies
are friends (what I now believe, want, and associate with is
designed to prevent growth and future happiness for me), discov-
ery of my own story (I have been living a story others created for
their own purposes and benefits, I can instead invent and lead my
own story)
STRATEGY
Mintzberg, Sun Tzu
The self destructive nature of all strategy--if you expend attention and
resources watching competitors, you take investment away from
doing well what you are out to do, assurring gaps into which com-
petitors will move. Pure strategy self destructs, always.
Designed strategies end up fighting emergent ones--assuming that entire orga-
nizations must share one strategy simply forces most strategies
actual in play underground where they undermine the winning

“leader” one overtly cowtowed to.
Designed strategies end up entirely different ones when implemented--the
revenge on all those people, parties, concerns, stakeholders not
consulted fully and involved fully in strategizing is to use what-
ever role from the winning strategy that floats down to them as
cover for doing a different strategy and agenda that they were
unable to inject into the strategy formulation process. Distortive
implementations are the cost of elitist, perfunctory strategy
design involvement tactics.
Organization mission strategies end up seriously eroded by career strategies--if
what the organization direction requires of a person or group hin-
ders its career ambitions seriously, the organization direction will
be used as cover for doing a different strategy and agenda.
Where designed strategy gives expression to a fusion of emergent, organization
mission, and career strategies, its becomes real, powerful, and
valuable. Where it slights, ignores, or fights with these other
three, it becomes “for show” and the laughingstock of all who
hear ritual uses of it throughout the organization.
Strategy is just another word for choice--having a strategy means choosing
some goals not others, some means not others, some struggles
and challenges not others, some growth not others. Having a
strategy means having focus, direction, which means letting go of
myriad attractive possible foci, directions, and goals. Having a
strategy feels poorer than having no strategy but it is more real
than having no strategy.
Cosmetic strategies are frequent (the meaning of any ad, for example, is the
reverse of whatever it says)--many people and groups create
strategies to look like something they want others to see, often
because putting forth an image is a lot easier than putting forth
the same concept as a reality or real capability. Organizations
and persons looking like X must be carefully distinguished from
organizations and persons actually doing X.
Strategies cannibalize existing personal and organizational strengths for the
sake of better future ones--strategies do not add to repertoires of
capabilities but rather replace old items with newer ones. They
reduce actual present proven profitable capability in order to
produce larger better future capability. Hence, present success
is the primary preventor, resistor, obstacle to, and underminer of
strategy. Present strengths fight emergent future ones.
Strategy influences us via becoming the environments we live and work in--
when our peers or competitors are strategic, they move and focus
without regard to our immediate reactions. They have antici-
pated our reactions and need not change their tactics in
response. Our identity, who we choose to be, traps us in hack-
neyed reactions they have already developed counters for embed-
ded in current tactics they implement. When our attacks do not

sway a competitor’s directions, we are facing strategy.
Strategy influences by turning responses into non-responses, so we become de-
coupled from the reactions of other players. We focus and
choose, aim for and march, putting up “for show” reactions to the
reactions of other parties, but actually, because we have strategy,
we have already anticipated all their reactions, and are actually
reacting to entirely other things. Strategy allows peers and com-
petitors to become removed from being our environment for long
time periods, allowing us to react instead to things they miss or
slight or are biased against or unprepared for.
LOVE
Sternberg
Relating is complementing roles: mentor-disciple, giver-taker, ruler-subject,
proposer-voter, judge-offender, nude toy-viewer player, healer-
codependent, winner-loser
Relating is means to an end roles: alien race understanding, finding missing
piece, appreciating art object, building a home together, building
a belief system (religion, politics, eco-stuff etc.) together
Relating is partnering: journey partners, building partners, cultivation part-
ners, business partners
Relating is scripted roles: personal savior, savior of humanity, streams of his-
tory, data analysis, recipe following
Relating is experience: battle, theatre, comedy, mystery
We rule in and rule out kinds of appreciation and contribution of and from oth-
ers. We channel their messages and contributions into channels,
media, types we want now to receive. They do the same to us.
The crises of love are crises of when one party outgrows the mutually agreed
on story they build mutual care and appreciation around. The
same story can affect different people differently because of
their differences of background or different ultimate visions of
where they and/or life are going.
Love idealized pretends its one story now is the only story valid or possible;
love actualized learns to recognize the limited story it now is
based on and its possible evolution into other stories. Love ideal-
ized insists on playing one story at a time only as the right one;
love actualized learns to multi-task among more and more stories
that are more and more diverse as fuller relating evolves.
Love is where people erect civilization as a kinder gentler environment for liv-
ing than the world the natural universe has foisted onto us, with-
out choice or alternative. Love is where people treat people
more nicely than universe treats humankind.
Loving self destructively comes from holding too hard or long to one story basis
of love, without counting the cost in terms of other stories not
explored, benefitted from tried, or grown into. When one story
is allowed to blot out all others, self and other destruction is
assurred.

THE COMPUTATIONAL SYSTEM TYPE DIALOG MODEL OF INNOVATION
the implementation
questions
HOW DO YOU DO THIS? There are three steps that I use personally and with my students and clients.
First we model all (all) business processes, dreams, aims, chances as a few pri-
mary kinds of influence (from the table provided here)--getting maybe 8 or 10
particular influence tactics from several of the 18 types for each business thing
we want innovation in. Second, we model EACH those influence tactics as
embodied in the business thing we choose to innovate in, as several types of
computational system type in dialog. Third, we use those things computation-
ally and dialogically understood, to devise better computation types and better
dialogs, and better computational system types to dialog with--to suggest radi-
cal innovations.
WHAT ARE THE MAJOR Talcot Parsons the famous sociologist wrote a chapter on Code versus Action
OBSTACLES YOU ENCOUN- factors--all the impressive institutions and centers of power and news in the
TER? world collapse and mean nothing unless based on valid attractive uplifting
codes. Getting code factors right, ends up attracting and generating immense
power and later changes of history, institution, and destiny, he wrote and illus-
trated.
This chapter’s model of innovation involves a kind of trust that the influence
type and computational system type dialog “code factors” it involves, really
will have great innovation outcome power. There are a lot of male action-ori-
ented self-heroic “leaders” who cannot “sit still” for the sort of changes of
model, noticing of new dynamics, computational and dialogic seeing of things
this model requires. They are simply “too male” for that sort of code factor
development. They want and are completely satisfied with innovative LOOKING
deeds that get them richer and promoted. This book is not about or for such
human fluffballs. Let them sniff cocaine on their yatchs with their bimbos.
WHY DO MANY NEVER The speed of new things spewed out today, is already making all businesses and
ATTEMPT IT? all parts of all businesses---computational, at first in terms of tools for doing
them and later on in terms of how people think of and design/improve them.
Whole generations of “leaders” and males are not keeping up with what compu-
tation is and is becoming as fast as computation takes over business and sys-
tems and imaginations, displacing non-computational educations, such as the
educations of mental light-head MBAs. If you, your interests, your girlfriends,
your hobbies, your mind, your education, your aims are not as computational as
our collective future is---you are a wate of space, and not an intended reader of
this book.
7. The Counter the Culture of Big-ness

Model of Innovation
Consider together the following common aspects of innovation as it takes place in the real
world:
1) ESCAPE VENTURES--people frustrated in big firms that their idea is not used,
quit and form ventures
2) SKUNKWORKS--when big orgs ignore ideas + motivated idea inventors, skunk-
works form, hidden away, shifting around for years, disguised, till finally a
home that loves the idea is found and the idea grows big
3) DROP OUT VENTURES--people with hot ideas drop out of college, ignore joining
someone’s big firm and form their own ventures
4) SPIN-OFF VENTURES--students in top professor labs spinning off ventures from
research projects they do together
5) HIRED IN VENTURES--big firms to stay abreast of hot developments buying ven-
tures rather than trying to stay edge and nimble themselves
6) VENTURE CREATION AUCTIONS--large firms announcing to a network of out-
source R&D and university groups, what they want invented, with funds for
trying, and assurred major investment for best proposals or prototypes sent
them.
These are the most common ways tech ventures get formed from most the least common.
All of them are small. They are also all ways of being small. What is smallness buying you
in these efforts? Focus, speed, motive, believers, identity, investability--are bought; secu-
rity, visibility, attention, borrowable resources--are lost.
THE CULTURE OF BIG-NESS

Below, this table presents a few of the major traits that all big organizations share.
There are a few additional ones from recent research. British researchers have
measured an increase in both psychopathic personality traits and in primate
(monkey) behaviors as organization size increases and as one’s rank in them
increases. Also, somewhat present in the below, but more present in Greene’s
model of 256 system effects, are non-linear consequences of present actions like--as
size increases, internal convenience supplants customer requirements till
organization failure, as size increases, anything taking longer than a few months gets
longer and longer till priorities or leaderships change and kill the effort entirely, and
254 others. But the following points offer us a route to general innovation, whenever
and where-ever they are countered effectively.
CULTURE TRAITS, TEAM EFFECTS EXPLANATIONS
TOO MUCH AUDIENCE (Isolation Powers) BIG ORGs have eyes and ears of people without good
too much audienceeveryone sees what contexts of what you do and why you do it, who form
everyone does and that means many impressions, gossip, and may even later judge or
diverse ill-informed reactions so that the determine chances for you----so all you do is performance
hassle of managing random reactions makes before a partly visible and larger invisible audience, most
taking stands and initiatives more trouble of whom are ill-informed and misunderstand all or most
than it is worth that you do.
~ is the innovation team seen too early so bad-minded ill-informed others can undermine or compete
with it
~ are there enough invisible sponsors and supports for the innovation team to overcome resistors to its
work?
~ does the innovation team do X, get seen to be doing X, and manage the hassle of inappropriate
responses to its doing of X (three layers of work)?
TOO LITTLE AUDIENCE (Location Powers) BIG ORGs are busy, noisy places where even big deeds and
too little audiencethere are so many people important discoveries are treated like everything else and
and so much noise from randomly usually missed, forgotten, or distorted into nothing. It is
interacting actions from them all that very hard to get attention, and hold it, and even harder to
getting noticed is the hardest part of career get quality attention.
success
~ the conditions that made your innovation team necessary will be gone by the time it is halfway
finished
~ only fast results are not eroded into worthlessness by the noise of the market and organization
~ what whistle points (tipping points) would amplify the small initial fast results your innovation team
could do?
~ what needs for innovation team resources wither away when a great whistle point is found?
RESPONDING TO YESTERDAY'S NEWS BIG ORGs operate on Slow Time—they always notice new
(Disguise Powers) trends when they are old and gigantic; they react to things
responding to yesterday's newsbig always too slowly and too late; by the time they establish
organizations are slow to notice, slow to something it is no longer popular and it starting its
react (have a lot of inertia), and react decline. Speed is impossible in any form.
diffusely (focus is lost due to noise) so
employees keep hoping for timely relevant
responses that never appear
~ can you somehow use old dated issues people are easy with to cloak much newer issue handling?
~ Trojan Horse Projects hide the future within the recent past proposal your managers will accept
CONTROL/SAFETY/RISK-AVERSION VALUED BIG ORGs are so arbitrary and poor at measuring
OVER BUSINESS SUCCESS (Disguise Powers) contribution and success that most of the contributions
control/safety/risk-aversion valued more and successes they notice and reward are actually quite
than business success big organizations harmful to them and nearly all the things they really have
deny responsibility for all their results, to have they never notice or reward and actually thwart
using usual big organization noise as excuse and hinder, sometimes deliberately, and sometimes
for any mistakes, so most people try merely by accident. In a world of no, or delayed, or lousy
nothing risky ever (this means those few measures, you succeed by LOOKING LIKE SUCCESS rather
who DO take risks can be seen and go than disturbing people by actually doing success.
beyond others easily)
~ can you cloak a relevant current project so it looks like the stopping of a dangerous risk?
~ can you “finite-element-ize” or otherwise package your proposal into smaller less risky bits?
BLINDNESS FROM FIVE COMMON CULTURES BIG ORGs are completely unaware that they are terribly
OF BUSINESS (Demystification Powers) male, terribly greedy, terribly monkey-like, terribly toy-
the common cultures of business blind machine filled, terribly given to market impression instead
everyone male culture, monkey hierarchy of sincere service delivery.
culture, capitalism culture, technology
culture, American cultureyour choices: be
in the cultures, fit in the cultures, be
outside them appearing to fit them while
manipulating them, only the 3rd choice is
safe
~ what do men automatically like and support that distorts your project?
~ what do monkeys competing for ranks in a hierarchy like and support that distorts your project?
~ what do money-chasing markets like and support that distorts your project?
~ what do technology loving nerds like and support that distorts your project?
~ what do Americans like and support that distorts your project?
MOST JOB CONTENT IS NOT NEEDED BIG ORGs are run like trees filled with monkeys:
(Customer Powers) leadership is delivered via expensive fixed inventory of
most job content is not ever needed nearly special people called “managers”; this is delivery of a set
all of your job is a complete illusion, a of functions (usually vague and never defined) by a special
waste of timeno one needs it; the bosses fixed social class of people paid more and given privileges
and organization demand it, to justify to command and fire ordinary people. As a result, the
hundreds of other jobs that they do that managers do what all fixed inventories do, simultaneous
are not needed eitherno one is doing what over-managing and under-managing. They constantly to
the organization needs most of the time justify their pay and privileges direct people that do not
need directing just to look “managerial”ss (this makes
most job content not needed at all); at the same time,
they avoid situations they have no skills for and respond
only to problems they feel “managerial” about, thereby
omitting much managing needed by the organization.
~ is this innovation team needed really or is it part of an elaborate system of junk supporting junk of
others?
~ is the person who accepts results from the innovation team only pretending to listen to innovation
team results?
~ is the innovation team structured to implement its own results or does it pass things off to forgetful
others?
~ Should the innovation team finish its work in instants so as to dramatize the phoniness of its origins?
STRUCTURED WELL TO DO THE PAST BIG ORGs always notice later, respond slowly, and respond
(Context Powers) late, so what they are doing now handles well situations
structured well to do the past the long gone and past. Current norms, flows, systems, and
structures and processes of your current activities are always doing well past things no longer
job and organization arose to handle past needed.
challenges that no longer exist so you are
structured to do well a situation that does
no longer exist
~ are the conditions the innovation team operates under (structures/processes) so distorted to the past
that competent team results is impossible without challenging or isolation from them?
~ are the conditions the innovation team's results will be inserted into so distorted to the past that
team results have to have additional other results requiring updating of structures and processes
around team results implemented?
A CULTURE OF MEDIOCRITY (Style Powers) BIG ORGs have a genius for taking ordinary, sloppy,
a culture of mediocrity since doing the variable human and other inputs and getting consisten
obvious, the simple, the past, is so products output from that mess. They do not ever need
difficult, a norm develops that doing excellence, they need ordinary. They talk about
anything better than that is not necessary! excellence and performance all the time, to motivate the
You yourself develop low standards of sloppy ordinary people they get and to make the little
performance to fit the organization's low monkeys scurry around faster and harder to better faster
expectation levels enrich the top monkeys. As a result a general culture of
“medium” is the best we can get done around here,
develops. All idea and hope of excellence is driven out of
everyone and everything.
~ do the leaders and/or members of the innovation team automatically default to low whole org levels
of work?
~ does visibly working at standards higher than the organization's bring trouble or benefit?
THE MORALE-IMPACT-VISIBILITY PROBLEM Joy, morale, motivation come from personally or as a team
(Appearance Powers) surprising and amazing the world outside. But BIG ORGs
the problem of morale is a problem of are so filled with noise and bad measures that anything of
impact is a problem of visibility people lose value or worth probably is going to be only partly noticed
morale working in big organizations and incorrectly and ineptly encouraged. Visibility is hard
because having impact is so hard to do and to get for anything that requires understanding or
even if impact occurs getting it visible thought; visibility is easy for anything sex related, nasty,
enough to do you good to reward you for and that enables people to feel superior to others (envy).
the effort of achieving it is nearly
impossible
~ can visibility of results be obtained quickly enough to keep the innovation team motivated? Can
visible results have enough impact to deserve any visibility they obtain?
MANAGERS LACK BRAIN POWER TO BIG ORGs replace sensing the outside world of customers
UNDERSTAND NEEDED PROPOSALS as its environment with internal stuff by top monkeys---
(Increment Powers) bigness means the org becomes a world of its own,
managers have too little brain power to supplanting the real world. Less and less attention goes
understand clever proposals top managers, outside to markets, customers, technology developments
due to years working in the organization, and all that and more and more attention goes to which
have lost all mental ability and can barely middle monkey will next become top monkey and what
read and writeso proposing what the each boss monkey feels or wants. Everyone looks up not
organization needs often results in out. Therefore, managers SEEM to know a lot but it is
proposals too difficult for them to internal stuff only, for the most part; on outside the org
understand (especially if technology terms, most managers are woefully ignorant and out of
changes are involved) date.
~ can your innovation team find a sponsor unusually intelligent or disguise its work as something
simpler?
~ can your innovation team propose and do, in succession, a series of simple projects that add up to
something complex?
FIGHT OR INVENT: ROLES/POWERS In BIG ORGs you have a choice---fight other members
(Invention Powers) competitively for years so one of you becomes promoted
choose fighting for existing roles/power or to a certain role, or invent a new org or venture to
inventing new roles/power each employee/ become head of. At several points in any big org career
manager faces the choice of competing for you face this fight or invent choice. However, inventing
decades for existing managerial/executive within a big org is terribly hard work, so people interested
slots or inventing new businesses you lead in that get more and more frustrated by delay, slowness,
by invention incompetent managers, till they leave the big org and
make their own venture.
~ does your innovation team propose changing some existing solid thing or inventing something entirely
new?
INTERNAL BECOMES EXTERNAL: BIG ORGs are big enough that they lose sight of the world
ENVIRONMENT (Sight recovery Powers) outside and internal parts of the org become their world---
the internal environment over time they look up not out---till they are fatally ignorant of the
substitutes itself for the organization's outside world and its forces.
external one big organizations feel and see
and notice and do so much within their own
boundaries that they continually gradually
stop feeling, seeing, noticing, and acting on
their actual external environment
~ what internal dynamics of your organization and of your innovation team substitute for the actual
external environment they are to serve?
WASTE (Power of Ultimates) BIG ORGs exist entirely supported by silly, deadly, harmful
waste most of the products of modern products that no one needs, everyone can live without
industrial civilization, most of the them with complete happiness and usually more health
companies that make them, and most of and value. Most products now made are worthless or
the people in those companies are not at all harmful. MARKETING is the magic of getting billions of
neededindeed we have built a world mainly people to pay money for useless things easily made by big
for shopping when loving and caring and orgs.
playing and inventing and the like are much
more important
~ what is the ultimate worth for the earth and its people of all your innovation team is attempting to do
and how does that undermine its ultimate morale and effort?
OUR WAY PETRIFICATION (Way Invention BIG ORGs have selves, real personalities, generally
Powers) insecure little boy or baby personalities, they always need
our way petrification nations and to be praised, as if they lack confidence, and they need
companies that have their own “way” and you to exaggerate how wonderful they are or else they
that impose it on everyone commit suicide won't listen to you. They also have, out of pride, OUR
(which is okay as long as “we all die WAY of doing things and they proudly train you in this way
together heroically”) that is usually decades out of date and hopelessly stupid.
Their WAY is a kind of religion so data and rational proof
that it does not work or is harmful is ignored. The best
you can do is hide your work from the harmful effects of
THE WAY.
~ what impediments from your organization's “way” and what habits in innovation team members from
that “way” and what low standards of performance from that “way” impede the team in doing it
work now?
DIVERSITY-LESS UNIFORM MANAGEMENTS BIG ORGs are run by people so rich (over half of the having
(Anti-Stupidity Packaging Powers) inherited great wealth) they do not care if the firm makes
DIVERSITYLESS managements big money or not. Executive info systems are NEVER used to
organizations tend to develop diverse-less manage the business but execs intead us it several times a
management teamsall marketers or all day to track their personal investments and wealth. Most
engineers or all Tokyo persons or all of the ideas and inventions of top management, therefore,
university-X personsthe homogeneities in are never intended to help the firm or its customers, they
them hurt (once one type dominates a are merely ways to disguise slow long term theft by the
management team they choose people they executives.
like and respect, which is always people
like themselves, so diversity dies out)
~ what gross stupidities from upper management are almost certain to make the innovation team's work
meaningless?
~ what vastly greater errors and problems, generated by narrowness of upper management attitude and
training, are guaranteed to undo any benefit the innovation team devises?
FAKE PROFITS (Reality Powers) BIG ORGs ALL OF THEM get ALL of their profits from
fake profitsall banks only make money government. No big organization is profitable on market
based on government helpthey have no sales terms. They MAKE laws that enforce for decades
internal expertise at all, most businesses in
ridiculous and painful conditions on large portions of
Japan make money based on unpaid society and THAT allows them to sell things no one could
overtime for kaizen and other
really sell without government enforcing ridiculous
improvement workwithout that unpaid conditions. Example, in 1955 the consumer electronic
overtime they have no profitability at companies in Japan lobbied successfully to control the
allmost developing nations make profits HOUSE standards used by the construction industry. They
due to currencies held down in value by lobbied to reduce wall thickness and eliminate insulation.
central banksthey have to inherent They lobbied to eliminate ducts for centralize airflow in
profitability = most reported profits are houses. As a result in Honshu, ordinary Japanese buy a
fake machine per room for heating and cooling and do four
times the heating and cooling of Americans per room due
to poor wall thickness and lack of insulation. MOST of the
profits of Japanese consumer electronic firms comes from
heater and cooler sales annually. THEIR PROFITS comes
from a government LAW forcing Japanese in Honshu into
lousy stupidly built homes. ALL PROFITS FROM LAWS not
products is the rule when orgs are big.
~ what standards of innovation team result financial impact, more rigorous than usual company
analyses, are real?
SUCCESS FAILS (Copying Powers) In BIG ORGs everyone sees and copies what works so that
success fails people notice what succeeds more and more are all doing the same thing as each other.
and copy it till all are doing things one way Diversity of capability and way decreases all the time till
and lack the diversity to have some ways the BIG ORGs “WAY” is the only way things get done (and
that work when circumstances change rewarded). This works until the outside environment
(ignored and unseen) changes---suddenly the Way does not
work and no one work any other way. In this way the way
that works always fails. Success always directly causes
failure in big orgs.
~ what worked in the past for the innovation team and therefore is dangerous now?
THE GENIUS OF CONSISTENT OUTPUTS BIG ORGs have a special genius---it is the genius of taking
FROM VARIABLE & POOR INPUTS variable market conditions and variable quality human
what corporations are good at is generating inputs as employees and managers and getting completely
money from foisting products on consistent refrigerators or other products output from
consumers; usually the products are that mess. Consistent outputs from lousy variable
unneeded or harmful and marketing has ordinary inputs is their genius. Everything in them tends
induced purchase not anything wise or towards inputting sloppy variable ordinary capabilities and
careful or useful to the consumer. turning that into utterly consistent products. WHY WHY
Consumers grossly exaggerate the extent WHY would you ever expect such an organization to be
they control what they buy and how good at the OPPOSITE to consistent output production
valuable it and their lives are. from lousy varying inputs???
~ when all in the culture is optimal for getting not wonderful or novel but consistent outputs from
sloppy or variable inputs not excellent inputs---why and how could you ever hope to get novel
innovations from such an organization optimized for the opposite of innovating?
MANY MANAGERS NEARLY NO MANAGING BIG ORGs have umpteen managers everywhere but nearly
the more managers there are, the less all their employees do not know why things are being done
managing that goes on. Directedness is and what they should be emphasizing and where things
what leaders finally deliver---everyone are headed and what the value and importance of their
knowing what is important, where they are group is. There is simplye NO directedness anywhere
going, and what they have to do to help inspite of many so-called directing managers. Lots of
everyone else get there---but THAT is managers = nearly no managing going on.
precisely what lots of mangers never
deliver ANY of---the more managers the
less people in the org know what they are
doing and why they are doing it.
~ keeping people focused on a familiar, repeated goal and means is hard in large organizations, keeping
people focused on a strange, unknown, new goal and means is beyond their capability
THE FEMININITY OF PRODUCTIVITY Research on changes that improve work systems
You sell by being modest and listening not consistently finds that improvements make such systems
presenting; you impress by how much of more feminine. Why? Duh!!! It is obvious---for eons all
the customers' greatness you know not how such systems were designed and run by men alone. Not
much of your greatness you tell; you surprisingly most flaws in work systems come from
present by dialog not powerpoint slides; in excesses of maleness---machines suggested to improve
every case being effective is doing the problems caused by too many machines, and the like.
opposite of what men like and do well
~ most innovations fix problems of excesses of maleness by adding still more maleness—they are
innovations but ultimately useless ones.
WATERLOO PROBLEM BIG ORGs change and erode quality of leadership as size and
People fight for years and decades to lead all rank increases. British research found that when people
others, be the very top, and reward achieve CEO or chairman status, the very first reward they
themselves for all those years of ass kissing, give to themselves is stopping all those subservient, honoring
serving others, implementing inane boss others, listening to others, behaviors that got them to the
orders, praising junk from needed allies and top. It is common, therefore, to get racist, sexist, venal
others. THEN when they get to the top, the public statements right after such promotions/selections as
FIRST REWARD they give themselves--is the new CEO frees himself from what got him to the top, not
shutting down listening to others and valuing realizing how his own real inner thoughts and self are
others ideas--the road that got them to the dangerous and inadequate completely for his/her current
top. The way Napoleon at Waterloo ignored high position and its public effects and exposures.
his commanders advice, and thereby failed.
~ any innovation of large time or size scale or multi-department multi-firm nature gets exposed to top
leaders who only appear concerned with others and with innovations--and actually seek only those
few last increments of status and deed needed to propel them to the very top rank.
INCREASED PRIMATE & PSYCHOPATHOLOGY BIG ORGs are defined as anything larger than one person’s
WITH INCREASE IN SIZE acquaintance network in size--acquaintance networks (the
The bigger an organization is and the higher number of people who know your name and whose names
in rank you are in it--the more two things you know), world-wide average 125 people to 200 in size.
increase: one, psychopathologies in your This is also called by other research the Solace System limit--
personality (dangerous levels of self the limit on the number of people whose situation one
concern), and primate behaviors (more person can notice and care about. Beyond 200 and we do not
monkey-like attention to status and territory sense others as people and do not notice whether they are in
and displays of personal rank and power). dire straights or ecstasies. TOP LEADERS DO NOT NOTICE OR
CARE above a certain org size.
~ any innovation of large time or scale requirement has to therefore be exposed to psychopathically
self concerned monkeys as leaders
INITIATIVE SHRINKAGE TO ZERO--Hassle costs BIG ORGs are such that any project even a little long,
+ Long becomes longer till goals/leaders becomes a target of all sorts of free riding, scarfing of
change and kill long projects resources by other projects, changes of priority or
leadership, till it no longer makes sense or has any authority
and support--it dies. Slightly long = dead eventually.
~ due to the hassle of initiating in noisy big firm environments and the certain death of any initiative
multi-year in nature, all shrink innovations in size and scope to fit deeds needed for personal
individual manager next promotions, ignoring larger implications and potentials of the innovation
BRAND POWER, selling dis-astisfaction with BIG ORGs get real profits from looking innovative, so most
what we just sold you; for show innovation managers and employees develop skills for merely looking
just to make customers dis-satisfied with innovative. Eventually real innovation becomes so
what was just sold them for faster re-sales. unneeded and rare there is no one left in the organization
capable of recognizing or doing it.
~ innovations, real ones, becoming increasingly unneeded for profits as brand powers increase, till
brand powers are actually harmed by investing in real major innovation efforts.
Why do we have big firms then if focus, speed, motive, believers, identity, investability
accure mostly to small ventures? Big firms became big by expanding scale and scope of
something that sold well with profits. MOST of their ways, people, systems, and aims have
to do with globally consistent delivery of that first value-price proposition that sold well for
them. They have stuff for large scale ( = many people doing the same role), for consistent
execution ( = rules, checks, inspections, controls), for following customers, competitors, and
what wors ( = incremental changes and “innovations”). But there are other things that all
big organizations have--things that come from sheer size and how it affects humans.
1) BIG ORGANIZATIONS AIM--intend to make themselves big to expand profits

from a value-proposition that works = they AIM for big-ness
2) BIG ORGANIZATIONS CULTURE--have a culture they develop from their sheer
size given current technologies and human attributes = they drift unwitting
into big-ness.
By aim, big organizations aim for scale, consistent execution, controls, spread of something
already invented that works, kept alive by the smallest changes possible to get away with.
By culture, big organizations become a world of their own separating them from their own
external customers and environments, slowing and adding noise to all internal processes and
aims.
By virtue of all this--big organizations are pretty much the exact oppo-
site of innovators.
Those rare people who watch, notice, spot, keep in mind, each and every culture trait of the
big organization they are in or have to deal with--become innovators, always and inevitably.
Nothing much else is needed. It is entirely enough to side-step and avoid all the traits of
big-ness presented in this chapter. Side-stepping all of them, results in innovations of
immense scale and history changing power. Side-stepping a few of them most often results
in no-innovating at all. Research is needed on which and how many of them suffice to pro-
duce worth-while lasting levels of innovation.
Consider the six avenues to necessary-for-innovating smallness that started this chapter:
1) ESCAPE VENTURES--people frustrated in big firms that their idea is not used,
quit and form ventures
2) SKUNKWORKS--when big orgs ignore ideas + motivated idea inventors, skunk-

works form, hidden away, shifting around for years, disguised, till finally a
home that loves the idea is found and the idea grows big
3) DROP OUT VENTURES--people with hot ideas drop out of college, ignore joining
someone’s big firm and form their own ventures
4) SPIN-OFF VENTURES--students in top professor labs spinning off ventures from
research projects they do together
5) HIRED IN VENTURES--big firms to stay abreast of hot developments buying ven-
tures rather than trying to stay edge and nimble themselves
6) VENTURE CREATION AUCTIONS--large firms announcing to a network of out-
source R&D and university groups, what they want invented, with funds for
trying, and assurred major investment for best proposals or prototypes sent
them.
Each of these counters nearly all the traits of BIG-ness in the table above. These are routes
to countering those BIG-ness culture traits. These are, as already mentioned, routes to
innovating.

THE COUNTERING THE CULTURE OF BIG-NESS MODEL OF INNOVATION
the implementation
questions
HOW DO YOU DO THIS? This is a lot simpler and more direct than countering the 15 cultures in the Inno-
vation as Culture Work Model. Here we counter just ONE of those 15. For one
thing, I listed twice in this chapter SIX ways to counter nearly every trait of the
culture of big-ness, via going small, by yourself or hidden within a larger entity.
WHAT ARE THE MAJOR The issue here is how to become capable of spotting and handling culture traits
OBSTACLES YOU ENCOUN- and types, that is, becoming a Culture Master, a Culture Master who Voids
TER? effects of big-ness. My book Your Door to Culture Power is probably your
shortest fastest route to becoming a Culture Master.
WHY DO MANY NEVER Men, as said in earlier Models, are not good at doing emotional and social work.
ATTEMPT IT? They psychopathology of CEOs on their way up, helps them read people without
caring about their needs and reactions-that enables the ruthless amounts of
focus that get deeds visibly done regardless of harmful later side-effects and
costs. So getting men to become Culture Masters is nearly impossible--witness
multiple decade huge losses as Euro-Disney, under a succession of male CEOs at
Disney. They know the problems, yearly the lose billions, yet 15 years does not
suffice to solve it--because it is culture, which is social, which is emotional,
which is not what rank, status, territory, self importance obsessed males care
about, unless they are psychopaths.
8. The Innovation Noise Model of Innovation
INNOVATION NOISE Why do businesses, CEOs, the business press, and business
professors exaggerate the importance of innovation in business, the amount of novelty
achieved by business, and the amount aimed for by business leaders? Why is our world filled
with innovation noise underneath which is little that is new and much that is barely new at
all?
1 CHANGE SUBJECT talking innovation distracts from weak

fundamentals in a business---we may be lousy but we are
innovating so in the near future things will be okay
2 VISIBILITY innovation is product newness, that is, a kind of news-
-it is a way to get executive attention within firms and media
attention in markets outside firms
3 MALE PREENING AND STRUTTING innovation is a socially
sanctioned kind of bragging--\a way for males controlled by
hormones more than by brains to say mom look at me, look at me
4 SOCIETAL MANIAS the entire industrial world at regular intervals
develops manias for progress in specific areas or dimensions--
\speed (of dogs, cars, planes, people, horses. etc. in the 1920s),
rebuilding (after wars, disasters), info devices (in our own era)--
people get hugely excited by things like Facebook that prove later
to be shallow technically and nearly worthless socially
5 SUBSTRATE UPDATES AS INNOVATION STAND-INS continual
updating of systems and learning the updates, as substrates evolve
(in our era mostly IT systems).
6 SELLING DIS-SATISFACTION WITH WHAT WAS JUST BOUGHT
Capitalism works by more sales, and selling dis-satisfaction with
what consumer just bought makes them discard perfectly useful
things earlier than needed = more profits faster; so new product
versions that are “innovative” are only nominally different
7 FOR PROMOTION Top level males have to look like they are
getting things done, and surprising “innovative” looking things
attract attention simply by virtue of being unexpected and not in
the normal lines of development; so a short-cut for getting
executive or board or investor of key customer attention is doing
something, anything at all, innovative looking--most such
“innovations” are only nominally related to the firm and its future
prospects but tightly related to executive needs for promotion.
8 THE CULTURE OF DEVELOPMENT--A POPULATION OF STRIVERS
Societies that develop economically always have several major
culture traits, one of which is a “population of strivers”. If you go
to Linkedin on the web you scroll down page after page of
monkeys encouraging each other to “success” “effort” “wealth”
“accomplishment” “recognition” “promotion” and, in general
“more”. This appears and feels and actually amounts to a sickness
in both individuals and society--people incapable of both
accomplishment and satisfaction due to a treatmill wealth
monkeys at the top generate to make the little monkeys down
below scurry around faster and faster. “Innovation” is a word
applied to any change whatsoever, however slight, however un-
novel, however, ultimately harmful. It is a mere noise, sprinkled
by the little monkeys themselves on each other to keep everyone
scurrying around faster and faster to enrich the monkeys at the
top.
All the above are plausible reasons that our talk about innovation vastly exceeds the
amounts of it aimed for and achieved.
Readers may be asked here--why bother? What difference does it make whether we
exaggerate the importance of innovation in businesses, the amounts of it we aim for and
tolerate, and the amounts of it we achieve?
I think my own personal answer to that comes from my experience hiring employees in
businesses. I was, like most managers, quite bad at hiring initially. Job seekers were great
at reading my neuroses and weak spots and using them to get hired. At best, in the
beginning, I had a 70% hit rate--70% of my choices worked well and 30% worked badly. That
sounds okay but having 30% of the people around not pulling their weight is only part of the
problem. Such people no only do not produce their fair share of our needed group results,
but they add distraction, error to correct, bad ideas and directions, and decay into personal
bitching and backbiting campaigns. They generate lots of distracting noise and bad results.
My initial bad hires were so distracting and such a heavy load to carry that I had a strong
incentive to improve my hiring. I asked senior managers for their advice and wow, they
really knew what I was doing wrong. They had been there themselves and done that and
knew exactly my flaws. Within 18 months my hit rate leaped to 90% or above. That was a
sustainable level of good choices.
Hiring people pits the candidate's language, its ability to appeal instantly and unconsciously
to your own mind, against your ability to find evidence for and against what is being
attractively said. Do the hard facts add up to the appealing claims? The older managers
advised me--when someone claims to have thought or done something truly wonderful that
they have passion for still, months or years later, do they describe automatically and admit
the cost and unwanted side-effects of that? Delusional self expressing does not balance
goods with bads, deeds with costs, successes with side-effects. Real innovators achieve but
never costlessly. They succeed but by not developing other lateral opportunities. Every
good thing has a cost.
So innovation noise may be from something dishonest in our various business and leadership
cultures that forces people to claim costless unmitigated successes (omitting mention of
costs, unwanted side-effects, missed opportunities not developed, and the like). If we are
not encouraged to or allowed to honestly report both the good achieved and the costs of
achieving it, every expressed deed becomes something of a lie, claiming more pure good
than was actually attempted or achieved.
9 UNREALISTIC EXECUTIVE PRESSURES TO REPORT SUCCESSES

dishonest reporting cultures in organizations that require claims of
pure success un-mitigated or conditioned by what those successes
cost.
Finally there is attribution in academia. Why is it vital to accurately describe what ideas by
others gave rise to your own ideas? Attributing accurately is vital not just to others and
society but to individuals. When I exaggerate how much of my own best ideas came strictly
from just me, and forget or deny how much I got from the ideas of others, I hide from myself
the role of ideas of others in stimulating my own thinking. That leads, inevitably, to reading
and paying less attention to ideas of others. Mis-attribution turns into loss of ability to
think.
Similarly, mis-describing how important innovation is, how much we aim for and tolerate,
and how much of it we achieve, reduces our ability to innovate. It lowers our standards of
what we are willing to call novel interesting beyond past practice. It also create powerful
real financial, promotion, and other rewards for merely looking innovative--\it makes it
unnecessary to actually innovate. There is a lot of evidence that organizations are willing
to settle for looking innovative.
10 COMPETITION CANCELING DRIVE OF CAPITALISM CAUSING ALL

PRODUCTS TO CLAIM INNOVATIVITY 100 brands of shampoo 98%
of their ingredients the same, the 2% not adding much real
function rather it backs up marketing claims = capitalism itself
settles for looking functional over being functional.
MODEL : THE INNOVATION NOISE MODEL OF INNOVATING
TO INNOVATE: STRIP ALL INNOVATION NOISE OFF OF SELF AND OTHER, SEE
THE TINY AMOUNTS OF NOVELTY AIMED FOR AND ACHIEVED--aim for
degrees of difference far beyond what others settle for--do the long
Edison sweat work that gets beyond one or two fast insights to piles
of collateral inventions that change entire sytems, fields, histories.
There are widespread exaggerations of the following: a) the importance of
innovating in business b) the amounts of innovation aimed for by
them c) the amount of tolerance for large increment innovations in
business d) the amounts of innovation actually achieved by them.
There are powerful large sources of innovation noise distorting and
exaggerating innovation actually needed and achieved: a) talking
innovation distract from bad business fundamentals b) talking
innovation draws executive and media attention, it is news c) talking
innovation is a socially permitted form of bragging d) whole societal
manias for specific areas causes widespread praise for slight actual
levels of novelty achieved e) continual evolution in technical
substrates of business functions causes constant change and learning
that feels like lots of innovation f) cultures of dishonest reporting of
good results without reporting of costs of those goods leads to
exaggerated innovation reports g) capitalism itself fosters
substituting the looking like X for the actual achievement of X--
markets often reward appearance over reality.
INNOVATION NOISE EXERCISE

Take some current business magazine or technology magazine and for every ad or article,
identify which of the below, possibly more than one per item, is operating there---so what is
reported there as an innovation is really nothing much new at all, rather one or several of
the noises below.
TYPE INNOVATION NOISE WHO, WHAT, WHERE, WHEN,
WHY
VISIBILITY distracts from failure of fundamental policies
draws executive and media attention
socially permitted form of bragging (satisfies
certain male hormones)
whole society manias/enthusiasms cause slight
amounts of novelty praised as if giant innovations
INNOVATION NOISE EXERCISE

Take some current business magazine or technology magazine and for every ad or article,
identify which of the below, possibly more than one per item, is operating there---so what is
reported there as an innovation is really nothing much new at all, rather one or several of
the noises below.
TYPE INNOVATION NOISE WHO, WHAT, WHERE, WHEN,
WHY
REPACKAGI-NGS continual updating as technical substrates evolve
counted as innovation
immense efforts sold told as immense effects
capitalism rewards mere appearance almost as
much as realities
confounding “different” or “change” as
“innovation”
repackaging prior initiatives to look more
exciting and contemporary as bosses, media
interest, trends change
CONDITIONAL cultures of being positive cause reports of good
results undiscounted by their costs and side-
UNCONDI- effects
TIONALS new effects without enogh magnitude to be
useful, celebrated anyway
powerful new effects celebrated without
boundary conditions so they almost never can be
usefully found or produced
DISLOCA-TIONS recyled ideas from a generation ago repackaged
in current trends and announced as innovations
new functions from new technical substrates or
old functions made faster, cheaper, easier sold
as innovations--selling effects of other
innovations as innovations in their own right
successes elsewhere applied here as totally new
innovation because we do not know origin place
productizing and charging for something that for
a long time was free and not used much (cloud
computing)

THE INNOVATION NOISE MODEL OF INNOVATION
the implementation
questions
HOW DO YOU DO THIS? Imagine a local skeptic, who ruthlessly and constantly debunks innovation
claims around him/her. He examines, verifies, debunks, punctures, and
refuses them. What remains is a tiny fraction of claimed innovations that meet
his criteria of changing entire fields and histories of fields. He discounts
entirely hosts of regular changes involved in upgrading functions to new tech-
nology substrates as they come along every year or two. He discounts male
monkeys on their way up some career ladder, claiming more and more self
inflated self important stuff, including claiming more innovation than they or
anyone could possibly have generated. He discounts everyone naming every-
thing as innovative in some general societal mania for the word itself.
This is somewhat like the Innovation as Culture Work Model of Innovation, a

subset of it like the Counter the Culture of Big-ness Model was. Just as coun-
tering only the culture of bigness around you suffices to make major innova-
tions, countering the flood of innovation noises around you also, by itself,
suffices to make you an innovator of major power, impact, and proportion.
WHAT ARE THE MAJOR The obstacle is all those people around you claiming the word “innovation”, for
OBSTACLES YOU ENCOUN- petty, false, and soon-to-be-undone stuff. Deflating openly and publically their
TER? claims will make you a lot of enemies. So you have to debunk innovation
claims quietly invisibly inside your own head, and, having thusly cleared junk
and lies from your head, you can clearly see and aim for REAL levels of innova-
tion. You do not necessarily benefit by announcing them before complete, or
hoisting them up where visibility makes competing-with-you others attack
them. Better to keep them underwraps till big and strong and proven enough
to withstand even the worst enemies, and competitor attacks.
WHY DO MANY NEVER Innovation noise, though it starts out as around us, gets INTO us as well. So we
ATTEMPT IT? lower our standards of use of the word, without any conscious announcement.
We end up naming trivial stuff innovative just like everyone around us and the
business press do. We do not try to fit in with others, we just drift into that.
Without realizing it was fill our heads with junk ideas and bottom of the barrel
definitions of innovative, that prevent us ever aiming for or attaining real inno-
vations.
9. The Academic Failure Model of Innovation
THE ENEMY: “EDUCATED” ELITES FROM “TOP” COLLEGES
IMPACT-LESS RESULT-LESS “VALID”

ACADEMIC RESEARCH MODELS
criteria of publishing that guarantee tiny
narrow, useless “effects”; generating &
hiring pure “status” not actual capability
DESCARTIAN
ELITES, THEY MIND, SELF,
BETTER: COMBINATIONS OF
STOP AT “RIGHT” ANALYSIS,
PLURAL DIVERSE MODELS
IDEAS, LAUNCH NOT SINGLE RIGHT-Y ONES
STATUS
BUT NEVER FINISH UBERALLES
cowards crunching numbers, religions of business “returns”
NO COURSES
plans, & models BEFORE IN LOVE, PASSION, that kill products & custo-
trying, and acting: SAVING THE WORLD, mers, religions of leadership:
“sicklied o’re by the pale INITIATING, giant desks, “elite” parking,
cast of thought”--Hamlet LEAVING OWN eateries, bespoke suits,
CULTURES + NO dolls of rank, top monkeys
BETTER: MAKE EDUCATING WANTED
BETTER: NOT MERE
VOID & CULTURE OR DELIVERED
MENTAL “BEST” BUT
MASTERS WHO IMPACT BEST, RISK
SWEAT THRU TO BETTER: SUMMERS WORKING BEST, CARE DELIVERY
YEARLY IN DIFFERENT COMPETITOR BEST, INVENT BEST
EXCELLENCE NATION REGIONS/RELIGIONS-OF-BUSINESS
Silicon Valley founders who LEAVE
college early, new experimental types
of “college”, learn WHILE doing GREAT
things; in the world not verbalizing it.
SCHOOLING’S SIDE CURRICULUM:
SITTING, NOT DOING, FOLLOWING ORDERS
THE ACADEMIC FAILURE MODEL OF INNOVATION

Hint: what colleges did makers of the industrial world’s
worst performing healthcare system graduate from?
Hint: what colleges did Silicon Valley’s founders NOT
graduate from (or now donate to)?
Hint: SONY’S recent death--who did its CEOs AFTER
Morita hire, instead of mavericks and hobbyists?
Hint: what colleges recently set up new departments
near Palo Alto not Massachusetts (and why)?
Hint: why did Henessey, head of Stanford cut off his
week in NYCity about a 2nd Silicon Valley there after 1 day?
Hint: Why did Silicon Valley contribute 8 times more to US
GDP than Route 128 over the last 45 years?
So I want tens of millions of newly born humans to enter the world and do good for it. What
is the best way to prepare them for that. Wow, I have an idea--why not lock them in prisons
for their first 15 years, away from work-sweat-politics-suffering-adults-money-power, mem-
orizing verbal formulas about a world they are not allowed to work in. What a great idea!
After 1.5 decades of following orders, sitting, initiating nothing, piling up unused ideas, get-
ting daily practice in not working, not caring for others, not inventing, not observing or talk-
ing to adults at work--they will be perfect little obedient empty-headed robots, suited well
for manipulating by wealthy venal narcissist elites from top ten USA colleges! What a great
idea!
A few relevant facts:

The curriculum of nearly all middle schools in the world comes from a happen-
stance-ly chosen arbitrary British church school’s courses circa 1770.
There has never been an iota of data connecting ALL the course contents of pub-
lic schooling’s 12 years with any beneficial outcome other than college entry.
It is not those with good grades from “top” colleges who do best along any of 54
diverse types of overall life and career and impact excellence but those who
forgo grades and professors and concentrate on self-transformation in col-
lege.
Nearly all social science research “findings” are “effects” published without
magnitudes and without boundary conditions in when and where the effects
will actually appear outside of labs of elite college white guys = almost none
of them are BIG enough, or ROBUST enough in when and where they appear,
to be worth remembering (though publishers NEED them for “new” books).
Losada managed to publish several articles based on absolutely impossibly ridicu-
lous phony maths--cited by 31 of the world’s top 32 social psychologists
repeatedly = peer ass kissing. Christiensen’s dissertation’s data does NOT sup-
port his claimed results and thesis but Harvard hires him anyway.
A recent dean of the U of Chicago medical school said it has been over 35 years
since they were able to hold any kind of course on patient care and get more
than 5 attending, but any course remotely about personal wealth and finance
management, required them “renting local football statia” to hold the over-
flow crowds.
Einstein’s Phd. advisor secretly wrote a letter to 11 top physics departments all
over Europe that did prevent Einstein getting a faculty job, so he, with
resentment, worked in a patent office, seething, and in anger in 1905 pub-
lished 3 papers of Nobel Prize quality in one year--”I’ll show them”.
Asian immigrants and their kids do better in top US colleges than native born
Americans and their kids--why?
A great number of Silicon Valley founder sets are immigrants and their kids, or
Phds from large firms carrying ideas their big firms ignored.
371 MIT grads, asked about improving education there agreed: “if I had known
how much more bold and comprehensive and interesting and global engineer-
ing projects in the real world are than anything I did at MIT, I would have left
earlier, as soon as possible”.
A few more relevants facts:

colleges filter for attracting smart people rather than making people smart
colleges select for and graduate mental abilities only for the most part
college systems and values and views are overwhelmingly male
colleges install a class system among fields of knowledge, denigrating care of

others (the caring professions are given to women and ranked lowest)
every year beyond first at college weakens passion and focus, teaching excuse-
making and fitting in
though unbrearable focus changes the world; colleges teach unbearable non-
focus
college dissipates rather than builds loves and passions
colleges teach knowledge as chopped up 1100 years ago = useless departments,
ancient organizations of knowledge not fitting current chances and needs
colleges “educate” brains not minds, tools outside brains that make you smart
colleges practice you in ancient bad interfaces--prose, general discussions, brain-
storms, debates about what is “righter”, practice “beating” differing ideas
colleges select those who beat others in mental competitions and produce people
who seek to beat others mentally lifelong
colleges graduate people who apply mental operations to 6 to 8 ideas at a time,
not to 50 or 100 ideas at a time
colleges make you expert at not-doing, sitting, obeying, following, remembering
colleges increase your mental storage contents not your mental surface area
exposure to burgeoning new emergent fields, knowledge, ventures
colleges operate and teach within national and gender cultures, reducing what
their grads can notice, react to, imagine, and do
the most chosen popular fields in college entirely avoid emotion, culture, social
relationship management and understanding--engineers, MBAs, etc.
few attend college to get in any way educated, and few college professors know
what make “educating” different than stuffing “knowledge” into heads.
Readers have already, I am sure, noticed, I am “heavy hitting” beloved parts of the world
that in 99% of books get a free ride. I am hard, on males, on monkeys, on professors, on
religions of business and their sect members. On the other hand Apple is hard, on Samsung,
on IBM, on Microsoft, on all those top monkeys of other corporations, including certain oil
guys in Texas, who are used to lording it over parties and beauties on boat and 3rd home.
Amazon is hard, these days, on Walmart, down below in global sales. Competition is a bitch
and all business”men” work mightily to eliminate it every minute of every day in every form-
-just as Thiel says in his wonderfully accurate book on tech venturing. You can reduce
competitors by out-distancing them--getting beyond their clutches, the Apple-Jobs-2 way, or
by M&A forming of giant conglomerates, absorbing entities that would have competed but
“now” “play synergy with us”. Ha ha ha.
In this happy context, this chapter comes down hard on professors--their elite-ness, their
tiny topic papers of “validated” variables of no impact, their journals publishing “effects”
without magnitudes or boundary conditions, their primary school thru post-doc thru journal
editorship monkey hierarchy with attendant snobberies, their 30 years too late “teaching”
that analysis of one professorial sort or another was key to phenomena they had nothing to
do with and did not create or assist. This chapter does more, however, that merely come
down hard on them. It states directly that one route to history changing, whole-field-
changing innovations is escaping (Gates and Jobs, simply leaving college entirely) college
and professorial insertions of professorial analyses as if they had anything to do with good
outcomes in the world. Christensen at Harvard is a great example--his Ph.d. dissertation
with flawed data and analysis so they do not support his thesis, his “disruption” theory,
presented to Kodak, Xerox, GM, IBM, and a dozen other big firms, thoroughly, with the result
that all of them reached or were nominally only saved from bankruptcy. Yet he is top of the
heap, elite, best published, lauded, paid $10,000 a day for “consults” that failed to help any
big firm paying for them. The route to big scale real innovation is escaping people like him
and institution like the ones that hire and keep him around. Escaping them and their ideas
and influence is enough by itself to make history changing size innovations.
Why is this so? Again, the gunk, generated by professors 30+ years after some big creative
outburst in the world, as “the key” to it, does not stay safely in universities, harming the
would-be psychopaths who apply to schools of business and the like. Unfortunately, entire
publishing industries exist because they must two seasons a year sell “ideas”--whether right
or wrong, whether of impact or none, whether with magnitudes or no magnitude.
Unfortunately people ride trains, airplanes, carpool, sit by pools, laze around Sunday
afternoons reading--and they want “ideas” to read. In this way, like a disease, or more
really like a slowly built up Alzheimer’s plaque, professorial 30+ years late, overly male,
overly analytical re-renderings of deeds by smarter others, spew out of colleges into the
world at large, gumming up thought and work processes, slowing action, de-focus-ing action,
dissipating passion and shriveling up love, denigrating emotion and conviction. Suddenly
the key to all good outcomes in life becomes some that......professors......are good at--
analysis uberalles!
This effect is so big and deep and wide and harmful, that merely not being a part of it, and
not being touched by it, suffices to make you and your doings and career into major scale
innovations. That is the model of this chapter.
Schools and colleges teach extremely harmful side-curricula along with geometry proofs you
never again see or use, geography facts you never again see or use, versions of sanitized
politically correct history that no one ever alive in any other era would recognize. Schools
and colleges are a disease.
Why does that statement offend, cause readers to disbeliee this book? The middle class has
no other route to self social class improvement, moving up in the world, than training their
brains. They never bothered to look at history and see how the rich set up mass education
and college systems to “look like transfers of facts” while actually practicing people in
obedience, passivity, analyzing ways to enrich the already rich, and the like. The tatemae,
as the Japanese say, curriculum of schools and college is transfers of facts (they do not even
pretend to “educate” these days), an the honne (real) curriculum is becoming a good robot
commanded by rich elite betters in society. The middle classes have bought into this, not
voluntarily--they have no other routes to self social class upgrades. They believe this with
all their pitiful little hearts, out of desperation, in spite of all the realities of our jobless high
tech future.
Those few people who see both the overt and the covert curricula of schools and colleges
become history changing whole-field-changing scale innovators.
I posted a single question to MIT alumni on the Linkedin official alumni group page for MIT,
then forgot about it for months. By accident half a year later I came across it and could not
believe--371 MIT grads on 200 A3 size pages (when I printed it all out) had answered that one
question. I have almost a small book on the results of analyzing their answers, but only a
small portion is relevant here--MIT managed to force down student minds a long sequence of
“right” analysis and calculation techniques as “what engineering is and what engineers do”.
Just about all the 371 grads who answered my question were angry about that--when they
left MIT and did their very first real engineering project in the world it was thousands of
times as much excitement, learning, fun, investigation, hard work, collaboration depth,
forging of lifelong friendships, explorations of sites of new materials-tools-sensors around
the world. It was, in short, ALL THE THINGS MIT courses and assignments were not--
thrilling. MIT demoralized every one of those 371 grads invisibly, merely by omitting the
most intellectual, global, investigative, experimental, hard, collaborative, thrilling things

that most actual engineering projects do. It was night and day, negative photo versus print
photo, Cincinatti versus Los Vegas, hot dog alone versus hot dog with mustard and relish--a
pale ghostly professor-ized, analysis-ized, timid “action learning projects” rendition,
without real fear, real risk, real love, real passion, real conviction--emotionless, ghostly,
pale, safe, timid, cowardly, gutless = professorial.
Today, 2015, as this book is being written, every year Fuji Xerox assembles 1000+ blue collar
non-college educated workteams, each presenting better-than-average-MIT-Phd-dissertation
statistical investigation of hard lasting work problems and technologies, in a total quality
solving conference. 1000+ better than MIT phd dissertation levels of use of stats for real
scientific investigation of real work system problems and performance limits. Yearly. By
blue collar workers. In one Japanese company. Every year. For the past 35 years. The
Americans still are so blinded by the “eliteness” of places like MIT and the “ranking” of
places like MIT that they have lost all ability to see horizontal realities--Americans have
become infected by a major professorial disease---immense verticality. People who
manage not to get infected by this professorial disease, without doing anything else,
generally manage major history-changing scale innovations.
The Global Crisis in Urban Education

(a summary of Hannah Arendt’s model)
Failure of Civilization, Societies, Leaders, Institutions, Especially Public Schools to Introduce the Reality
Principle to Rising Generations
Failure of Civilization, Societies, Leaders, Institutions, Especially Public Schools to Offer as Much Interesting Information as
Media and Urban Streetlife and the Web
Causes: Children Lack a World (instead having childhood segregating them in schools away from the world)
Adults Lack a World (central government and corporate control strips responsibility for the world from parents so kids see
irresponsible parents.)
Learning (play and Educating (work and parents, public realm)

parents, private realm)
Definition 1. transfer of information 2. transfer of responsibility for the world to someone “new”
to becoming being (like all to the world (which world is immensely valuable having
animals) been erected by generations of people struggling to create
civilization, more gentle to people than nature is)
4. TEACH what the world is like and what responsible rela-

tions to it are like and get the child’s newness to invent
3. TEACH the art of living solutions (we, the older generation, were unable to think
[children are bore incapa- up or implement); [children are born barbarian]
ble of sustaining their own
lives]


Practical 5. protect the child from 6. protect the world from the child (error 100 years ago in
Requisite the world (error 100 years countryside--”kids are miniature adults”; error now in cit-
ago in countryside--”kids ies--”kids are s separate world of their own”)
are miniature adults”;
error now in cities--”kids
are a separate world of
their own”) 8. conserve the world from the harms of each child’s new-
ness to the world; the world wears out if invaded by barbar-
7. conserve the child from ian untrained children; the world--and civilization--wear
the harms of the world out unless renewed by each generation overcoming the pre-
vious generation’s errors
10. adult role: the school is a representative of the public
world responsible for introducing how to be responsible to
other people for that world and developing the uniqueness
9. adult role: the school of the child as an “entirely new thing” inserted into our
(though the family should common public world gradually, who can improve that
do this not schools) is a world
social structure that nur-
tures the child as a living
biological being, helping
the child live as a living
being in the natural private
and social worlds of all ani-
mals (includes types of
intelligence, social skills,
mastery of reading and
writing and the like)
Why We 11. unconscious dislike of 12. unconscious dislike of the world by the parents (and
Want to their own children by most the burden of being responsible for it whether you do a
Fail parents (and dislike of the good job of that or not) so parents rejoice in blaming
burden of child care that schools when kids have no responsibility, no motive, no
children require) so parents future goals, no respect for reality and structures of society
rejoice at TV and videoga- and others
mes and schools that take
kids away for hours at a
time
For 13. done with children and 14. done with children and criminals only, as “adults” are
Whom adults, all through life (you defined as those responsible for the world
can learn all your life with-
out in any way being or
becoming educated)


Teacher 15. informer doing courses 16. mentor introducing work responsibility, family responsi-
Types and classes bility, civic responsibility, global responsibility, sexual
responsibility and above all, Reality and Reality’s powers
18. authority to teach (as representative of the world and

17. qualification to teach Reality)
(in a field of knowledge)
20. the teacher takes responsibility for the world and its
19. the teacher knows fate himself and introduces kids to what that responsibility
things and explains them is like and requires
22. the current crisis in urban education worldwide: teach-

21. the current crisis in ers do not take responsibility for the world and kids observe
urban education world- teachers being irresponsible (and unconsciously hopeless)
wide: teachers know less about how to handle and improve the world
about modern things than
kids find from streetlife
and the media
Interest 23. needs to be made inter- 24. has the natural “interest” of any small being meeting an
Source esting (because daily stree- immense power that, if ignored, will ruin you and your life:
tlife and media compete does not need any special added entertainment or interest-
with schools and have more ingness
and better information,
schools are boring)
Chal- 25. failure to compete for 26. failure of commonsense: adults no longer share with
lenges child interest: information each other and with their children a common public world
from school is less in vol- of appearing and performing the dramas of responsibility
ume, poorer in quality, less for community life--instead all sit and watch immensely
relevant, less useful, less rich people “talents” or central elites who monopolize per-
intriguing than information formance and strip it from everyone’s life except a small
in the media and street minority in society. The daily theatre that village life was
lives of ordinary people in 100 years ago of performing before friends and family has
large cities been eradicated by media industries bent of profit who cen-
tralize performance. Also, responsibility has been eradi-
cated by central governing and corporate elites, running
everything top down centrally, stripping ordinary parents of
a world and responsibility for it
Evils of 27. sit for the first 20 years 28. sit for the first 20 years of life kept away from--parents,
Child- of life and pile up idea not work, community needs, the old, babies, the sick, the men-
hood used, applied, and there- tally ill, the criminal, most community roles, in other
(invented fore, not “understood”; words, nearly all problematic things needing care--means
100 years
ago)
complete absence of practicing irresponsibility for 20 years, even if the practice
“understanding”, caused is passive
by complete lack of
grounding ideas in kids own
experience, causes much of
the decay an crime in our
major cities


Image to 29. what kind of person 30. what kind of person responsibly manages society? what
be learns well? what is impor- is important for society’s future?
decided tant to learn?
32. answer of our big cities now: an imposed ideology of

30. answer of our big cities everyone is free to compete in spite of immense differences
now: a parrot, a non- in resources and family background or everyone is equal
human being (a person and competing is distortive
trained well to sit, follow
elites, and not think for
him/herself)
Error Pos- 33. providing a lot of infor- 34. assimilating what is new in the child away so the child,
sibilities mation with no understand- in order to fit into the world, is made as old and dying as
ing of it because no the world is;
experience of a multi-age-
group real world to relate
it to responsibly (no edu-
cating going on) 36. assimilating the world to the barbarian newness of the
untrained child so the tyranny of children becomes adult
35. providing a lot of expe- behavior eventually
riences and work with no
reflection and improve-
ment of it based on mas-
tery of the abstract
symbols and mental skills
that allow humans to
improve their world
Below is a 96 point diagram, organized in four sets of four times six dynamics of
Scientific Creativity. Following it is short paragraphs describing each of the 96
dynamics plus some implications for creativity. Together these define “doing
science” as the best have done it, and they define it “in detail”. How much of
schooling, of college work, of discussing in class, of homework, of textbook
reading--does these 96 dynamics? Which of the 96 get done well in each year
of school and college? Do any of the 96 get done, done well, practiced into
powerful routines in schools and colleges? One of the main points of the
Academic Failure Model of Inovation, is that schooling and college work do
very few of these 96 science dynamics. The basic learning algorithm by
which babies and old people and everyone in between learns the world--
theory, probe, observation of probe results, revision of theory--is largely
missing from nearly all time and work in schools and college. It is replace by
a much weaker learning algorithm--memorize verbal formulas (facts) about
a world you do not observe, probe.
what we 93 87
observe is theory
determines fund 69 63
not nature ideas have what’s observable;
minimize competitive fundideas retry ideas early
but nature formal training
92our exposed by social territories so do not induce subgroups in5 year units in other contexts: independent
method of just as animals do 86 theory from &roveoutsideyour different so ideas can be
68 ofranks/sta tus developedenough
an idea fa ili ng i n research experience
62 1 may suc ceed in
questionning Root-bernstein data alone fieldregularly
in a subfield to see
Heisenberg another for young r esearchers
popular/ 94 Maier Carruthers
88 foster
ona topic implications
Greene Burch 70 Root-
bernstein
Root-
ber nstein
assume d/wrong
me thods/contexts Out er get simplicity
nevertrust
theobvious; Rut develop
solving menu: competitive simple
minimal: 64
journals on fund ideas
a round proble m Exploring not by neverskip Surfacing seek abstractions;
decomposetill
Pluralize institutionalize tools, Plurify & independently
can make it is Inne r simplifying, surfacing/challengi ng same topic in Plurality doubting what procedures,
unsolvable, Exploring solvable; Explode of initialfund
till they are reproduction butprinciples
by applying own assumptions Repertoires matchapproach a field Typ es you mo st bel ieve;
reproduction doubt data you
interpretations Contexts results; retries under
changed Macfarlane selection tosolv subproblem; Greene Root- newcontexts
Bates
e by anal ogy ; most believe selection
Keller search the trust own reasonfrom bernstein
91 history of your failures to 85 problems
tackle only maximize knowns
whose unexpectedbad Infeld 67 if taken to
past successes not biologic
Agassi
61 peer change Root-
bernstein
field for abandoned understand; solution’s rough or side effects, age but age in review more important
old ideas only do 95 shapeyoucanguess thenchange 89 validate more a fie ld sets l imit of to reward
criterion is
5 to 10 years for71
than their exact countering
Szent- experiments that to avoidflailing what you
specific contents crea peer ideas thre at to cheri se d 65
gyorgyi can overturn inthe dark discover ruin science tivity field ideas from
your ide as Fermi SO LUTION TYP ES Burch new work
96 90 Langmuir invent concept/taxonomy Chandrasekhar Simonton Root-
Medawar
Investigate invent theory
observe natureor experimt
72 Plurify 66 bernstein
Inner Blocks invent tool
invent evaluationcriteria Breeding of
explainmore withless
Hybrid People &
75 to Ou ter Truths
test predictionscope
comparetheories/explantns
most new
81 solutionseeks problem
train in 51 Systems 57
recognizeunsolvables
discoveries rapid decrease Domain we lea rn from slo ppy enough linkunrelatedproblems tools others do not bui ld fund
in discovery mentors not invent experiment lack from keep people people not
74 just after after new tools facts but how to spot unex pe cteds
several fields on other’s results Field under-em ployed projects, with
new tools
come intro effect bang 80to handle
ambiguity &
but exact enou gh to
50&fields emerging you have not 56 = slack for lifetime grants for
Harwit know wha t ha ppened derived yourself play provenexplorers
Harwit many confusion to encourage
great 76 discove ries Glashow Delbruck 82 stay
margina l bernstein
Root-
Planck
Root-
52 perfectly bernstein Burch field change
observations discovery from
by people member to no strings
58
observational some problems
come from
tool inventions
Tool outside field luck, were Discipline can only be seen
avoid
competition, Marginal funds +
discretionary organized work at
Stochastic institutions other
Harwit Invention = new by
borrowing
recognized
by right
& Context andsolved in
Combinatorics the midst (env-
funder agendas, Hyb rid part of all systems are on Leaky during grad
& get chance to Cranks funds, so Systems school to
variation tools contexts of combination ironment) of explode into species variation field/instn. verge o f co llapse pluralize
viewing others Truesdell combination
73 breakthru many new Harwit Ha rwit
not single re sult changes happen approaches
Eigen fund while
researchers discoveries 79 regularlydomains that domains that Robertso n backwater
49 institutions create small
funded
55 fields change several
every fields and
Root-
bernstein
invent own using tools welcome hybridiza tion exploratory Burch
tools & use restructure & so technique 5 to 10 years; problem
by themselves invented for 77 recombine withotherfields 83 does not research funds rebegin
s at
militaryuse subfields are are creative dominate so people can 53 beginning
once; rest by 59
Harwit creative Root- Root- Modified from try many ideas o ut switching
bernstein bernstein Discovering by insight Root- projects
78 Harwit 84 Root-Bernstein Burch Burch bernstein Root-
Harvard, 1989 54 60 bernstein
Scientific
21 self
criticize 15
Creativity Copyright 2001
by RichardTabor Greene 45
find go where
without results All Rights Reserved 39
where data others flee; US Government conservative as simple the further what now
contradicts leave popularity, compromise from acting Registered method with as can be, an experiment how&why later;
20 theory experts, & 14 own 44liberal topic, or no simpler
competition suppositions not contemplating vice versa,
is from
38 the closer theory, test discoveries
to qualitatively before
Pasteur & results Kettering not both Nobel Prize quantitatively
seek Wheeler 22 follow Huxley 16 Monod Einstein Joliot-
do not
delegate
46 curie
Thompson 40
disequilibrium your bliss Drive invent big seek anomaly, if someone
by working Connect to research find goal that Strategic theory then learn what Crystal fewest things, else can do it, frame slight
beyond Frontiers functions,
do own
your field
expects then Clarity
most do not do it Perfection’s things in
comfort zone reproduction
experiments drives you Action disprove it
selection Bacon seek som ething combinations Partiality widest
possible
Carruthers Salk else reproduction Szent- selection context
symphonic Burnet Kuhn define gyorgyi Arrhenius
19 presentation 13 softslowly find Grimm
best solutions underbelly findsystems of 43 conditions of find boundary 37 innovationsgreat
overlook
of results; music’s relatedproblems validity of data conditions on are discovered reality’s ugliness,
unique parallel unite maximal 23 subproblem
key to impossible bothinteresting17 to mark where which data to in muddy form seekbeauty in 41
expression datapoints one, room & important theories fail believe, whichto47 so do not wait models
streams to perfect a
Bolzmann Helmholz for chance Medawar Bernard discount
24 Drive Thomson
18 48
Root-
bernste in Provoke
discovery
Bohr
Dirac
Extreme Avalanche of 42
Associations to the Reframing & Re-seeing
3 Frontier many 9 via Self Evolving Idea
lots of lots of
media abstract study
27 Breeding c ontents 33
skills ideas Person express results analogy history of separate o f one di scove ri es
no skill is productivity:
as many ways good = field for how search & Work field applied to follow perio ds o f
2 useless have lots of ideas 8 as possible analogy of things;
great = analogy 26fads &fashions 32 c opying er ror nebuilwding
others; a cc ept institution
Young throw out bad affect what is verification or
Maxwell of analogies strictly ty pe i nno vation
Pauling 4 many 10 “creative” Ro ot-
r estructuri ng
lots of
extreme
life
solutions Ulam surface
personal undo Pasteur Wiesner
28 inve nt fields: bernstei n Gerard 34
contradictions generate all childhood
Lots of push your possible Many philosophy socialization; Invent the n problem s
create own life till Abstract mainprior phil.y to not see &
Ways to find gre at ideas the n solutions; Evol utionary bricolage :
to resolve Extremes eccentric for
serendipity
solutions to
see what Associations reason comment in the areas Mixing items crea ted in
one co nte xt g et
Root- variation will sort them combination new results
rejected Root- See unmeasured
find field
inte rsec ti ons Dynamics used in another
bernstein variation combination
1 extreme extreme Disraeli Brillouin shut off Root-
prime bernstein bernstein C. S. Smith T aton T oul min
ideas
find boundary
parameter
settings
7 logic sleep
start of insight rehearse out-
25 to invent ways
interpret,
isolation
31 c reates niches fr actal gr owth
conditions of vary parameters is givin g up; standing probl ems prioritize, & use craf t skills that bur st for th patter n of idea s,
each idea widely as 5 remove idea before sleep for11 order ways to see in new i nto gener al re levanc e pro je cts, subfields,
Root- possible fences sleepwork to interpret visual and 29 when e nvi ronm ent science as whole 35
bernstein Fleming data
George Lipscomb Root- motor ways change sCavalli-
H olton
6 12 be rnstei n Galton sforza
30 36
96 Dynamics of Scientific Creativity

The method of science--the algorithm by which all of us (and animals) learn the world--of
hypothesis, probe, observation of probe results, revised hypothesis--does NOT generally get
done in schools and college classes. Instead these institutions for some old reason try to
pack, through the slow narrow door into brains, masses of piled up “knowledge” in the form
mostly of “facts” as if people learned by memorizing verbal formulas about a world they are
not allowed to interact with. Without experimental probes and observed results of those
probes, we do not learn. From babies to old age, we learn with one fundamental scientific
algorithm. It is useful, therefore, to view real historic science, in all its branches, to
see its principles of operation and see whether they MOST resemble that algorithm by
which all animals learn the world, or schooling’s contents. Read the model of Scientific
Creativity’s 96 dynamics below in that context for that purpose.
This model of dynamics of Scientific Creativity is comforting in a way. A lot of it is very
familiar material---we have all seen scientific discoveries and inventions for years, bally-
hooed on TV, in magazines, in schools. This is familiar territory for most readers of this
book. However, I have presented this model in detail to a number of Nobel Prize winning sci-
entists, and they all found vital insights, not exactly new to them but under-recognized,
under-utilized by they themselves. They found this model enlightening and useful. They
were famous accomplished scientists.
The miracle is this---when we cover the process of creating thoroughly, comprenhensively, in
detail---we come up with lots of insights that each of us personally lacks and might benefit
from. It is amazing that something as broad and unusual as creativity can result in so many
practical insights and principles that we---you and I---might apply today and tomorrow.
The Flavor of Sciencie and Creativity in Science

The model of 96 dynamics presented here assumes a particular well-developed, historic
field, that everyone is sharing and operating in. In other words, scientific creativity is a phe-
nomenon of groups of people studying the same parts of the world in similar ways. These
scientific fields and subfields have their own journals and conferences, their own research
institutes and national funders. They compete and seldom collaborate. They are divided
into types---pure sciences, applied ones, with status divides so one type looks down on the
other, and funders pay more for one type than the other.
Within the field they all share, scientific creators push to the extremes, they blend and
breed ideas within and without the field to provoke avalanches of new seeing, based on new
points of view they invent and use. They come up with blends and mixes others miss. They
go deep inside themselves finding habits and assumptions that limit their viewpoint and do
their best to get outside their own selves and self contents. Each step deeper inside means
wider views of more things outside. Going in enables going out. Similarly going out of their
own field, reveals new meanings from new contexts for viewing their own habitual inner
ways and nature.
To be scientifically creative all you have to do is see extremely, blend and mix extremely,
hang around margins and frontiers and bad minded challengers, and undoing deep parts of
your self and habits for new viewpoint and new seeing.
The Lay of the Land versus the Lay of the Field

Let’s say you pick a hot field likely to grow immensely with information implications, a kind
of biologic computer in all living things---the protein information systems within and
between cells. There are 100 or more protein machineries inside cells for performing any of
100 diverse operations on proteins. There are huge signal systems of proteins transmitting
information to parts of cells and between cells. A person entering this field--how do they
set themselves up from start to be creative revolutionary contributors to it?
The model offers 96 specific answers to this question. Here I discuss a few. The model says
you become a creative scientist by sensing what the high leverage problems are. Think
about this---what would the people in this field praise and all benefit from personally? In a
new burgeoning field like this, there is too much openness. There is too little known and
hence too little contraint. Therefore, such fields are grateful when:
a) people organize the mess--find categories and patterns among things
b) people invent new idea tools that reduce chaos
c) people invent new instruments that make formerly hidden dynamics visible
d) people organize the people researching, into interlocking subsystems in reality to sepa-
rately eludicate but results will combine powerfully when announced.
So it is not a matter merely of ideas and better ideas, but serving the curiosities and priori-
ties and frustrations of other people in the same field--the first to map complexity well, the
first to see and propose patterns or organizing ideas, the first to invent a tool making hidden
dynamics visible, the first to get people not fighting, competing, or faking collaboration but
organizedly tracking down individual results that build on each other.
GOING TO ABSURD EXTREMES--THE WAY OF SCIENCE
OH NO, ANOTHER DARN CREATIVITY MODEL!!!!

Readers, you have at this point been exposed to 42 creativity models, 8 of them in great
detail. Isn’t that enough?
So WHY go to ANOTHER creativity model here? To make a very important point---how

FRUITFUL each model is and how EVERY model exposes parts of creativity NO OTHER
MODEL presents as well.
The Scientific Creativity Model is 96 dynamics in 16 categories. Below I go from 1 to 96

and give hints about how YOU can APPLY EACH.
1) Many of these 96 will be familiar yet have slight differences---they resemble points in
model earlier in this book, but differ slightly.
2) Not a few of these 96 will be new, unfamiliar, and you will ask yourself---how could
those 42 and 8 prior models manage to leave THIS kind of thing out?
Creativity is amazing, by definition, the MOST amazing part of us, life, and the universe.
Creativity is a zoo, a museum of vast variety. No one model ever EVER does it justice.
Academics need someday to eventually learn that.
What makes scientific creativity different is this---science DISCOVERS things already

there for eons in life and the world. Science also invents changes in that stuff that have
enormous power--stem cells that repair animals so animals can, via spare parts, live for-
ever. Reactors that use atomic nuclear forces to power entire cities (and to destroy
them).
Let’s begin:
A. Drive extreme associations to the frontiers of knowledge
APPLY THIS--read and work and travel in dozens of fields and cultures for wide associa-
tions putting your own field’s things into perspective, revealing biases, limits, blind-
spots, manias.
a) Lots of extremes
APPLY THIS--creators take just about everything they do to absurd extremes, so slight
hobbies end up making history and records, amazing others.
1) lots of contradictions---create own resolve

APPLY THIS--resolve is your aim, your determination to get there, your marshalling of all
you are and all around you towards that direction--creators do their share of dabbling
and tinkering and playing but at the periphery of an immense direction of motion they
put themselves in.
2) lots of skills---no skill is useless
APPLY THIS--get good at nearly everything you are interested in and exposed to---you
cannot ever predict when a skill will be the missing piece that connects to huge unre-
lated parts of you that, if together instantly, change everything, if delayed change noth-
ing. This is a natural selection principle---develop neutral traits, libraries of them, and
some time some day, changes of environment will make one of them vital to survival or
creation.
3) lots of idea---productivity; have lots of ideas and throw out the bad ones
APPLY THIS---the first stuff you create are all sorts of small tools and facilities that make
the most imaginative parts of you highly productive, vastly more so than others. That
eventually enables more tries, and more tries means some are eventually judged cre-
ative.
4) extreme life---push your life till eccentric for serendipity
APPLY THIS---if you live where and as others do not, living becomes a daily imagining and
exploring---such stretches of you beyond normal, puts inside you a library of frameworks
OTHER than others have = you begin to notice what others never notice, you can take
actions others cannot imagine. Luck happens to people able to spot opportunity which
requires many diverse extreme frameworks.
5) extreme parameter settings---vary parameters widely as possible
APPLY THIS---experiment with the most extreme versions, extreme settings, of things, to
reveal normal dynamics invisible at normal scale, that become visible only at extremes.
Freud studied hysterics and other mental illnesses for this reason, because they made
visible dynamics more slight in normal subjects.
6) extreme ideas---find boundary conditions of each idea
APPLY THIS---investigate under what specific conditions some causal relationship holds--
what makes it appear?
b) Many abstract associations

APPLY THIS--build up you seeing muscles, that is, imbibe so many and such diverse and
such abstract frameworks that you notice relations and patterns that no one else
notices, you organize things in ways no one else has.
7) many solutions---generate all possible solutions to see what will sort them
APPLY THIS---this one is obvious, you want to map all POSSIBLE solution directions they
group them by similarity then see what abstract parameter makes them different--this
reveals the underlying forces at work in an area
8) many media---express results as many ways as possible
APPLY THIS---each medium and topological layout and way of representing problem situ-
ations and results, highlights different data and relationships, some of which lead to
inventions, discoveries, and solutions
9) abstract analogies are good, analogies of things are very good, analogies of analogies
are great
APPLY THIS---example--these things are liquids of various viscosities, these other things
are gases, with this one thing a plasma perhaps = we are dealing with populations of
interacting things at various temperatures, THAT explains the variety we see. The liquid
analogy, next to a gas analogy, next to a plasma analogy leads to an analogy of those anal-
ogies---populations at various temperatures = what is heating these?
10) surface personal philosophy---prior philosophy is the main reason people reject new
results
APPLY THIS---do NOT assume your natural approach and views are safe; guess where you
are coming from viewing from expressing from and UNDO your self, your background,
your habitual views.
11) prime your sleep---rehearse outstanding problems and alternative possible solutions
before sleep for sleepwork
APPLY THIS---immerse yourself in goals and motives, details and conundra, till at the
point of maximum chaos and mess, you go to sleep---bingo, in the morning magic order
will appear, as your unconscious mind did work while you slept--this actually works
12) shut off logic---start of insight is giving up, removing idea fences
APPLY THIS---this is the Despair Doorway to self change, the Despair Doorway to insight--
-when you give up on who you now are, on your present ways, despair over them, THEN
you can change yourself enough to see anew.
SIZES AND LEVELS OF CREATIVITY:
1) spot an interesting/promising mess that elaborates existing paradigm
2) spot a pattern in the mess that elaborates existing paradigm
3) clean noise from the pattern, exposing pure signal of something that elaborates the
existing paradigm
4) spot an interesting/promissing mess that shows an anomaly that the existing paradigm
fails to explain
5) spot a pattern in the mess that is an anomaly not fitting the existing paradigm
6) clean moise so pure signal of some anomaly not fitting the paradigm appears.
7) spot an interesting/promissing mess that overthrows the existing paradigm
8) spot a pattern in the mess that overthrows the existing paradigm
9) clean away noise revealing a signal that overthrows the existing paradigm
10) spot a mess that suggests a replacement for the existing paradigm
11) spot pattern that suggests a replacement for the existing paradigm
12) clean away noise revealing a signal of something that replaces the existing paradigm.
These twelve very rough stages/amounts of creativity. The first one is small scale cre-
ativity and the last one is huge scale historic work.
What field you choose, where you work in that field, whose work you follow and avoid,
are all determined by what stage of the above 12 your field is in. You can readily tell
that by reading scientific journals and noticing which of the above 12 types of research
people are now publishing in them.
However to hit a real home run, you should combine the above analysis with the proce-
dure at left about finding whether your field needs: organizing a mess, invention new
idea tools, inventing new equipment tools, organizing people better. Combine both and
you up your chances of hitting a home run creative work that truly revolutionizes your
field and is applauded by all.
c) Drive strategic action
APPLY THIS---where you aim and locate your effort is VASTLY more important than the
amount and quality of effort you make---work where networks of problems seem to
overlap and inter-link, seek tangles, knots in messes.
13) follow your bliss---find goal that drives you effortlessly to intense work and engage-
ment, till you lose track of self and time
APPLY THIS---motivation can readily turn into skill and insight, skill cannot readily turn
into motivation; motive ( in new fields) comes from rich messes where someone needs to
create pattern and order; motive (in old fields) also comes from neat orderings that do
not somehow quite work, perhaps needing explosion into giant messes so new patterns
can coalesce to replace them.
14) self criticize without compromise own suppositions and results
APPLY THIS---so many non-science people NEVER in their lives do this, unless forced by
crisis---scientists make this a daily habit, as soon as they get enthusiastic about some-
thing, they stand back, and attack their own enthusiasm, checking for flaws, biases,
blindspots. Of course they sometimes miss things but if they practice for years, they
substantially avoid what ordinary people blindly are misled by.
Being seen as “the rightest one” by history comes from not settling for local, easy,
biased, natural ideas, ways, and interpretations daily for years. You BUY future historic
fame by rejecting present easy ways to fame. EVERY popular song you now like and
know will never be remembers or played by people 100, 200, 1000 years from now--they
will hate the ditties you love--it will all be forgotten. Popularity means history’s waste.
15) results from acting not contemplating
APPLY THIS----creators TRY things, instead of endlessly talking about or thinking about
them; they embody ideas in prototypes and try them out. They run competitions and
contests between their own different ideas. Testing is a major part of their schedule and
style of life---testing ideas that are partially or fully embodied.
16) invent a big theory then disprove it

APPLY THIS---think beyond all reasonable bounds, think big, then later you can shrink
parts that are unsustainable. It is easier to shrink a giant bold move than to grow little
tiny moves in some coherent big direction. Disproving your own big theories reveals to
you dimensions your mind and habits perpetually leave out or slight--so you gradually
learn your own biases
17) find systems of related problems both interesting and important
APPLY THIS---the key is finding problems that are related, but not just related in some
concrete physical realistic way---spotting problem that are related by some highly
abstract dynamic they share is more rare and therefore much more valuable.
Example: traffic jams, whirlpools in water, iPod purchase crowds, all come from similar
dynamics---if you view them as non-linear system dynamics, having state spaces, trajec-
tories in those spaces, tunable populations interacting.
18) slowly find soft underbelly subproblem key to impossible problem, giving room for
chance
APPLY THIS---beating yourself up against the hardest core of a problem is not necessary
or smart--better to nibble around the underpinings and edges finding what sustains the
problematic core of a problem, finding softer partial supports you can fix first. Exploring
around and under problem cores takes time and insights about what sustains a problem
core can appear during that exploration process, giving chance a chance to help you.
c) Connect to frontiers
APPLY THIS---beyond is the main idea here--go beyond all others, beyond what is popu-
lar, beyond what the best competitors try, beyond your own past bests, beyond your
comfort zones--beyond beyond beyond--get to the absolute thought frontiers, where

only you go and view backwards the problem you are tackling.
19) seek disequilibrium by working beyond comfort zones
APPLY THIS---creators go beyond their own creative selves, IF they continue creating.
This is hard as even the greatest creators find it hard to go beyond themselves--Picasso
spent 50 years more or less copying his own past work, for example, unable to get
beyond his own past imagination.
20) find where data contradicts your theory
APPLY THIS--look for where reality violates your models and theories, avidly.
21) go where others flee: leave popularity experts, and competition
APPLY THIS---there is comfort in being part of a whole field or whole society enthusiasm
and group, so going beyond to where they will not go, doing what they cannot fathom
and support, leaves you ALONE---that loneness is risky but it means also you are beyond
enough to struggle with dynamics others do not see.
22) do not delegate research functions, do own experiments
APPLY THIS---great creative science designs and discoveries tend to come from large labs
run by Nobel or other prize winners---who rather directly command youth to try certain
directions, methods, or ideas. A great deal of delegation is normal in such labs. How-
ever, the home run results from such labs, come when the top person keeps himself/her-
self personally at the center of all experiments and work on the core of the problem.
This works because INTEGRATING in ONE MIND the feel and intuitions from tangible
results works better than integrating across half a dozen minds.
23) best solutions unite maximal datapoints
APPLY THIS---when you get your creative answer or discovery, it will explain more of the
problem than anything else. It will unite parts of the problem that never were united
before. It will reveal a pattern into which nearly all problem aspects fit and play roles.
24) sympohnic presentation of results; music’S unique parallel expression streams
APPLY THIS---you can fail to discover or create simply by poor expression of your own
ideas and results---discovery comes when you release images that unite all problem
aspects in rapid succession, shocking brains with simultaneous diverse avenues of new
insight, pattern, and clarity.
B. Provoke avalanche of reframing and re-seeing via self evolving idea breeding
APPLY THIS---the entire person, mind, environment, locale, era of a creator has to
blend, mix, be transported with other persons, minds, environments, locales, eras.
Mental travel is not enough but depends on body travel, and re-organizing fields.
a) Invent ways to see
APPLY THIS---creators see more and work/invent ways/devices to do that.
25) undo childhood socialization to not see and comment
APPLY THIS---schooling makes us uncreative, it has to be undone; parenting also makes
us too passive, we wait too long to express our view, impressions.
26) study history of field for how fads and fashions affect what is “creative”
APPLY THIS---ideas come back every generation, ideas fight, the victor embeds the loser
idea as a subfield, youth come along and revive such subfield ideas to overthrow estab-
lish ideas and powers in their fields.
27) separate search and verification strictly
APPLY THIS---cheating in your own mind is a problem creators must solve. This entails
searching not limited by trying to search only over valid and powerful possibilities
(actual solutions may first appear encumbered by mud, noise, fog). You search without
prejudice over good and bad looking possibilities. Later you come with a handful of
interesting points and verify each for power and relevance. These must be separate--
search and verify.
28) find great ideas in areas unmeasured

APPLY THIS---entire fields give up where their current tools do not reach and measure,
but such areas everyone gives up on are precisely where new phenomena and data and
results come from. Creators carefully attend to off-bounds, ignored, slighted areas.
29) use craft skills to see in new visual and motor ways
APPLY THIS---we depend on thoughts, educations, our models and minds to guide our
attention and noticing, what we see. However, our emotions, our postures, where we
are, who is around us, feelings and atmospheres and recent events, all set the context
for our thoughts and noticings. Creators use the skills of their craft to expand how and
what they see, beyond what the thoughts of they and their fields.
Example: a brain scientist, using an fMRI machine to view brains--changed the resolution
of the machine by tinkering with the software himself---him being familiar with the
device, making discoveries from using worse resolution than the machine usually oper-
ates at.
30) invent ways to interpret, prioritize, and order ways to interpret data
APPLY THIS---modern tools tend to flood us with data, Big Data, it is called. Creators now
and in the future will come from those able to find patterns in masses of data. Ways to
view and arrange data BY THEMSELVES can lead to important discoveries.
b. Evolutionary mixing dynamics
APPLY THIS---the dynamics of natural selection apply to ideas interacting, to researchers
interacting, to fields of knowledge interacting.
31) invent fields: then problems, then solutions; find field intersections
APPLY THIS---creators tend to operate outside their own fields, between that and other
fields---they see field overlaps and conflicts and turn such places into new fields,
because defining first major problems in new fields is vastly easier, more rewarding,
more surprising that doing so in old establed ones.
32) contents of one field applied to others; accept copying error types of innovation
APPLY THIS---many famous creations and creators simply became famous without doing
anything at all creative: they merely applied some ordinary part of one field to some
entirely different field where it was surprising. When something is thusly applied across
fields, mistakes often are made in copying it in the new field and THOSE ERRORS can
become improvements and innovations.
33) discoveries follow periods of new institution building or restructuring
APPLY THIS---try as they might, creators do not go beyond, mix idea across fields, travel
mentally very well and very far---we know this because when fields are re-structured or
new institutions appear in them, people and ideas mix more and more powerfully than
when lone creators try such mixings. Idea mixings depend on institutional change in
fields in this way.
34) bricolate: items created in one context get used in another
APPLY THIS---one side-effect of mixing, blending, getting beyond your own field and your
own personal habits and ideas, is seeing ideas foreign to you and using them in your
familiar contexts.
Example: a student in my lab, built a simulation, not with software, but using cheap
microscope lenses to simulate a culture process with laser beams. Flows of software data
were changed to flows of optical data.
35) fractal growth pattern of ideas, projects, subfields, science as a whole
APPLY THIS---winner ideas embed the ideas they defeat as sub-ideas, and winner sub-
ideas embed the ideas they defeat as sub-sub-ideas--in this way ideas appear on plural
size scales, throughout essays, minds, devices, fields, history--idea growth is fractal
from forces like this.
36) isolation creates niches that burst forth to general relevance when some environ-
ment changes
APPLY THIS---technology vendors try to promote more connection, more connection,
more connection only--but creativity comes from increasing number, variety, and dis-
tance of isolation. More isolated places more isolated, developing depth in their own
niches, mean that when some general environment changes around them, some of them
burst forth with determinative overall powers. You can invest in deep skills in
extremely diverse unrelated areas, and deep accomplishments in such areas, assurred
that when any of many environments change, some of them will shine and have quite
general impact.
c. Perfection’s partiality
APPLY THIS---leap across scales, slight things interpret in huge new contexts, huge things
use to invent immensely new specifics--apply the huge to innovate the small, apply the
small to suggest the huge.
37) if someone else can do it, do not do it
APPLY THIS---this is a tough one; you do what ONLY YOU can and will do---that means you
take your own directions, intuitions, likes, and interests, very seriously. If you are a
nut, you devote years in some quirky backwater that never impresses or is valued by
anyone. If you are onto something powerful and important, then your years of quirky
work end up bringing to the world something vital and previously unappreciated. You
amaze others. IF you work on fundamentals so fundamental everyone else assumes
them, then there is great chance that quick will turn into Nobel Prize.
38) the further an experiment is from theory the closer it is to Nobel Prize
APPLY THIS---existing theory is coherent wrapping about already had familiar experi-
ence---so experiments close to existing theory are close to the past as well; experiments
that depart from existing theory are more likely to come back with data that challenge
and do not at all fit existing theory, forcing entirely new thinking and theory building.
39) what now, how and why later on, test discoveries qualitatively before testing quanti-
tatively
APPLY THIS---investigating that produces data, builds a portrait with data that idea and
theory must later explain; leaving idea and extant theory to collect widely data, helps
pressure extant theory towards major creative style change.
40) frame slight things in the widest possible context
APPLY THIS---the meaning of something is the layers of context it links to and lights up;
slight things we are accustomed to seeing them light up slight contexts. Creators play
the game differently, however, they try slight things in the largest possible context of
interpretation to see if they indicate overall solutions and inventions. What can this
slight thing possibley be a door to?---they ask. What are the biggest, best, widest things
this slight thing can mean?
41) overlook reality’s ugliness, seek beauty in models
APPLY THIS---strangely, beauty seems related to truth and to delusion; by seeking
beauty in our models, we force ideas into forms and relations that please percept and
concept, that pleasure the mind. What value is this?---for its negative effects are bribe-
like, leading us to models nicer than reality? Truth is related to beauty---for some rea-
son.
Math is the example--real numbers, when analyzed, real an immense world of Hausdorf
spaces, rule of topology, that humans did not design, or invent--properties in the num-
bers themselves as a kind of free gift from god. If you are not a mathematician then you
probably underestimate or entirely miss this amazing thing--that immensely powerful
useful abstract relations and structures, were derivable from humans simply going 1, 2,
3, 4, 5, and later going 1.1, 1. 11. 1.111. 1.1111. That physics and chemistry, DNA and
natural selection should repeat extremely abstract complex structures implied by simple
counting, is magic---simple counting, invented numbering, that had, implicit within it
structures, that explain and give humans power over nuclear, biologic, genetic, social
forces. Math is the model of the power of beauty and its relation to truth.
42) great innovations are discovered in muddy form so do not wait to perfect a discovery
APPLY THIS---the recommendations model of creativity made this clear---its last step is
pruning away noise to reveal signal; creators have so many and such diverse and such
abstract frameworks that they can spot patterns amid noise and mud that non-creators
always miss. But the principle here is slightly different---creators know to seek not iso-
lated clear solutions but last puzzle pieces that at first seem wrong in several respects--
they know to prune and clean first solution pieces to reveal the signal within them.
d. Crystal clarity
APPLY THIS---there is an economy to invention, discovery, great design, solutions--the
fewest things, the simplest things, the slightest changes, that have huge whole field
changing implications and powers. Einstein is the example--Maxwell told Einstein in his
1882 book remark--he who takes the speed of light seriously will change everything in
physics. That is just typical non-linear system tipping point stuff--find the place in the
mountains where a slight input, whistle, causes whole mountain changing avalanches.
Creators find such points, amid noise, mud, and clutter. They work till they have such
points in their minds and hands, till they have such POWER.
43) seek anomaly, learn what your field expects then seek something else
APPLY THIS---creators look where fields now fail and get sloppy, they look where the
people in fields get sloppy and lazy, they look at the not working, unpleasant, unpopular
places and at such phenomena. They are the janitors of the mind.
44) conservative method applied to liberal topic, or vice versa, conservative topic done
by liberal method, not both at once though
APPLY THIS---the child “creator” changes everything and too much, by too much, so
their “solutions” or “designs” do not work and relate. Imagining worlds that are not our
world is easy, playful work and does not bring powers back unless most of what is imag-
ined relates strongly with reality back in our world. DNA was a fantasy world but rooted
strongly in micro-scale bio discoveries that no other idea explained. It ushered in a
totally new world of imagination but via roots deep in what experiments of a hundred
sorts had already puzzled us with--nothing in our conventional bio reality explained
those puzzling results--DNA at one fell swoop solved them all. An imaginary world look-
ing at everything in biology differently but rooted in serious data nothing in our prior
views made sense of. Reality is the doorway to unreal new worlds that re-interpret all of
our reality for us.
45) as simple as can be and no simpler
APPLY THIS---there is an honesty necessary to discovery in science, invention in science.
It is the honesty about what part of a data point or failed attempt or failed experiment,
to dismiss as accidental and meaningless, and what part to rigidly preserve as telling us
something, as a reality we have missed putting it toe in our waters. Pruning away noise
requires genius, to not throw away that slightest thing that reveals an alternate reality
at work, never imagined by humans before.
46) fewest things most combinations
APLY THIS---My best software employees, 200 times more productive than my average
ones, first imagined a grammar of operators applying to operands, the fewest simplest
operators, the fewest simplest operands--sufficient to combine to express all functions
the application needed. They worked on the purity, cleanness, elegance of this gram-
mer. Then they wrote code just for each operator, each operand, and error routines to
stop and trap all dis-allowed combinations of them (this is the grammar’s rules of combi-
nation). These small bits of code, created a grammar of words all combinations of which
were errorless. With that they expressed in sentences of combined words, functions the
client needed, but the same grammar could also express millions of related functions the
client had not yet imagined. Like discovering real numbers--yet get a profit you do not
deserve. The above is a recipe NOT JUST for good programming, but also for good think-
ing and design of all sorts.
47) find boundary conditions on which data to believe, which to discount

APPLY THIS---boundary conditions in physics tell when a causal relation applies and
when it goes away. The giant weakness in economics is it publishes causal relationships
without boundary conditions so all its models work in unspecified conditions, we dis-
cover when the world loses US$13 trillion in an MBA led disaster. Creators explore the
boundary conditions that determine when some data applies and when its does not--that
reveals forces at work outside what people have discovered in the past. Relations that
mysteriously fail to work anymore than some parameter not central to them is changed,
reveals unsuspected forces at play.
48) define conditions of validity of data to mark where theories fail
APPLY THIS---when you explore the boundary conditions that tell when a relationship
holds and when it fails, you must stretch each boundary parameter till the relationship it
affects fails. The more specific you get about exactly where each boundary parameter
causes the relationship to fail, the greater you chance to find exactly what force is
affecting the relationship and include it in your model, your design, your solution.
C. Plurify breeding of hybrid people and systems
APPLY THIS---you have to generate slack, extra, hidden resources, looseness from rules--
so you can try what all others do not try, explore what others have not time and money
and motive for.
a) Marginal hybrid cranks---slack and looseness for hidden tries
APPLY THIS---creators are sneaky clever first at making interior emotional room and
exterior funding and facility and schedule room for departing from what they are “sup-
posed” to be doing and exploring---they invent lots of small gaps, slacks, hidden dis-
guised things. These are subcreations that preceed and enable later large scale
discoveries, inventions, and creations---no subcreations, no later success.
49) stay marginal member (to avoid competition and funder agendas) and get chance to
expode into species not single result
APPLY THIS---if you have been unimportant all your life and never had limelight or fame
the temptation to take your first tiny victories and ballyhoo them to self and others is
natural but deadly. Creators somehow have enough confidence to wait a bit longer,
avoiding centers and limelight and publishing first successes. They accumulate more
and more new results, till a critical mass is there, that, when published, opens entire
new fields and topics for hundreds of others to be thrilled by and investigate.
50) train in tools others lack from several fields and emerging fields
APPLY THIS---you can get tools others in your chosen field lack, by 1) being from another
fields already trained in its tools 2) exploring other fields deliberately to enhance powers
in your chosen field 3) living or hanging out where people from other fields discuss their
ways and results 4) skipping hot topics and waves of methods from other fields, latching
instead onto next to be hot topics and new to be waved methods. Baby fields generate
lots of early new approaches compared to mature fields--creators hang out in and around
baby fields in their first years and conferences of growth. If 50 people are at an aca-
demic conference or 10 at an art exhibition--it is new enough to be a source for creativ-
ity in other fields.
51) do not build on other’s results you have not derived yourself
APPLY THIS---trusting results of others means you absorb noise not signal most of the
time and most published results are very dirty and mis-framed. Creators derive results
of others from first principles themselves, to validate them and to distinguish signal from
noise.
52) no strings funds + discretionary part of all funds you get, so changes in your field and
institution do not interrupt your funding
APPLY THIS---immunize yourself to organizational/leadership crap.
53) create small exploratory research funds so people can try many ideas out
problematic from diverse frameworks: ask what makes a problem hard, often it is only
hard because of the field’s habitual ways of viewing it.
92) what we observe is not nature but nature as exposed by our present method of ques-
tionning
APPLY THIS---when we question differently, reality changes its nature: more diverse
ways of questionning make reality bigger and better for us
93) ideas have social territories just as animals have hunting/food/sex territories
APPLY THIS---if you view the people in your field as a tribe of monkeys rife with irratio-
nal hormone-driven manias and biases, you can spot social foces and places to ride or
niche new ideas to.
94) get simplicity not by simplifying but by applying principles
APPLY THIS---drop not details but reformulate like equations made simpler.
95) trust own failures to understand: only do experiments that can overturn your own
ideas
APPLY THIS---experimenting only to confirm keeps you narrow and eliminate most
chances for serrendipitous discovery and radical goal changes.
96) search the history of your field for abandoned old ideas
APPLY THIS---this like the earlier point above in this section, comes from viewing your
field as a body of people not just a body of ideas. Your field has a history and ideas fall
out of favor for generational reasons, for fad and fashion reasons, for geography and
funding reasons, beside intellectual reasons. So the past of your field may have lots of
intellectually powerful ideas not noticed or popular today ready for you to pioneer res-
urrection and re-application of.
THIS FINISHES THE 96 POINTS OF THE SCIENTIFIC CREATIVITY MODEL
THE FAILURE OF ACADEMIC MODELS OF EVERYTHING Academia is a powerful

factor in our lives, careers, and societies. It is top colleges that produce most of our
professionals and leaders. Many of the bad and good habits such professions and their
professionals learn, are learned in top colleges from the kind of people chosen by such
colleges as faculty. When books proliferate in the early 2000s that Western nation elites
have nearly all failed their societies--it is top colleges that produced the elites that thusly,
failed, and it is, in particular, the professors of such colleges that produced such elites.
A hint of the reality and scale of this failing was TQM, total quality management, from Japan
that swept 11 industries away all over the industrial world between 1975 and 1990. Blue
collar workteams, hundreds per company in Japan, did better than MIT levels of statistical
investigations of work processes and problems, annually (still not matched by recent year
MIT Phd. dissertations). Japan totalized treatment of a body of knowledge--quality
knowledge--in about 50 ways (20 some totalizations, and 30 some later globalizations).
Where the EU and the US professionalized (in colleges by professors) treatment of the same
body of knowledge. The totalized form of quality knowledge soundly defeated the
professional, from professor version, in 11 industrial nations outside Japan. This was a hint
of a quite general academia failure.
First we have to take a detour about statistics. My mentor at the University of Chicago,
Harry Roberts, studied statistics in an agriculture department under the famous F-test
inventing Fisher. He, Harry Roberts, published the very first paper in any business journal
on statistics and he led the writing of the Minitab statistics analysis program while co-
founding the University of Chicago Grad School of Business and the American Statistics
Association. A very few years before he died, in one of his last papers, he demonstrated
that 77% of the worked examples in 100 textbooks on statistics used in top business schools,
were wrong, with parameter estimates off by typically more than 200%. These were
textbook examples. When asked to explain orally to me why he found such disastrous results
he responded:
1 colleges have taught math derivations of statistics formulas rather

than doing data analysis with software, hence student never
learned to analyze real data
2 hence, two generations of students have been generated by top
college without any intuitive understanding of statistics, and these
two generations have taught other generations now professors
teaching statistics badly
3 the human brain processes frequency and stochastic data wrongly
and colleges do not teach students and professors when and how
to counteract these fast, unconscious, wrong intuitions about
probabilities from our own brains
4 a common test for whether professors are competent to teach
statistics is whether they include early in courses a demonstration
for students of how one can take slightly different samples of one
dataset, each of which appear entirely fair, reasonable, and
representative, and by that alone, get any relation you want
between the major variables about entities the data is about---in
other words effects of slight sampling differences are much more
powerful than correlation stat tools commonly used in research in
published journal articles.
What does this fourth point mean, practically? It means a lot. One thing it means is
research studies with variables each of which has been tested for validity and reliability and
each relation among variables has been found to correlate at 0.3 or above p values, mean
nothing unless they are based on truly representative samples of the population one wants to
draw conclusions about. Sampling effects overwhelm reported high correlations. But
journal articles for decades have reported slight correlations and allowed vague sloppy
reporting of sampling regimes used in studies. With a few exceptions for medical studies of
certain sorts, most reported and published research studies cannot scientifically support
their already tiny conclusions based on the small correlations and vague sampling regimes
used. Most published statistical studies are useless, in sum, just as Harry Roberts found 77%
of worked textbook examples were wrong (they applied analyses that are valid only for
normal distributions to non-normal ones, for the most part). Note there are other, deeper
problems with the correlational statistics professors now publish--\relations between means
assume a distribution of behaviors comes from one rule or relation when different parts of a
distribution usually have different principles of operation that generate them (see XX book in
honor of that harvard lady)
THE FAILURE OF ACADEMIC MODELS OF INNOVATION In the above context, you

can take academic studies of just about anything, done statistically, with a grain of salt. I
will not attain much popularity with academics for saying so but readers of this book deserve
honesty. To be honest, stats are a kind of magician's misdirection trick--throw a few
formulas and numbers at the reader and PRESTO an exciting research result. It should not
surprise, then, that in this context, the host of studies of innovation in business and of
creativity in business, in the rare cases where they are fully validated statistically then
sincerely applied by highly competent private sector businesses--FAIL.
If we take Harvard University studies alone--Christensen's Disruptive Technology theory and
Amabile's Creativity Theory, and Cheseborough's Research Outsourcing Theory--we find only
one of them fully validated statistically (Amabile's) and none of them, when applied
sincerely, report achievement that are above laughable. The top models by the top
professors from the top university in the world, do not work.
The top models by the top professors from the top university in the world,
do not work--at least in the realms of creativity and innovation.
Motorola cell phones, Kodak film/cameras, and other major firms were fully exposed to
Christensen and to his theory of disruptive technology. Yet they failed, fled these
businesses, or went bankrupt. Christensen's theory explains the past (it rewords Intel and
Microsoft history) but gives no power to influence the future. Similarly, Amabile's theory
when fully sincerely applied by a very competent private sector business, Procter & Gamble,
published as its results in a Harvard Business Review article (finding the results in the six
page article is a major search undertaking) copying a hit Japanese hot pad product 8 years
after it was a hit in Japan. To Richard Greene, the author of the book you are now reading,
that is the definition of delayed copying not creativity and not innovation. Consider the
millions of dollars and years spent by P&G changing 42+ environment variables to create a
climate for innovation--all that time and money gets you the ability to do delayed copying of
Japan. WOWIE!!!!! With results like that who needs late night comedy shows.
Chesborough's research outsourcing theory has similar unpowerful results. It turns out the
leading research outsourcing firm is an IBM-generated entity to which IBM sold lots of
computer and software equipment. Research outsourcing is a great side business for vendors
of IT like IBM but does it improve research results? I will not mention the firm by name
here, due to other business now going on with them, but it is a top 20 firm in America with
the first huge research outsourcing IT system. It has found almost no one participates in its
research IT network after their first 18 months of exposure to it. Participation naturally
decays to zero across the network. I explain this bad result below. Pay heed, hundreds of
companies right now are suffering in exactly the same way for the same reasons.
Here is the formula, repeated again and again:
THE CONNECTEDNESS SUCKER FORMULA
1 vendors push technologies that improve connectedness

2 clients get an initial boost of creativity as new connections bring
people together not familiar with each other
3 soon however, clients find they have to paw through hosts of
irrelevant opportunities and proposals to get to a very very few
relevant to them
4 participation across the network drops to near zero within 18 to 24
months of start
5 clients pay to build these systems, so managers, look good, and
get promoted based on such appearances, so the failure of the
system after their promotion is okay.
6 WHAT IS NEEDED? PULSED SYSTEMS--\systems that impose a rhythm
of further connection followed by further isolation across plural
contact types.
More connection leads to less interest, surprise, participation and worth.
7 Vendors sell only technologies for more, not less,
connection.
8 The purpose of outsourcing systems is sell IT systems &
9 to get execs promoted before participation drops to
zero.
10 Professor theories get used by vendors as cover stories
for sales.
TWO-FOLD FAILURE OF ACADEMIC MODELS OF INNOVATION Models from the
top professors in the top universities in the world fail in two ways--their published results
are zero or laughably small. Two, they actively lower expectations and standards for
innovations to try for and get across entire economies. The media amplify academic model
application examples, bally-hooing even laughably tiny amounts of novelty achieved as if
great heroic accomplishments. The corporations involved do the same. Pretty soon
everyone in those media markets is expecting to become rich and famous from equally slight
or phony levels of novelty achieved. Standards plummet. Academics become satisfied
publishing articles filled with valid (statistically) models of no power and useful magnitude
of results. Practitioners of innovation in large organizations report laughable tiny results
proudly. It is not, overall, a pretty picture. But for this.....
If you fully admit the extent of innovation noise going on, spot and specify it exactly,
you become capable of home run huge innovations others dare not dream of.
This is bad money slowly driving out good money---talk about slight innovation
accomplishments as if they are impressive and powerful draws rewards for ever slighter
efforts and deeds till doing real size-able hefty innovations is unneeded for fame,
promotion, wealth, attention.
The easiest way for us all to become innovators is for us all to collude in
lowering standards of the amount and impact of innovations we are willing
to call innovative.
INNOVATION STANDARDS: By subtracting out innovation noise, and avoiding

the collusive lowering of standards about how much novelty gets noticed,
rewarded, and talked about, you see and aim for chunks of novelty big
enough to impact the world and history (not just promotions nearby).
MODEL : THE ACADEMIC MODEL FAILURE MODEL OF INNOVATING
Academics are trained in ineffective wrong understandings of correlational

statistics, so weak results published without boundary conditions or
magnitudes are accepted by most journals
Hired for mastery of wrong statistics methods by top universities like
Harvard, faculty spend entire careers publishing and polishing their
own single validated models, but almost never publish worthwhile
results and impacts of their models.
It is nearly impossibly expensive in money and time to fully validate a
correlational model, but the few models from top ten universities
that were validated produced laughably tiny useless results when
applied by sincere private sector organizations of great competence.
CONCLUSION: the adolescent pursuit by academics of Single Right-y Models
means they do not build on and improve each other's models, they do
not fuse and combine models to make stronger ones, and instead they
play a childhood playground game of my model is better than your
model. Single Right-y Models by academics, however right-y, do not
have power and impact.
CONCLUSION: only large diverse balanced repertoires of models, with
models selected to compensate for each others' weaknesses, have a
chance at solid useful magnitudes of impact.
CONCLUSION: you will get more innovation by applying diverse plural
models of innovation simultaneously than you will get by applying
fully any one right-y academic's model, however validated by
correlational statistics.
INDUSTRY CLAIMS AND ACADEMIA CLAIMS ON INNOVATION DO NOT PAN OUT

The point is not to blame industry for gross exaggerations of the amounts of innovation
aimed for, tolerated, and achieved and to blame academia for publishing invalid correla-
tional studies of variable models that have no magnitude of impact. Blaming can be done
but progress comes from moving beyond blame to fixes.
There is an important analogy at work here. Just as maleness turns organizations of any size
vertical, till they stop seeing and serving customers; so too universities, due to their male-
nesses, get so rank obsessed, so vertical, they develop knowledge entirely in the context and
for the purpose of status--leaving our world without knowledge developed for what threat-
ens humankind and the unmet needs of humanity. The justification is Descartes and the
like--”develop basic research and someday uses will appear”--but this is an argument from
deep hard science work that does work as well when applied outside the hardest of hard sci-
ences. Hard sciences have hard experiments that can in one swoop disprove a theory; the
social sciences have theories without impact or traces of any known magnitude (outside the
lab) so the theories become un-dis-confirm-able (not all but the vast majority of social sci-
ence theories). Verticality in academia leads to knowledge organized and developed for
esteem not for use or care.
Above is a model of 96 dynamics of scientific creativity from other books I have written. It is
not necessary to go over all of its 96 dynamics here. Rather, I provide it so readers can pon-
der, comprehensively and in detail, how being a human inevitably starts as being a scientists.
We all as babies, then as kids, then as imprisoned school students, then as elitified college
snobs--repeat a vital “science core” learning algorithm::
1) theory (of hypotheses from a theory)

2) probe
3) observation (of results of the probe)
4) improved or replaced theory (confirmed or discon-
firmed hypotheses).
The “child scientists” is how we all learn “the world”. Babies do dozens of experiments per
hour, per day of the form:
what changes when I change X?
Researchers have interrupted babies in the midst of such experiments, say with a one hour
lunch, and observed after that interruption, on their own, the babies always complete their
interrupted experiment. Are “learn the world” by theory, probe, observation, and improved
or replaced theory.
My Point--what part of this way we learn the world does college enact or suppress? The
probe and observation parts. College sits you down and throws “info” at you that you can
better get from the web. Professors “explain” things at the board and make assignments.
What you do NOT get is experimental probes of “do any of these ideas actually do things of
use in real situations”. Ideas that are “useful” are forbidden in Descartian college aca-
demic culture. Without magnitudes and boundary conditions, professors provide “effects”
that a sneeze or a rug colored brown, or a fly’s buzz overwhelm. This is a drift to male ver-
ticality--ideas for mere status improvement, of the professor and the college rank. Horizon-
tal ideas for caring for the world and its people are denigrated, not developed, and low in
status when not treated entirely with contempts by Harvard and its 800 math elite narcissists
on Wall Street enriching the rich and themselves, to pay for better cocaine treatment pro-
grams for their kids.
We can be more accurate as below:
1. theory--provided by college
2. probes--not done
3. observation--not done
4. theory modification, replacement, invention--not
done.
Three of the four steps by which we learn the world from birth till death are omitted in most
colleges and college activities.
College SHUTS DOWN the most powerful and central algorithm of learn-
ing in humanity.
To become “an innovator” of the history-changing and entire-field-changing sort, all you
need to do is:
1) counter the flaws in you from academia’s failings

2) switch from single right-y models of professors to repertoires of plural diverse
models that compensate for each other’s biases and weaknesses
3) restore the algorithm by which we all “learn the world” to full activity--the-
ory, probe, observation, revised/replaced/invented new theory.

the implementation
questions
HOW DO YOU DO THIS? You do the three things mentioned above: 1) counter flaws in you from aca-
demia’s failings 2) switch from using single right-y models to using repertoires
of plural diverse models that compensate for each other’s biases and weak-
nesses 3) restore the “learning the world” algorithm of life to full activity--the-
ory, probe, observation, revised/replaced/invented new theory. Doing these
will make you an innovator everywhere you are.

the implementation
questions
WHAT ARE THE MAJOR As I said above, the flaws of academia do not stay on campus. Entire publishing
OBSTACLES YOU ENCOUN- industries need continual new-ish ideas to sell more books, website, magazine
TER? pages, ads so they scarf anything new-ish burped up on campus regardless of
worth, value, bias. Also the verticality trained into people by college selec-
tion, college grades, hierarchy among fields of knowledge, post-doc competi-
tions, general academic snobberies--distort knowledge, aiming people at
knowledge-for-status and getting people to slight, ignore, avoid, and under-
mine knowledge-for-care-and-meeting-human-needs. Also inertia--years of
sitting, inbibing, memorizing, exposure to “right” this and “right” that, expo-
sure to “best” this and “right” that, and “elite” the other--years of practice of
all these get inside you and make you deeply capable of non-innovating, non-
initiating, non-creating, non-challenging. You have to overcome the spread of
academic failings, the verticality capture of knowledge work, and the inertia of
being well practiced in not innovating.
WHY DO MANY NEVER Academia lowers standards of what we attach the word “innovation” to. Aca-
ATTEMPT IT? demics settle for naming anything slightly new and different “innovative”.
Harvard professors repeat intrinsic motivation research first done in 1880 in
Germany and 1900 in the USA and Britain, in 2000 and get it well published and
awarded a Harvard professorship. Low standards is what contemporary tol
ten global colleges are all about. With you standards of what innovation is
lowered by colleges and their faculties, such low levels of innovation do not
really call for you, years of effort, and serious changes of direction. Innovation,
thusly defined, is not worth much and does not interest you much. So we give
up innovating not attracted by the low scuzzy levels of it that colleges and their
professors settle for.
10. The New Sciences (Knowledge Organi-

zation) Model of Innovation
In The Glass Bead Game by Herman Hesse, some elite persons on a mountain somewhere,
perhaps Switzerland for tax purposes, move abstract ideas--code factors Talcott Parsons
called them--around on a board, setting thereby in motion large scale deep changes in insti-
tutions, histories, destinies, and human capability. Each piece they moved around on that
board was a field of knowledge that interacted with adjacent ones, spawning plumes of new
ideas of certain sorts in certain directions.
For a 1000 years or more, Europe, then the USA, then the world, played that game using
1000 year old pieces--knowledge organized pretty much in the same 30 fields as they had in
the first universities, in Italy circa 900 and 1000 a.d. Herbert Simon in a book Sciences of
the Artificial and Schelling in Macro-motives and Micro-behaviors pointed out that those 30
fields, given the exponential increase in knowledge circa 1950 (vastly accelerated by the
web since 1990), and the professionals those fields produced, were becoming smaller and
smaller fractions of all that was known. Those fields were spewing out into the world, an
ever tinier fraction of what we all faced and had to solve. Alvin Toffler said our leaders
were not getting stupider than leaders in the past--rather--they were tinier and tinier frac-
tions of all that we faced and had to know and handle--our situations were out-flanking our
brains and educations.
So what has been the response of our colleges as a whole? The same 30 fields everywhere
and the same tiny minds and professionals. Perhaps an “experience” abroad here and
there, a sprinkling of “systems views” here and there, a “brown bag lunch with professors
from other departments” every now and then. Pitiful responses overall.
So what do geniuses who bypass or skip college end up reading and learning--the diagrams on
the following pages are a brief partial summary. I send my students every semester in almost
every one of my courses, out to interview (research not TV style interviews) the world’s best
and more creative people. It takes courage and persistence to get access to such people--
mostly overcoming a deep middle class conviction that “I am not important enough to meet
and waste the time of the world’s best people while I am alive”. Once inside, face to face,
with the world’s best--my students find, to their personal disappointment, huge libraries of
actually read books in fields the students (and their colleges) have never heard of. The
world’s best organize knowledge in new ways, contemptuous of colleges unable to update
yearly like everything else in our world does.
Minerva University--a self-labled “new” style university--shifts grad level stats to freshman
year, and imposes 3 30-year-old cog psych results on how all classes are taught (lots of quiz-
zes, for example). Other than that, it searches harder than other colleges to “select only
the very best” so professors of Minerva have nothing to improve--a typical shell game of elite
colleges world-wide. So Minerva will accept only people who do not need to learn anything
there, and sprinkle them with stats early so they can be vertically oriented knowledge-for-
status masters while still undergraduates! Sick, sick, sick. With such experiments who
needs asteroid impacts wiping out life on earth!
)*&%+% %$ (!% (%,

!"

#$%

#

&'(

!"# #$ %"# #
% &%
'( &#)**+(, #
-
!, &# , .-!.,& -
/00 01
20',033,0 1 3',03,0 1 3',03 '4302,0 1
)5,
(6 7 )7 +7 7 87 97 :7 57 ;7 *7 )7 +7
7 7

&

(
( '-( ( -.
' (( 3.( 2 & ' - .

-
< 4

3 4

4 (
'
( ( "$ . .

# 0-

&# '

8 >
'#
&
(
&( &# '
' 9

,.
2 !
# ?@ 69 68* 6- - - &! 4 &#

#
.@! "
( 0&
& B - - &
=
# -
- 2 & &!-

(A'

-

&

9
30 06 4 ( =#
,

' 2( 2 0
' #

&
C ( -
0
='"0B
0

8

>

#
'#
&6
'
9

69
"
(

&(
-
- B - &
&#
'
-
,
'B -
-
-6
2
9
4 &#

&

,.
9

-9

!"!#$% -0&$$1( $ (& &"".
$&'!($)*! + ! &$ $'< @
,-
(./0/1&$$2 ,-2523%( <$A $ .
$$ .6 $ .5$&$
/
$&34& /&''$B*CC$%!
5
$&6 $&$ %!04
-$& 7! 2 &8 5$&%)A%&"&$'1
& $(( &$ D!&$!$ $1%( "'$&
,-3 0 $1( '&$1 '
! #4!2$'&$&
/($(
9"$1 ;

,--
. E&6.$!
/ $&1 D% $&1.!&.
5
& #63&:.(. && . .'$.(&'& .
/!&4&! '&;&<
&
9"$1=4&0' > !

<($ .! $& +
5)FG 1 $ ''$ .GH&$
,!4&!L / KCCC!!! (4&!1 GH!$& $
'
%'$1 -$&4 '$%&("$

,-'
%9&!/ %
/< FH 1')#
5! '- (6 *-'-
! " #$#
&$ $$%$('&11'!
5,&$($! '&
(&% .!$!.! +
, M4E $&$1(+
("& $&
5

J9

&'4!
,- $, $$$ 5

<$-3$,!&33 /6 34&
GH41 $'!&$E $
,--!&&!$% 5 $$ ,-3&$& 9"(! I)H.CCC'&
/9"$14! (4&$+ !/- 6"
-$ * <%#* /&
&$BGC-!
5 $&$&!6& '<#* 5 6" $D%41
$$$<$$%&633 ! %44 ((&$!
,- &$
=9 *- 9 >
$ $(
5
/9"$1 5

J
5
& '&!&$:!$%!&1.
' $& 0 33!($
,
,-2.6-
%./
/&
&$B*)K $(
($ 51!1
,-;&<3
.53%( .3

6 34&
5$ "$& &%$ .
/H)C 5161 % && $$& $ $(& "$'&$( .$$& %
5 ' . ( 4%1+%4!$%& %$%$$ %4&0"$ !%4&0. &
,- 1
%0 (& $1. E$1'&!.'$$
%&8#" (./ $3" % .
%/ % 7! "'+
0(=6#"+ /- '.& -8"! "&#
&#- " # =! !$!B&!$!.(B
0 #"
(#
# "*8 ./0 53&A,&A3&-!
/!&$$1 $
69 ,-'& $ %
/9$$"$
- 6 J3

9

&$$1/
5
&$ &$#

,! '4&!" $$$1 &$$1'(& L '.$! -"1$ . $AA
,--$% M 1$% -.!& %(
$&
%
/ $&$&
$)FC ,-6 .
74/-
$8.;&<
( .4&$$ !&&!$-@ 1 1!#"'%&'" 3
.26-
%.
%-/
5&:!,&$3,& 1! *) /9"$1.-
( &%4" (& #"2%&3! '" 4
(<$1.!& %(34& .
" %1A 4$%4$&'&((& 03D
$1A'$(&$&
,-9&61 .;&<3
5- 4&0 %($ &(
//&34& (& .9$ $$. $'
54$1('4&!(& &'& & '&!&+GH&!& %('$ +
=$1(>@ (0&&'&$( + $E$$ $$
$$&'34& & '&J
4&0 ,- $, $$$ 901
!!! /4!($
5 ( $ ( -$&
%&'$()"""! '6 9 *:
$ * ' "+( 5,(+;8 (./0
", -(./0
The blue diagram above presents a summary of how those my students interviewed, overall,
organized knowledge similarly. The orange rounded-square diagram after it, presents my
own career, as it engaged that new organization of knowledge from those my students inter-
viewed over the years.
I am not selling either of those diagrams as “right” new organizations of knowledge. Instead
I am selling any experimental attempt at new organizations of knowledge, till collectively
we all drift in similar new knowledge-organization directions. We probably as societies need
30 years of re-organizations of knowledge attempts before we agree on basic parameters of
new knowledge organizations that work well for us. To be sure, however, the 1000 year old
division into arts, humanities, social sciences, hard sciences, engineerings, professions is
dead--it produces minds, persons, professions, and results too narrow tiny elite well-pub-
lished and ineffective for the problems and oppostunities we face.
What is our path into and through knowledge in future years, then? Examine the table
below.
A TEN-YEAR-LONG PATH TO INNOVATION

VIA UPDATED KNOWLEDGE ORGANIZATION IN YOUR MIND
know- soft-
ledge ware & imagi- brain & inter- systems
& care & quality excel-
tech- nation mind body & face & self & & creativity &
cogni- contri- & lence
nology & exten- mind evolu- career leader- novelty
tion bution culture sciences
& reality sion sciences tion sciences ship sciences
sciences sciences sciences sciences
chance sciences sciences sciences sciences
sciences
ARTS
HU-
MANI-
TIES
SO-
CIAL
SCI-
ENCES
HARD
SCI-
ENCES
ENGI-
NEER-
INGS
PRO-
FES-
SIONS
ONE EMERGING NEW ORGANIZATION OF KNOWLEDGE

THAT BY ITSELF CREATES LARGE HISTORIC SCALE INNOVATIONS
Brief Descriptions of the New Sciences and Their Penetration of
NEW SCIENCES Old Fields
In dozens of traditional fields work and books are emerging about the
dynamics among ideas and kinds of knowledge themselves (example:
Abbott Chaos of Disciplines). This came from artificial intelligence
research and expert systems builders using AI sofware rule and object
and neural net software tools. It did not generally come from usual
knowledge fields and their professors. Similarly, concept dynamics and percept
dynamics at the symbolic, associationist, cognitive behavioral, social
& cognition ecologic, performance, emotive, neural net levels are appearing in
nearly all traditional fields, a kind of reflective meta-look at the
inputs to and outputs from minds in each field. The algorithm by
which we all from birth to death “learn the world” given above is one
such knowledge dynamics that is slowly trying to get in the door at
colleges today. Get those students/professors off their butts!
software & Every traditional field of knowledge is re-understanding and re-struc-

turing itself as algorithms acting on data-structures in mind and soci-
technology eties and the cosmos. Information technology models of what space
and time and physics laws are have arisen for serious treatment.
& chance The ecosystem dynamics among ideas, minds, technologies, devices-
sciences in-markets are replacing mechanistic models. Evolution dynamics
from biology enter every field (see below). Software gets informa-
tion of some sort and does something to it and generates information
or information-informed actions/controls. Redoing all from an infor-
mation dynamics software perspective leads to redoing all as chance,
statistical, probablistic. Policy failures in most fields have gradually
turned out to be “caused” mostly by how human brains avoid and
mis-read chance and probability.
imagination Fantasy, fiction, theatre, web trolls, gossip sites, street theatre
events--all these end up conveying more reality that social science,
& reality policies and politics. We cannot admit the harms of our own minds
and ideas so we need cover--provided by history (they made mistakes
sciences then not us now) by fiction-fantasy (that world does not really exist
and is not really like me). Strangely it is the fluff art entertainment
fields by convey the deepest more important accusatory salvatory
truths--while business”men” lie about everything and politicians kiss
ass to big money and any idea the big money wants.
brain & What makes us smart is the tools outside our brains that amplify
mental operations limited in timing, diversity, detail, precision in
mind brain processes. This tandem--brain amplified by files, libraries, the
web, indexing, social cognition cycles--is what makes us smart. We
extension educated, in schools and colleges, only brains, stupidly trying to
sciences cram fast evolving stuff into the narrow and slow doorway into brains
and memories. We need to educate mind extensions because their
quality makes up more of our intelligence than our brains do.

body & The harm done by Christianity and thru that by Greek philosophy to
minds, females, animals, the earth, care, children throughout history
mind is immense, perhaps the biggest overall story in history. Finally after
2000 years of vile “mind is all, body is crap; soul is important, this
sciences world is crap; men are great and women are low and dirty” Greek
philosophy and Christian bigotry, we are, in the 21st century, in all
traditional fields escaping the suicidal consequences of that. Recov-
ery of the body sciences--mostly done till now by exposure to East
Asian meditation and martial arts in pop culture--is slowly penetrat-
ing the edges of Descartian vile venal verticality-obsessed Western
academia and academic departments. The understanding of mind--
from the viewpoint of body is great and good and key to mind--is
expanding beyond male concept-uberalles analysis-uberalles Harvard
sicknesses (symbolized by 800 GRE McNamara from the Kennedy
School counting dead Vietnamese all the way to losing America’s first
war--the stupidity of Harvard and what Harvard actually does to
minds and America’s elites).
care & Anything feminine---horizontally serving and affecting things, rather

than vertically getting endlessly “more” status--has been treated by
contribution contempt for centuries by Western academia and academics and
their fields of knowledge. Resurrecting effective car and societal/
sciences historic contribution as equals in status and investment with fields
for personal wealth and cocaine treatment program building is long
overdue and in a few places actually emerging. It turns out that
delivering actual “care” and “help” to even one other person, much
less a whole foreign culture andsociety, is extremely hard to do. 50
years of world bank “helps” to Bangledesh were out-done by Yunnus
using 200$ and 10 years--for one dramatic example. Getting the
code factors right for effective care and contribution is much more
important field of knowledge that most professions and their college
departments. Deans of med schools tell us it has been decades since
anyone in the USA went to med school for anything other than per-
sonal wealth building--the professions totally lack care and contribu-
tion fields of knowledge. They select people avoiding that, both as
students and as faculty. In every nation on earth the welfare industry
is largest yet business school ignore it entirely--it is caring, feminine,
low in pay EQUALS worthless in old organizations of knowledge, in
spite of being the biggest share of both public and private budgets.

quality & The Japanese totalized treatment of a body of knowledge--quality

knowledge--and that form of it beat enormously US academia’s pro-
culture fessionalization of that body of knowledge. The question, naturally,
emerged: what other bodies of knowledge if given the Japanese not
sciences US academia treatment, might perform in a similar way vastly better
world-wide? One such body of knowledge is robotics--where Japan
again democratized, simplified, de-professionalized de-Phd-ized the
technologies involved and wiped US Unimation elite college robots
from the face of the earth. Similarly again and again all over the
world the biggest policy and business disasters have been traced in
official reports to errors handling culure, vile inadequate cultures, or
inability to spot and be self aware about culture routines operating
unconsciously within self and other. The totalization of handling of
bodies of knowledge--invented and perfected into real power first by
Japan--is actually a culture deed--the erection by Japanese, in Japan
of a consciously designed anti-culture to their own traditional man-
agement culture. Thus quality systems all over the world now, all
from Japan, came from Japan’s ability to counter their own happy
little centuries old culture routines. Quality increments come from
anti-ing your own self and ways and culture! Know any colleges
practicing, researching, and teaching this effectively today? In US
colleges I taught at, they individualized out the team components of
Japanese TQM, they elitized the TQM procedures and stats and lead-
erships, they made things analytic there were sample and survey
based in Japan--what was left in US “lean” versions of TQM in US aca-
demia was an American-ized worthless version that challenged noth-
ing in US poor quality work. Moreover, in US product development
courses in engineering and business schools--90% of all the tools are
from Japanese TQM, though this is not admitted, and the professors
teaching the tools completely miss the context and motives needed
by each tool--what in traditional management practice it challenges
and counters. The result is wimpy unmotivated student use of tools
forced on them without meaning by US academics lacking culture sci-
ence capabilities and ways of understanding what they teach.
interface & Facebook is a social interface; google is an intellectual interface; the

iphone is an everything interface--time, space, person, self, media,
evolution knowledge, web, friend, purchase. Most of what is now getting
done, getting made, getting sold is determined, is led by such inter-
sciences faces not by strutting bombastic puffed up monkey-like male leaders.
Harvard is spewing into the world such puffed up elite snob “com-
manders” in a world where larger, more profitable, more powerful
leading comes from interfaces erected not elite persons en-snobbed
at Harvard. Similarly the evolution dynamics of every field, profes-
sion, person, organization, market, body of knowledge are much
more important than static past states of any of them. Evolution is
leaving biology and invading every body of knowledge, profession,
form of work, but almost no one gets trained in modern academia in
accurate full evolution dynamics from Natural Selection, and by anal-
ogy in other ecosystems of technologies, organizations, ventures in
Silicon Valley, etc.

excellence Present academic departments define “excellence” and “educated-

ness” more of less the incompetent bigoted way that Plato did mille-
sciences nia ago--philosophically, religiously, nationalistically, male-ly,
ideologically, politically. We need instead empirical definitions of
sciences them--from the world best people in dozens of fields and nations.
Early work in this direction has revealed at least 54 distinct routes to
the top of nearly any field and dozens of particular capabilities that
constitute each of those routes. Yet colleges act like there is some
one vague route to the top of each field, with few or not models of
all the diverse routes to the top of any field actually found in top
lives and figures in the world today. Ideology trumps data finding
and hard work.
self & Managing self and career means lots of things--managing failure,
managing excesses of self and other, managing money, managing
career power, managing politics and factions, mitigating greeds, countering
neuroses of self and other. Yet these are left alone, left to chance,
sciences not developed, not studied, not taught and practiced in college and
current fields of knowledge. Those from elite families with back-
ground advantages, perhaps, do not want their advantages reduced
by uplifting people from less advantaged backgrounds. The sick way
“top” colleges select “the best” so faculty do not actually have to
teach--exacerbates this neglect of self and career development in
college. Leadership of the decent sort not only requires interface
intervention and establishment ability but also ability first to “lead
self” and “lead careers of others to better places”--that becomes
your overall influence years later.
systems & Most of what we call “experience” and “good judgment” turns out to
be ability to spot, anticipate, and counteract or use constructively
leadership any of 256 non-linear consequences of present actions. There is no
form or approach to leadership that does not spot, anticipate, and
sciences handle well all these 256 as well. Reality is non-linear and “leading”
any piece of it, however small, however far, requires facing and redi-
recting/handling non-linear consequences of present actions. The
stupid US invaded Iraq and thereby enormously increase Iran’s power
in the world, leaving a vacuum that ISIS formed itself in. This was an
intervention costing lives, decades, and a trillion dollars that made
every aspect of the world worse and more dangerous, while ruining
the nations of Syria and Iraq and Afghanistan. Top US colleges gener-
ated the elites that “achieved” this. There is no higher form or more
harmful form of stupidity. Top colleges cannot be trusted. Faculty
today in every department of US top colleges do not spot, antici-
pate, or handle the vast majority of the 256 non-linear consequences
of present actions that exist, operating everywhere every day. Sys-
tem handling is our most robust definition of directedness and
directionality achieved whether by strutting males behind large
expensive elite Harvard blessed desks or by erecting powerful inter-
faces weaving evolving parts of our world constructively.

creativity One route to excellence in nearly any field is inventing the new, the
truly new, the history changing, the entire field changing, new. It
& novelty turns out there are over 30 kinds of such creating: design, innova-
tion, composing, performing, venture launch, and 25 other so-called
sciences Creativity & Novelty Sciences. Above in this book 64 dynamics mod-
els of composing and performing were presented in a figure. Each of
the 30 Creativity & Novelty Sciences has that level of detail and a lot
more--so these are not fluff categories. If you look carefully at any
traditional department in any college you find the most interesting
stuff is a series of people who invented new stuff--ideas, methods,
results--in that field. The history of knowledge is a history of invent-
ing, creating, designing, composing = a history of one or more Cre-
ativity & Novelty Sciences at work in that field. Yet the treatment of
these 30 is scattered across dozens of departments, buildings, bud-
gets, and faculty today so if you want to master many of then or mas-
ter their inter-relations, like Steve Jobs began to do, you have to get
four or more college degrees and take decades of courses. This
needs fixing. We need today a single department that makes you
master of a dozen or more of these 30 Creativity & Novelty Sciences.
Below are four more re-organizations of knowledge. The first is a break-out of the Reality &
Imagination Sciences item in diagrams above. It identifies 28 new fields of knowledge that
already exist here and there in video-game, military simulation, Middle East monumental
architecture projects, among others. They are arranged in pairs from most useless (not
worthless but intangible and imaginary) to most useful (tangible, buildable in physical mate-
rials. The second diagram is a simle listing of 30 possible new sciences organized in sets of
three. The third diagram is a research process for undergraduates--4 years long--that pro-
duces Phd level work upon graduation--based on exposing students to new sciences and new
organizations of knowledge. The fourth diagram is a snapshot of the table of contents of a
2001 annals of an academic society, filled with articles, each about a new organization of
knowledge--either overall or particular new emerging blends of fields. The fifth and final
diagram is the curriculum of a 50 course business school blending the new sciences from here
with MBA contents to try to fix the diseased aspects that MBAs currently spread across the
business world, infecting Silicon Valley and elsewhere, beyond Wall Street.
The only thing left is telling readers how, in exactitude, you use your general idea about
each of these suggested new sciences to reach history-changing scale innovations.
30 New Sciences for Our Digital

Event Global Future
From Richard Tabor Greene's Modest 30 Contributions to Thought, as of January 2010
Defining EXCELLENCE 54 ways to be excellent in any field from n = 8000+
“the SCIENCE
Good” CREATIVITY 60 ways to create, 64 steps to becoming a creator,
SCIENCE
DESIGN design approaches as mixes of 60 ways to create; 64
SCIENCE purposes of all designs/arts
Defining SYSTEMS 256 system effects, reactions to reactions matrices;

non- SCIENCE social automata
immediacy QUALITY Totalizations and globalizations applied to quality
SCIENCE knowledge applied to other bodies of knowledge
INNOVATION 64 ways to innovate; 64 sources of entrepreneurship;

SCIENCE
Defining PERFORMANCE Theatre, work, and cultures as performances; the
impact THEORY anthropologic and theologic stances of performing
AUDIENCE Democratization of performance via web; audience-

SCIENCE designed composition elements;
STORY THEORY The hero story; story types; identification in

narratives as self management method; next steps in
games/stories as next steps in models of creativity
that each person's life story is = 60+ next interesting
story/game/life steps, 1 for each of 60+ models of
creativity
Defining SCIENCE OF 64 purposes of all arts, mass art design events;

involveー ART quality cabarets
ment GAMING Game moves as steps in creativity models
THEORY
INTERFACE bushy inputs and media (web and others) hiding
THEORY number, names, ordering of their points, inspired by
prose, a very old interface, can be improved by
fractalization regularized in various ways--result: a
new way to write making point count/names/order
visible at a glance, obviating laborious decoding of
prose text--new kinds of writing, new web pages
types, self indexing documents, a publishing of
readings industry result
Defining JIT MANAGING 64 basic leadership functions plus alternate ways to
influence THEORY deliver them in correct types/amounts besides a
special social class of people (expensive fixed
inventory) of "managers"
LIBERAL ARTS The literature, history, art, design, philosophy of
OF BUSINESS commerce
GREENE before, after, and BEYOND MBAs---all beyond business

SCHOOL OF that business needs; 50 tested courses of action
research
BUSINESS--
a school that
envelops MBA
programs
Defining PROSE The very old interface to “points” we mean, named
organiー REPLACEMENT prose, hides the count, names, and ordering of its
zation of messages—certain regularizations of fractal displays
thoughts of points outperform it as what any page shows,
eliminating laborious errorful decoding
STRUCTURAL Certain regular fractal organizations of points allow
COGNITION ordinary mental operators to be applied to dozens of
ideas at a time instead of to just 4 to 7 ideas at once
PUBLISHING OF Diagrams that capture the count, naming, and
READINGS ordering of points in texts can be published as new
works in their ow nright without violating derivative
INDUSTRY
work copyright laws.
Defining MICRO-ORG Normal meetings & discussions are at best semi-

social THEORY structured, wasteful messes (they lack organization--
organiー the missing "micro" layer)--new face-to-face ways to
zation interact from democratic rules of order, social
automata theory, social indexing theory, and fractal
interface theory outperform usual meetings and
discussions and make possible new types of mass
workshop event doing work functions faster more
visibly than processes or departments, great for our
coming web-process era.
SOCIAL New ways to get humans to interact with each other
AUTOMATA inspired by machine computing regimes and
algorithms;
SOCIAL Measure of current social group arrangements find
INDEXING we, on
average, operate knowing less than 7% of the
THEORY
interests, needs, and capabilities of those around us.
High performers
average at best no more than at 22% social index
levels. The effects of social indexing on
performance, and how to increase social indexing
levels in types of groups I research, along with web/
social-media impacts on social index levels and
purchase/click-thru rates modified by web pages
designed to impact social index levels.
Defining ERROR THEORY Model of 256 sources of error; 180 brain based flaws
social in thought;
neuroー
CHANCE The brains factor analysis neuron machinery for
science
THEORY noticing patterns in sensations; statistical technique
enhancements of that brain machinery, in a hierarchy
of levels
BIOSENSE The new commonsense replacing mechanosense with
biologic systems not physics ones as dominant; my 83
biologic system computation system types
Defining IDEA/ 64 dynamics of high tech venture clusters like Silicon

evolving TECHNOLOGY/ Valley; natural selection dynamics among
systems INVENTOR technologies, firms, ideas
ECOSYSTEMS
NATURAL 256 detailed dynamics of actual natural selection in
SELECTION nature—the most creative process known
DYNAMICS
TECH VALLEY 64 dynamics of high tech venture clusters like Silicon
CLUSTER DYNAMICS Valley; social life of information
Defining CULTURE SCIENCE 9 powers, 64 dimensions, 16 operations on: cultures;
manageー cultures of: selves, devices, eras, genders, bsns.
ment practices,
invented method for transplanting practices across
cultures
MANAGING SELF 128 dynamics of managing selves, selves as cultures,
the coincidence that all religions and all modern
therapies present the same core process of self
development, changing being X to having X
MANAGING The cognitive and social psych of inventing; 64
TECHNOLOGY/ models of innovation; 64 dynamics of managing
INNOVATION/ technologies; 64 types of technology interaction with
INVENTION
other technologies
Effective Personal Learning & Research

Creating Knowledge that is New for You and for History; From Opinion to Evidence to Knowledge
Tipping Points: 200 Steps to Nobel Prize Level Research
By Richard Tabor Greene
Copyright 2006, All Rights Reserved, US Government Registered
Struc- Making Sources 1. we are all theorists and educa- theory power: seeing more, living in a larger
Yourself of world, more possible actions/reactions
tural Intelli- tion
Intelligent
Think-
gence 2. intelligence = quality of mind assessing mind extension quality
extensions
ing
3. intelligence = discipline of twice this seek, go to library, choose/copy in
1 hours 20 articles on one topic of interest;
reading: 1000 articles read/ mark articles, choose next articles
marked/yr.
Installing 4. keeping a discipline = squelch- how to do personal change--not “add on” but
Discipline substitute, what to drop, what to add
ing some old part of life
5. personal quality checklist doing anything new daily is huge job: check-
ing daily fault counts
Detecting Meaning 6. meaning as structure among seeing the structure in paragraphs, etc.
Meaning & Struc-
tures topics and idea factoring
Its Forms
7. list structuring: group items, group similar items (one or several ways), name
groups, subsume details under names, idea fac-
subsume & name, order tor to focus names better, order among groups
(except ambiguous ones), order within groups
(eao), rename for order transparency; insert
ambiguous ones, find principle of ordering, rex-
press names to be transparent to it
8. boxcharts: simple Sub/obj, refer- mark simple subjects/objects; substitute for
references (it, there, etc.), boxchart subj/
ence substitn., boxcharts, embed- obj pairs only; mark embeddings (depen-
dings dency links); add modifier lines; check con-
text layering
9. structural reading of topics, strata of structure, geometries of meaning,
meaning indexes, self indexing writing
functions, propositions
10.structural reading of sen- meaning density of writings
tences, paragraphs, chapters
11.structural reading of fiction image from text, act depicted in text, reader
feeling, reading grounding in own experience
Accessible: 12.from structural reading to fractalizing point geometries (expanding/
Regular contracting/naming)
Fractal fractal concept model
Structures 13.regularizing branch factor, one number to remember not dozens; one
ordering to remember not dozens = better
point ordering use and recall, less error
14.regularizing point naming primitive semantic series or other bases
Base 15.good naming representational, relationalk etc. name
Skills types
16.cognitive list limits your habitual list size; the habitual list sizes
for nations, genders, firms; the powers of
expanded list limit size
Response 17.stratifying individual responses noticings, feelings, segmentings, associa-
Stratifica- tions, remindings, groundings, witting
tion frames, unwitting frames, decisions
18.stratifying group responses for a movie or other happening experienced
together; for negotiation
Respons- 19.response stopping and substi- style as the slowing down of automatic
ing responses so we edit them “on line” “live”
tution
Bridge Communities 20.bridge community and a new primary group as chief resistor to personal
change; loneliness as chief excuse of change-
you refusers
21.the community of strangers as trying out a new self to a group that does not
know the old you, experiencing the power of
bridge community liberationBeyond
This book was written to educate you not please you or inflate your self regard. from primary
meregroups
business mod-

Per- Identity as a Prison 22.the idea of personal quality the intersection of quality-related move-
ments in you, value-meshing practices
sonal 23.the non-linearity of identity being you and your doings when after-effects
Change come in, riding the waves of change from
your actions
Learn- Ecologic Change 24.change environments 1: per- the power of sheer regular reflection, the
power of counting faults, the substitution
ing Regimes:
sonal quality checking principle for new goals/activities,
“Adapting to” to
Change You 25.change environments 2: peripheral participation
stretch environments
26.change environments 3: pro- representing yourself via products that out-
last you; so you can see and related to your
ductizing self old (up-to-now) self, and chanage direction
27.change environments 4: trans- transform those around you or disciples,
then, your self represented in them, see it
forming surround and strike out in new directions
28.change environments 5: per- scour latent, incipient, nascent, subtle, par-
tial contents of you and rationalize them as
sonal warboards competing projects, reviewed progress
29.change environments 6: goal- embed partial, latent, incipient etc. con-
tents of you in the portable devices that
directed devices mediate your life--suck imagination into
blanks
30.change environments 7: bal- build on strengths at times then depart com-
pletely and fix major weaknesses instead
ancing departures
31.change environments 8: disci- design collaborative events where you do
normal tasks at dozens of time the speed,
pline stretching “retreats” amount, quality you normally use
32.change environments 9: learn- withdraw from critical activity you think you
are essential for to learn freedom, practice
ing to not do not involving, not doing, not saying

The- Theory Theory 33.everyone a theorist: witting where your theories come from; your iden-
Manage- Powers tity as a bag of happenstance local theories
ory and unwitting theories
ment
Surfac- 34.theories control what you see, what you can see determined by theories;
small worlds from un-diverse few un-deep
the world you are in theory sets;
ing and
Demys- 35.educatedness: learning what the idea of educatedness vs. learning;
dimensions of educatedness;
you learned & changing it
tifica-
36.espoused versus enacted theo- distortions of self report data, measure
tions doings not verbalizations or rationalizations,
ries: aligning word/deed
37.theory malleability: Nisbett unconscious theory contents are changeable,
rapidly and easily;
Managing 38.managing theory repertoires 1: find theories that compensate for the weak-
Theory nesses of other theories
Reper- compensating sets
toires 39.managing theory repertoires 2: combine diverse theories, exotic theories,
deep theories
diversity, breadth, depth
40.managing theory repertoires 3: actively turn readings and experiences into
models-theories, organized in repertoires,
current & comprehensive regularized for easy access and use
Demystification Powers 41.the idea of de-myst-ifying the- hidden self interests at work, self delusion in
professions (Illych); recovering powers given
ories of self and other unconsciously to others
42. formalist demystification: unseen/
unadmitted assumptions
43. structuralist demystification:
unseen/unadmitted repertoire lim-
its
44. phenomenological demystifica-
tion: unadmitted/unseen filtering
45. dialectic demystification: unadmit-
ted/unseen motives/interests
46. deconstructionist demystification:
unadmitted/unseen priority/center
47. responsist demystification: unad-
mitted/unseen situatedness
48.investing recovered powers

Knowl- Ideas from Ideas 49.idea waves
Evolving
Ideas
edge 50.idea dialectics: fractal idea victor ideas incorporating loser ideas as sub-
fields; the meaning of an idea being the pre-
Dynam repetitions vious idea it vanquishes
ics 51.idea neuroses

52.brains as principal component
analyzers
53.idea stickyness determinants
The 54.the sociology of idea fields:
Social
Life gatekeepers, politics, envy
of Ideas 55.the social life of ideas and
information
56.idea herds, momemtum,
“heat”, and bubbles (idea net-
works)
Separating Idea Wheat 57.pseudo ideas: clothing
from Chaff
changes
58.paradigm change dynamics: bolstering paradigm, elaborating paradigm,
definding paradigm, attacking paradigm,
timing contributions suggesting new paradigm
59.science & evidence: slowing
idea enthusiasms by testing
60.knowledge careers: history of story of Kahneman and Tversky hold back
results, building repertoire of done research,
how Nobel winners won releasing critical mass later with switft refu-
tation of critics with already done experi-
mental results

Interest 61.personal
Effec- Reading Overlaps learning versus educatedness, codeaction factors, mind
Causes extensions = intelligence, book test
tive research
Per- 62.choosing topics: nominating intersection of interests (educatedness as
key to your “interests” reaching historic
possible topics interest levels), research question form, not
sonal request for facts, questions of questions
Learn- 63.choosing among nominated negotiating topics among teams, voting for
best topics, forming teams
ing topics
Causal 64.basics: path diagrams (plus circle outcomes, bracket inputs, separate
Reading paths per sentence then fuse path diagrams,
using psychlit, library) mark conditions
65.matrix of path diagrams distribute causal path diagrams by topic
size/generality scale, and meta-ness (matrix
of path diagrams)
66.causal reading of fiction: character as recursive story, story as causal
paths, drama as intersecting paths; trajec-
intersecting paths tory intersections switching attractors
67.sayings as repositories of non-
linearity commonsense
Learning Phone 68.phone research: research ver- research literature: copy 50 articles in one
Causes Research hour; categorize by 3 concentric circles plus
sus casual literature sector themes
69.maps established idea map, wanted idea map,
source map, categorized by 3 concentric cir-
cles
70.interviewing for what interview for source, access, info; for model,
process/experience, causes, expertise, cre-
ation, coalition
71.whom to interview, naive to select who, order what to ask for (above); 45
naive questions, id knowledge type, asking
structured questions type, question type order
72.structure as 3 mini-interviews order as 3 mini-interviews of 15 non-naive
questions each; test on researchers, revise
and test/revise
73.pair interview outside circles transcripts marked, segments, structurally
read, maps revised, interview questions
revised, booklets published daily
74.repeated pair interview ses- pairs repeat process, making several book-
lets published per each pair, one per day,
sions published from outside to middle to inside circles
Idea 75.wall questions subquestion flow of themes around walls designed, flow
Rooms of topics down walls designed, present/ask
designed balances designed
76.wall tested and executed daily or bi-daily moderator updating of con-
tribution summaries, new questions, sum-
mary overall booklet published
77.experience report forms com- conversation report form, article report
form, news report form, using theories
posed
78.use the forms distribute forms, fill in forms, collect filled
in forms, summarize forms
Book 79.fuse all products: purpose/ fuse causal reading diagrams, phone
Fusion research booklets, idea room booklets, expe-
method/result for all sections rience report form booklets
+overall

Research Theory 144.Research Question Theory
145.Variable Measurement Theory
146.Population Sample Theory
147.Causation Theory
148.Pattern Finding Mechanisms
and Theory
149.Error Theory
150.Science Theory
Solution Theory 151.Finding Problems and Root
Problems
152.Finding Causes and Root
Causes
153.Finding Solutions and Root
Solutions
154.Finding Implementations and
Root Implementations
155.Finding Effects and Root
Effects
156.Finding Errors and Root Errors
157.Finding Replicators and Root
Replicators
158.Finding Normalizations and
Root Normalizers
Creation Theory 159.60 Models of Creativity
160.64 Steps of Becoming a Cre-
ator, 64 Steps of Creating
161.25 Steps of the Insight Process
162.96 Steps of Scientific Discov-
ery
163.The Subcreation and Solution
Culture Approaches to Creat-
ing
164.The Culture Mix Approach to
Creating

Standard Experi- 165.Lab Experiment Types
mentation
Research 166.Quasi-Experiment Types
Designs 167.Field Experiment Types
168.Single Subject Experiment
Types
169.Orthogonal Arrays
170.Optimization Experiments
Surveys 171.Opinion Surveys
172.Causal Factor Surveys
173.Experiment Simulating Sur-
veys
Perfor- 174.Protocol Analysis
mance
Modeling 175.Case Study Types
&
Assess- 176.Program Evaluation Types
ment
Simula- 177.Field Design and Invention
tions
Types
178.Lab Design and Invention
Types
179.Simulations Types system dynamics, population, automaton,
non-linear agent populations (SWARM)
Invention 180.Solution Invention Types
& Design
181.Unconstrained Invention
Types
182.Design Types
183.Research Automation Regimes
Translate Mod- Translate 184.Translating Input Variables
Variables
els into and Values
Research 185.Translating Outcome Variables
and Values
Instruments or
Conditions 186.Translating Conditional Vari-
ables and Values
Effect 187.Bounding Causal Contingency
Controls
Effects
188.Controlling for Confounding
Effects/Inputs
189.Controlling for or Modelling
Non-linearities
Data Handling 190.Collect Data kinds of data;
191.Code Data elementary, composite, data-derived

invented variables;
192.Make Data Dictionary

Data Analysis 193.Establish Statistically Neces- normality,
sary Pre-conditions
194.Handle Missing Data
195.GLM Regression Nesting: regression,
MR, SEM, Data Mining
196.Non-Linear Curve Fitting
197.Neural Net Fitting Davidson technique of principal components
analysis for translating net wieght distribu-
tions into symbolic rules;
World Chang- Theory- 198.Theory Deployment

Practice
ing Interac- 199.Theory-Derived Theory
tions Improvements
200.Theory-Derived Practice
Improvements
201.Practice-Derived Practice
Improvement
202.Practice-Derived Theory
Improvements
Deploy- 203.Practice Improvement
ments
Deployment Pilot
204.Theory Improvement Deploy-
ment Pilot
Replica- 205.Replicator Invention and
tion
Design

Field Changing Choice Venue 206.Authorship & Publishing
Writing & Iterating Venue Selecting/Arrangements
for Impact Critical 207.Subsequent Study Arrange- Kahneman and Tversky: anticipate objec-
Mass tions; admit weaknesses; test yourself likely
ment challenges; keep prep studies secret
208.Critical Mass of Results
Arrangement
209.Critical Sequence of Results
Arrangement
Critical 210.Eloquence and Communicabil-
Beauty of
Expres- ity Arrangements
sion 211.Classic Expression Arrange-
ment
212.Knowledge Tipping Point Focus
and Impact Arrangement
213.Write Up and Re-Write-Up
Pre-Sell- 214.Circulating Copies for Sugges-
ing
tions/Improvements/Misleads
215.Quid Pro Quos from Early Cir-
culation Recipients
Emula- 216.Study of How Actual Nobel
tion
Prizes Were Won
Knowledge Epitome
9 Kinds of Business Training (50 Courses)
MBA READING & UPDATE CLUBS
Complete key MBA readings BEFORE going/paying so you get great grades, have time to
socialize, and get a great after-MBA job; watch a genius at reading diagram all main points for
you to discuss and apply to your own experiences. TOTALLY ENJOY YOUR MBA EXPERIENCE
WHILE RISING EFFORTLESSLY TO THE TOP.
ALTERNATIVE MBA PROGRAMS

Learn ALL 33 core business functions that top MBA programs have courses for, not the 21% of
them usual MBA students cover with courses they take, then apply those functions to invent/
design new businesses in 5 types of industry, selling: ideas, people, products, money, firms.
ZOOM PAST ALL OTHER MBA STUDENTS EFFORTLESSLY.
CAREER METHODS
Early, mid, and executive career methods; economic, political, cultural, and innovation
methods; individual, team member, team leader, and teams of teams methods; job, profession,
hobby, and lifework methods. QUALIFY FOR VP AND CEO YEARS AHEAD OF TIME.
STARTING UP BUSINESSES & NGOS

Master the dynamics of inventing and starting up new business ventures and managing them
excellently; learn to use fully: technology ecosystems, piggy-backing on growth of others, the
joys of massive effort, and secret competitive advantages. LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION---
LEARN WHERE YOU DO BUSINESS OUTRANKS WHAT BUSINESS YOU DO.
GLOBALIZING BUSINESSES
Become a master at making and handling global market cultures, transplant practices into
diverse paradigms of doing business, and learn to attain top quality by globalizing quality
methods & concepts. DEVELOP GENERAL GLOBAL COMPETENCIES THAT WORK EVERYWHERE.
OPERATING WEST, EAST, & IN CHINA

All Eastern firms end up having to operate in the West and vice versa, PLUS all firms are going to end up in
China and China will end up in all global markets—learn the issues and solutions for these transplantings
now. MAP WHAT TO FACE & BEST WAYS TO HANDLE IT.
MAKING A POWERFUL YOU

Get introduced to Excellence Science, the methods of the world's best performers in 63 fields;
Get introduced to Creativity Science, the repertoire of ways to create that the world's most
creative people use to get to the top and stay there. TRIPLE PERSONAL PRODUCTIVITY.
THE LIBERAL ARTS OF BUSINESS

Avoid global economic disasters ahead of time by mastering the deep ambiguities and delusions
behind basic business concepts like “debt” and “profit” and “measures” and “performance”
which business philosophy studies; study whole categories of perpetual business error via
business history; see the emotional powers others shun or deny and master them via business
comedy and literature study. WRITE UP THE STORY/COMEDY OF YOUR OWN BUSINESS
ADVENTURES.
THE COLLEGES OF EXCELLENCE &

CREATIVITY
Making you powerful and you making the world about you powerful---master dozens of
capabilities of the world's most effective, powerful, creative, educated, innovative,
entrepreneural, persuasive, charming, people, people who are super salesmen, serial genius
leaders, in 63 diverse professions. SURPASS EVEN THE WORLD'S VERY BEST—learn dozens of
diverse ways to create, surpass, sell.
50 Courses of 9 Sorts
Do MBA Readings Before Attending;

M.B.A. READING CLUBS Update Your Knowledge After
1 = MBA Finance & Accounting Attending
Readings An expert diagrams for you the main
points of the essential readings from
2 = MBA Marketing & Persuasion today's top 3 MBA programs, then
Readings participants discuss those points,
relating them to their own experience.
3 = MBA Data Analysis & Decision One book per month, 2 chapters per
Science Readings each weekly meeting are covered. Each
book chapter becomes easy, useful,
4 = MBA Operations, Organization, practical models you can apply, use to
& Web-ization Readings diagnose situations, and train other
people with. No boring lectures or
5= MBA Leadership (Selling/ “pretend” readings, but in-class reading
Persuading/Influence) Readings by a genius at it, turning pages of prose
6 = MBA Strategy & into useful applicable models. If done
BEFORE your MBA, these Reading Clubs
Internationalization Readings make doing your MBA easy with high
7 = MBA Technology Management & grades; if AFTER your MBA, you update
your knowledge to today's standards,
Entrepreneurship Readings preventing current MBAs from
8 = MBA Economics and Behavioral outmatching you. THE BENEFIT: get
great MBA grades easily, rising to the
Economics Readings top of your class OR update your
9 = MBA Readings in All Above 8 knowledgebase so you match what
newly minted MBAs think they alone
Areas, 1 Book-Area Per Month know.
Better Content, Better Learning Process,

ALTERNATIVE M.B.A. Better Price, Better Outcome than Usual
PROGRAMS Global Top 3 MBA Programs
Though your top five MBA program may
33 core business functions from top MBA offer hundreds of courses, you end up
paying a lot for just 22 of them (on
curricula applied by you to: average), and those 22 manage to cover
10 = CORE MBA: analyze and invent only 21% of the 33 core functions of
businesses in five industries: selling ideas, doing business found in all the courses of
people, products, money, and businesses. those MBA programs. Most MBA
students never learn or study the
11 = ANTI-MBA: determine What Went remaining 79% of core business
Wrong in the global crisis of 2008/9 functions found in top MBA program
curricula! Does the word “rip off”
12 = ERROR MBA: learn how real people
come to mind? Our Alternate MBAs get
mess up those 33 core functions and why. you learning the 33 core functions then
13 = GREEN MBA: learn Richard applying them first to analyze some
actual business success or failure, then
Greene's “fractal globalized green-
applying them again to design/invent
tech quality” ways of doing each of your own new enterprise. You invent
the 33 functions. new businesses this way in 5 diverse
industries; the selling of idea,s people,
services, money, and businesses! Master
ALL the core functions of business not
just 21% of them! THE BENEFIT: master
all core business functions of full MBA
curricula where MBA students master
less than 21% of such functions and
study the biases and blindspots of
existing MBA suppliers, avoiding the
weaknesses of current MBAs.
East in West, West in East, All in China,

OPERATING WEST, EAST, China in All
How to Set up Cultures of Development in
& IN CHINA Various Cultures
14 = Eastern Companies in the Each of these courses reveals precise
dimensions of difference to manage
West globally, showing how 33 core
15 = Western Companies in the functions of doing business show up
differently in: fully scripted vs.
East unscripted societies; family versus
16 = All Companies in China individual (or caste) units of hire;
individual versus communal cultures;
17 = China in All Countries etc. These courses show how
establishing “cultures of
development” in individual employees
and managers differs in diverse
environments. How to set up manager
creation machines and how to impress
people not impressed by what
impresses you are covered. THE
BENEFIT: map fully differences that
matter and map fully blindspots of
each culture of management, using
them to go beyond competitors
trapped in them.
A Science of Excellence, A Science of

MAKING YOU POWERFUL Creativity,
& & Liberal Arts of Business Applied to
YOU MAKING POWERFUL RESULTS You
18 = How to Rise to the Top of Some years ago my research assistants
asked 315 people in 63 diverse
Every Field and Profession, professions, half US, half global, who
the capabilities of: highly educated
was top in their field and how they rose
people, highly effective people, highly to the top. We found 54 new fields of
creative people, people who handle error knowledge, each of which was a distinct
well, people who handle complexity well, way to rise to the top of all traditional
people who lead well, etc. fields and professions. We later got
names of 150 people good at each of
19 = How to Become a Creator and those 54 new fields and interviewed
Create: them, getting their particular methods,
60 models of how to create,, 64 steps of ways, attitudes, and approaches. The
becoming a creator, 45 models of result is a Science of Excellence of 54
innovation,, 64 dynamics of Silicon Valley fields, seven of which are presented in
ventures, 64 sources of entrepreneurship practical form in one course here. The
second course presents five models of
20 = The Study of Business Error and ways to create found in the same
How to Avoid it, research. The third course presents
those rare fields that lay bare the
Business Liberal Arts, errors, distortions, lies, and biases of
business, that tell the unvarnished truth
an Introduction: History, that MBA deans hide in order to get
Philosophy, Literature corporate funding. It summarizes of all
The idea of business comedy, business the liberal arts---history, philosophy,
literature, culture, design-arts, and
philosophy, business history, business
comedy, applied to business. There are
literature, business art, business fuller treatments of these three—
design is not common, central, or excellence science, creativity science,
important for most people in business. and liberal arts of business, in two
They would rather lose 13 trillion US$ sections of courses below in this
every 50 years or so and 3 trillion US$ document. The 3 courses here are an
every 8 years in various bubbles, introduction to that fuller material. THE
excesses of business ideology religions, BENEFIT: make your self vastly more
mass hero-CEO worship campaigns, powerful than others; admit errors
pretending that it all is male, rational, others avoid and therefore are
technocratic, and valid. This course continually hurt by.
introduces the immense cost of not
studying the liberal arts of business
and how those who study business
liberal arts master and avoid forms of
error endlessly repeated by those who
do not.
Turning Ideas into Non-Profit

STARTING UP BUSINESSES Enterprises or For-Profit Charities or
21 = Making Small Businesses For-Profit Venture Businesses
We have to start with the rules
Great: 64 methods ways to governing all small businesses, avoiding
improve any small business, the mistakes they make. Each of the
established or new; including how NPO next 4 courses covers one core image
management can benefit from for- that forms the basis of successful
profit methods, and new forms of NPO ventures: ideas flowing among firms,
that make profits they re-invest in the people, and funds finding homes; idea
populations they serve. farming fueled by the various kinds of
22 = Basic Start Up Dynamics— love that enable severe effort;
startup as location, location, location; Starbucks is a meeting place first
ventures as intersecting flows in idea coffee-shop 7th—misdirect competitors
ecosystems and idea farms fertilized similarly; ride to victory by good
by various loves, loves & other positioning in burgeoning idea
dynamics of tech clusters and the ecosystems. THE BENEFIT: locate
ventures that populate them spots in economy dynamics where
profits can be made—install ways to
23 = Protection Dynamics, Protecting ride those dynamics, avoiding
Baby Ventures from Grown Up Bullies via constipated, stubborn holding to initial
Inventive Advantages: inventing secret product and market ideas.
secrets that protect ventures
24 = Borrowing Growth--Non-
Linear Technology
Dynamics: how to ride to success
Each course covers economic,
CAREER METHODS political, culture, and innovation
From the World's Best People & Performers methods, lone individual, team
25 = Early Career Methods: member, team leader, and teams
leading teams methods; liberation,
methods for young people in business and freedom, historic dream, and
people new to a company; conserving novelty methods; negative
26 = Mid-Career Methods: methods power, assertive power, partnering
power, and transformative power
for people in middle age and transitioning
methods. THE BENEFIT: Make your
from learning a firm to leading it self dozens of times faster, smarter,
27 = Peak-Career Methods: more comprehensive, more detailed,
methods for people at their peak age and more strategic in thought and action
than competitors.
performance and taking charge of where
they work, acting executive-ly
Globalizing Aspects, Careers,

GLOBALIZING BUSINESS Products, & Persons
28 = Detecting and Handling Learn how to operate in the entire world
Cultures instead of only in comfortable local
transplanting careers across cultures, parts of it. Going out (globalization),
transplanting leadership across cultures, requires going in (deep new
transplanting business practices across understandings of self). Many people
cultures, dread, avoid, or omit the self
transplanting strategies across cultures, understanding, self change, emotion
detecting, measuring, improving investigation needed to go out and be
cultures globally successful. These courses teach
culture dimensions, powers, and tools you the mechanics of simultaneous going
out and in.. The three courses at left
29 = Fundamental Global enable global operation: detect and
Business Paradigms handle cultures of all sorts; detect and
business is spirit and/or community of handle diverse paradigms of what doing
fate—Japan business is found across the world; and,
business is perfected expertise—Germany; globalize your idea of quality,
business is vast fast growth—China
business is chasing profits---USA; performance, and excellence as the
business is info & design—UK total quality movement evolved globally
business is new technology ecosystems-- into a new form of quality globalized in
-Silicon Valley USA 33 diverse directions, one of which is
30 = Future Forms of Quality-- green-tech. THE BENEFIT: Expand
your ways of thinking, feeling, acting,
From Totalizing Quality to and deciding to make them ALL global
Globalizing It and diverse, able to thrive anywhere.
From 20 totalizations of quality by
Japan in the form of the total quality
movement to 33 globalizations of
quality, and other bodies of knowledge,
after the total quality movement
reached its Six Sigma peak 15 years
ago. New forms of quality ushered in
via the world wide web.
The five common cultures of business---

THE LIBERAL ARTS OF male, capitalism, hierarchy, technology,
BUSINESS US—are quite limiting and spawn nearly
all business productivity and economic
Business History, Philosophy, collapse problems, but no one sees them
Literature, Culture, Design and solves them because everyone
swims in them as sea, fish unaware of
31 = The Philosophy of Business: the water around them. Study of hard
what is debt, profit, expense, risk,
male subjects like economics, devoid of
service, consumption, spectating, wealth,
feeling, and hard male subjects like
happiness, motive, care, worth;
technology, devoid of emotion, allow
unadmitted assumptions and culture roots
generations of employees, CEOs, and
of business blindspots and gender
“leaders” to repeat the same blindspots
excesses in business performance
and bubbles. Only when we leave male,
cultures;
capitalist, hierarchic, technocratic, and
32 = The History of Business: American sub-cultures of business and
history as where people admit truths enter more feminine and reflective
about business, stories that repeat every realms—philosophy, history, literature,
8 years in global economies, errors culture, design, comedy---do we see and
admitted only in histories; admit clearly the errors, exaggerations,
33 = The Literature of Business: lies, and evils of business along with the
telling the story of your own business emotional enthusiasm, religious
tragedies and comedies; capturing the ideologies, and male worship services at
emotional dilemmas and absurdities of the heart of business processes and
delusionally rational leaders events, results and collapses. TRUTH in
a word is what the Liberal Arts of
34 = The Cultures of Business: Business reveal, teach, and outline in
what appears general and rational is
the courses at left. THE BENEFIT: spot
deeply emotional, a special gender
and avoid whole categories of errors
culture of performance and ritual power
before competitors do.
displays; the culture of products, business
practices, leadership myths, and
operations faults.
35 = The Design of Business: what
competes, what sells, what attracts
attention, what lasts, what gets loyalty
must charm, entrance, engage deep
images and emotions, and art does that---
the best brands, firms, products, sales,
persons, leaders are all designs, artworks
of their own creation. Learn 60 diverse
approaches to coming up with such
engaging designs of business persons,
systems, products, and results.
THE COLLEGES OF Massive Repertoires of Capabilities for All

EXCELLENCE & that is Humane, Powerful, Creative, and
Riveting
CREATIVITY Paradoxically, the way to become powerful
36 = Being a Complete Person in a World of Money & and effective in business is NOT by studying
Ambition--1 business. It is people who do not think like
64 Capabilities of Highly Educated other businessmen that defeat competitors
Persons and out-think and out-feel them. In
37 = Getting a Lot More Done in the Same Amount of Time--2 particular pursuit of excellence in all 54 of its
96 Methods from the World's Most distinct forms and of creativity in all 60 of its
Effective People diverse forms enables vast near effortless
38 = The Skills of Emotional & Social Intelligence + Mind business success. Where competitors are
Extension Tools--3 masculine-ly being tough and pushing ahead
64 Dynamics of Emotional, Social, & with bold risky ventures of financial trickery,
Self Development you push out into more excellent and more
39 = Recognizing & Using Culture Patterns & Avoiding Culture creative directions, enticing markets tired of
Mistakes--4 hype, collapsing bubbles, and inessential
64 Dimensions of Cultures and 9 “marketing” successes. Be the iPod that
Powers of Cultures devastates Sony, be the Starbucks that sells
40 = How to Increase the Variety Number of Ways You Learn- meeting places disguised as coffee shops, be
-5
the advertising company disguised as web
64 Ways that People & Groups search firm--Google.
Learn
41 = How to Greatly Increase Your Mental Productivity--6 Establish a College of Excellence Science in
16 Structural Cognition & Social your firm and circulate your people through
Automata Methods all 54 distinct avenues to excellence.
42 = What Your Career Approach Lacks that Great Careers Include-- Establish a College of Creativity and Design
7
64 Dynamics of Innovative & in your firm and circulate your people
Interesting Careers through all 60 ways to create. The courses at
left introduce you to 7 of the 54 routes to
43 = How to Be Creative—60 Diverse Ways Science has
excellence and 7 of the 60 routes to creation.
Found--8
60 Models of Creativity from the World's They whet appetites, get people interested in
Most Creative People them all.
44 = How to Make a Creative Life & Use it to Create--9
64 Steps to Becoming a Creator from the Along the way you get exposed to and learn a
World's Most Creative People host of new mental, reading, social life, self
45 = How Lots of Small Preparatory Creations Enable Big control methods from social automata forms
Ones--10 of meeting, to structural cognition methods
64 Steps to Creating from the World's quadrupling mental productivity, to
Most Creative People replacements for prose that instantly reveal
46 = Getting Organizations to Change and Innovate--11 the number, names, and orderings of points.
45 Models of Innovation from
Silicon Valley Firms THE BENEFIT: Have dozens of
47 = Getting Employees & Managers to Risk, Initiate, & approaches where competitors have
Venture--12
64 Sources of Entrepreneurship & merely 4 or 5, and change approach
25 Steps to Insight radically when conditions change, where
48 = Alternative & Inventive New Ways to Deliver competitors evolve from limited
Management--13
64 Basic Functions of Managing & standpoints and perspectives. Be diverse,
Leading comprehensive, detailed, fluid, and
49 = Methods for Establishing and Using Power—14 adaptive where others fail to survive due to
The Power to Create and Creating limited choices and alternatives.
Power: 64 Steps
50 = Plus: T h i n k i n g t h e W e b - - 1 5
64 Huge Changes in Your World &
Business the Web Is Installing
Using New Sciences (Any List) for

Big Time Innovating
120 innovation creating questions
From each new science derive absolutely core questions (four given here) these sciences work to
answer and explore and YOU apply those mystery investigation projects to your
ONE AREA OF INTEREST = X HERE
Defin- EXCELLENCE 54 ways to be excellent in any which routes to excellence play the greatest role now
field from n = 8000+ in reaching X, which could play bigger roles in the
ing SCIENCE future? which routes to excellence does X foster in its
“the users now, which routes could X foster in the future?
Good” CREATIVITY 60 ways to create, 64 steps to which of 60 models of creativity give rise to the best X
becoming a creator, now? which models could give rise to a better version
SCIENCE of X in the future? which models of creativity does X
now foster? which models of creativity could X be
modified so as to foster?
DESIGN design approaches as mixes of which of 64 approaches to design give rise to the best
60 ways to create; 64 purposes X now? which models could give rise to a better version
SCIENCE of all designs/arts of X in the future? which approaches to design does X
now foster? which approaches could X be modified so
as to foster?
Defin- SYSTEMS 256 system effects, reactions which of 256 system effects give rise to X now? which
to reactions matrices; social could give rise to X in the future? which of 256 system
ing SCIENCE automata effects does X foster or handle now? which could X be
non- modified to foster or handle later?
immed QUALITY Totalizations and globalizations which totalizations/globalization of a body of
iacy applied to quality knowledge knowledge give rise to the best X? which totalizations/
SCIENCE applied to other bodies of globalizations of a body could give rise to a better X in
knowledge the future? which totalizations/globalizations of any
body of knowledge does X now foster? could X be
modified so as to foster in the future?
INNOVATION 64 ways to innovate; 64 sources which models of innovation give rise to X now? could
of entrepreneurship; give rise to X in the future? which models of innovation
SCIENCE does X now foster? could X be modified so as to foster
in the future?
Defin- PERFOR- Theatre, work, and cultures as which tribal ways and anxieties of existence power
performances; the and give rise to X now? which could give rise in the
ing MANCE anthropologic and theologic future? which tribal ways and powers of existence does
impact THEORY stances of performing X foster now? could X be modified to foster in the
future?
AUDIENCE Democratization of what aspects of X do audiences give rise to now? could

performance via web; audiences give rise to in the future? what audiences
SCIENCE audience-designed composition does X foster now? could X be modified to engage and
elements; foster in the futrue?
STORY The hero story; story types; what story dynamics give rise to X now? could give rise
identification in narratives as to X in the future? what story dynamics does X give rise
THEORY self management method; to now? could X be mofidied so as to give rise to hin the
next steps in games/stories as future?
next steps in models of
creativity that each person's
life story is = 60+ next
interesting story/game/life
steps, 1 for each of 60+ models
of creativity
Defin- SCIENCE 64 purposes of all arts, mass art which of the 64 purposes of all arts give rise to X now?
design events; quality cabarets could give rise to X in the future? which purposes of all
ing OF ART arts does X give rise to now? could X be modified so as
involve to give rise to now?
-ment GAMING Game moves as steps in which game types or game dynamics types give rise to
creativity models X now? could give rise to X in the future? which game
THEORY types or game dynamics does X give rise to now? could
X be modified to give rise to later?
INTERFACE bushy inputs and media (web what parts of the world via what interface types give
and others) hiding number, rise to X now? could give rise to X in the future? What
THEORY names, ordering of their points, parts of the world via what interface types does X join
inspired by prose, a very old now? could X join in the future?
interface, can be improved by
fractalization regularized in
various ways--result: a new
way to write making point
count/names/order visible at a
glance, obviating laborious
decoding of prose text--new
kinds of writing, new web
pages types, self indexing
documents, a publishing of
readings industry result
Defin- JIT 64 basic leadership functions what basic leadership functions give rise to X now?
plus alternate ways to deliver could give rise to X in the future? which of the basic
ing MANAGING them in correct types/amounts leadership functions does X give rise to now? could X be
influ- THEORY besides a special social class of modified so as to give rise to in the future?
ence people (expensive fixed
inventory) of "managers"
LIBERAL The literature, history, art, which liberal arts give rise to X now? could give rise to
design, philosophy of better versions of X in the future? which liberal arts
ARTS OF commerce does X foster now? could X be modified to foster better
BUSINESS in the future?
THE MBA before, after, and BEYOND which of the beyond the MBA course contents give rise
PROGRAM MBAs---all beyond business that to X now? could give rise to better X in the future?
business needs; 50 tested which of the beyond MBA course contents does X foster
SURROUND courses of action research now? could X be modified so as to give rise to better
versions of in the future?
Defin- PROSE The very old interface to which alternatives to prose give rise to X now? could
“points” we mean, named give rise to better versions of x in the future? what
ing REPLACEME prose, hides the count, names, alternatives to prose does X foster now? could X be
organi- NT and ordering of its messages— modified so as to foster in the future?
zation certain regularizations of
fractal displays of points
of outperform it as what any page
though shows, eliminating laborious
ts errorful decoding
STRUC- Certain regular fractal which mental operations on expanded patterns of

organizations of points allow ideas give rise to X now? could give rise to better
TURAL ordinary mental operators to versions of X in the future? which mental operations on
COGNITION be applied to dozens of ideas at expanded patterns of ideas does X foster now? could X
a time instead of to just 4 to 7 be modified so as to foster in the future?
ideas at once
PUBLISH- Diagrams that capture the which points of which readings give rise to X now?
count, naming, and ordering of which could give rise to a better version of X in the
ING OF points in texts can be published future? what points in new readings does X give rise to
READINGS as new works in their ow nright now? could X be modified to give rise to in the future?
without violating derivative
INDUSTRY work copyright laws.
Defin- MICRO- Normal meetings & discussions which dynamics of which micro-organization activities
are at best semi-structured, (meeting, discussion, noticing, expressing, etc.) give
ing ORG wasteful messes (they lack rise to X now? could give rise to a better version of X in
social THEORY organization--the missing the future? which dynamics of which micro-
organi- "micro" layer)--new face-to- organization activities does X now foster? could X be
face ways to interact from modified so as to foster in the future?
zation democratic rules of order,
social automata theory, social
indexing theory, and fractal
interface theory outperform
usual meetings and discussions
and make possible new types of
mass workshop event doing
work functions faster more
visibly than processes or
departments, great for our
coming web-process era.
SOCIAL New ways to get humans to which social automata types now give rise to X? could
interact with each other give rise to better X in the future? which social
AUTO- inspired by machine computing automata types does X now foster? could X be modified
MATA regimes and algorithms; so as to foster in the future?
SOCIAL Measure of current social group which interests, needs, capabilities of which group of
arrangements find we, on people give rise to X now? could give rise to better X in
INDEXING average, operate knowing less the future? which interests, needs, capabilities of
THEORY than 7% of the interests, needs, which group of people does X foster now? could X be
and capabilities of those modified so as to foster in the future?
around us. High performers
average at best no more than
at 22% social index levels. The
effects of social indexing on
performance, and how to
increase social indexing levels
in types of groups I research,
along with web/social-media
impacts on social index levels
and purchase/click-thru rates
modified by web pages
designed to impact social index
levels.
Defining ERROR Model of 256 sources of error; which brain biases handled well now give rise to X?
social 180 brain based flaws in which brain biases not handled well now give rise to X?
THEORY thought; which handled well now could give rise to better X in
neuroー
the future? which not handled well could give rise to
science better X in the future? which brain biases does X foster
now? hinder or reduce now? which could X be modified
to foster better in the future? to hinder more or reduce
more in the future?
CHANCE The brains factor analysis which flaws in how brains handle chance now give rise
neuron machinery for noticing to X? which flaws in how brains handle chance handled
THEORY patterns in sensations; well now give rise to X? which flaws could give rise to
statistical technique better X? which flaws handled well could give rise to
enhancements of that brain X? which flaws in how brains handle chance does X
machinery, in a hierarchy of foster now? does X hinder or reduce now? which could
levels X be modified so as to foster in the future? be modified
so as to hinder or reduce more in the future?
BIOSENSE The new commonsense which biologic replacements for mechanistic

replacing mechanosense with mechanisms now give rise to X? could give rise to
biologic systems not physics better x in the future? which biologic replacements for
ones as dominant; my 83 mechanistic mechanisms does X now foster? could X be
biologic system computation modified so as to foster in the future?
system types
Defining IDEA/ 64 dynamics of high tech which dynamics of high tech clusters among ideas and
evolving TECHNOLOGY venture clusters like Silicon techs give rise to X now? could give rise to better X in
systems /INVENTOR
Valley; natural selection the future? which dynamics of high tech clusters
dynamics among technologies, among ideas and techs does X now foster? could X be
ECOSYSTEMS
firms, ideas modified so as to foster in the future?
NATURAL 256 detailed dynamics of actual which dynamics of natural selection processes give rise
SELECTION natural selection in nature—the to X now? could give rise to better X in the future ?
DYNAMICS
most creative process known which dynamics of natural selection processes does X
now foster? could x be modified so as to foster in the
future?
TECH VALLEY 64 dynamics of high tech which dynamics of high tech clusters among give rise
CLUSTER venture clusters like Silicon to X now? could give rise to better X in the future?
DYNAMICS
Valley; social life of which dynamics of high tech clusters does X now
information foster? could X be modified so as to foster in the
future?
Defining CULTURE 9 powers, 64 dimensions, 16 which powers, dimensions, operations, types of

manage- SCIENCE operations on: cultures; culture give rise to X now? could give rise to better X in
ment
cultures of: selves, devices, the future? which powers, dimensions, operations,
eras, genders, bsns. practices, types of culture does X foster now? could X be
invented method for modified so as to foster in the future?
transplanting practices across
cultures
MANAGING 128 dynamics of managing which self management dynamics give rise to X now?
SELF selves, selves as cultures, the could give rise to better X in the future? which self
coincidence that all religions management dynamics does X foster now? could X be
and all modern therapies modified so as to foster in the future?
present the same core process
of self development, changing
being X to having X
MANAGING The cognitive and social psych which dynamics of inventing, innovating, managing
TECHNOLOGY of inventing; 64 models of techs, types of tech interaction give rise to x now?
/
innovation; 64 dynamics of could give rise to better X in the future? which
managing technologies; 64 dynamics of inventing, innovating, managing techs,
INNOVATION/
types of technology interaction types of tech interaction does X foster now? could X be
INVENTION with other technologies modified so as to foster in the future?

THE NEW SCIENCES (NEW KNOWLEDGE ORGANIZATION) MODEL OF INNOVATION
the
implementation the provisional answers we provide here
questions
HOW DO YOU DO The road to innovating in this chapter is given in the table above of 120 questions to ask
THIS? about your area/topic/idea X--what does each new sciencev reveal about what gives
rise to X and what could give rise to better X, and what new science dynamic does X
foster now? could X be modified so as to foster in the future. These 120 questions are
a beginning as each new science has many perspectives, theories, methods specific to
itself that furnish other innovation fostering questions. The hard part is, once all 120
questions have been answered, INTEGRATING all 120 answers into your INNOVATION.
That is the hard part--the assembly of diversely generated parts into a superb powerful
useful amazing WHOLE---the way Jobs-Apple worked new techs harder and longer,
pushing engineers beyond tweaks, investigating till all discover what new techs can be
made to do.
WHAT ARE THE Each new science is genuinely new-- It helps as a first step to discuss each new science,
MAJOR OBSTACLES the people involved, the recent articles and books about it, the directions it is headed
YOU ENCOUNTER? in. Skipping this step is frequent but harmful. It pays to dwell on what is genuinely
new in each new science--beyond what physics, math, medicine, business, sociology
and the other traditional fields would do.

THE NEW SCIENCES (NEW KNOWLEDGE ORGANIZATION) MODEL OF INNOVATION
the
questions
WHY DO MANY Our brains were stamped by college, even if we did not go, due to media, publishings
NEVER ATTEMPT IT? stamped by college--escaping that gunk takes intent, deep inner examination of self,
stuff most males are not good at and avoid.
11. The Recursive (Nested) Anti-Cultures Model

of Innovation
Within one anti-culture, build up another anti-culture. Within that second one, build up a
third anti-culture. Keep doing this recursively, till innovation of history-changing powers
breaks out, continuously. That is the algorithm of innovating of this chapter’s model.
The power of this comes from having a community at each anti-culture set up step. You and
your like-minded ones break off to form the first anti-culture. You and a subset of those
people later break off from that first anti-culture to form within it a new anti-culture. At
each step “within an existing anti-culture” you form another anti-culture to aspects of that
first anti-culture. Because at each step you and a group of like-minded ones are acting
together, opposing some anti-culture together, your mind does not have to, alone, do all the
work of escaping culture routines and norms. You “fit in” to a small community that “breaks
off” of earlier larger scale anti-cultures.
In this way, within a few decades, a tremendous number and depth and breadth of differ-
ences can become “normal operating practice” embedded in all mundane aspects of life and
increasingly embedded after a decade or two in laws, hiring, education, and institutional
arrangements.
Consider also the safety of having to, with others, go out and form another anti-culture
within a first anti-culture. You do not alone by yourself form a culture, you collect like
minded, equally frustrated or equally inspired others who with you form an anti-culture to
the anti-culture you all are already in. This is a safety mechanism, to prevent sheer neurotic
negativity developing, isolating an individual totally so that person’s ideas have no audiences
interested in them. Forming anti-cultures within anti-cultures, is a social action, an action
that organizes like-minded ones with you. That adds an element of safety preventing neu-
rotic or psychopath outcomes.
When today founders of Silicon Valley old tech ventures and brand new ones get interviewed,
and when, increasingly, they publish a book or two--the rest of the world gets amazed at how
fundamental assumptions “everyone” accepts and lives unconsciously within, are violated,
casually and without effort. Thiel in his recent book, for example, starts out in chapter one
condemning “competition” in all its forms as bad for business, something to be avoided at all
costs. This dismays professors and the entire Wall Street east coast religion of business with
its hordes of blue suited self inflating MBA priests. As new interviews and books come forth,
all their assumptions about business and leadership are violated, treated with contempts,
called “evil” and “sick”. I myself interviewed face to face 150 Silicon Valley tech venture
founders and was taken aback by how many of my assumptions about work and dress and
males and technology and leadership and business they not only did not share, but had grown
up seeing as sick and contemptuous and delusional.
When Hennessey, head of Stanford was invited to New York City to see about setting up a
second Stanford in a second Silicon Valley there--though a week was planned, he got on a
plane home after only one day--with a New Yorker magazine reporter, Alito, with him--writ-
ing up how Hennessey was taken aback by the horrendous ugly nature of human beings and
relations among the East Coast religion of business from MIT-Harvard. Vile venal ugly psy-
chopath people met him in New York and put him alone in a room with a dozen lawyers,
pushing unequal vile contracts at him for him to sign away all freedom, and profits, in perpe-
tuity. Lawyers were the “natural” greeting in the East Coast religion of business--but it vio-
lated all California culture and values. Hennessey realized that first day facing the lawyers
that “these East Coast communities are much sicker and blinder than I ever imagined”. It
was hopeless to do deals, to compromise, to collaborate with such monsters of self inflation
and other-exploitation.
In truth, Hennessey had a problem because he himself did not fully realize the nested anti-
cultures that made Silicon Valley contribute 8 times more to US GDP that Harvard-MIT over
the last 45 years. Hennessey wrongly thought Stanford was central to the emergence of Sili-
con Valley--in thinking that he was, ironically, embodying a bit of the East Coast religion of
business, whose other pieces so offended him on his first day in New York.
THE ISSUE OF MISSING NEGATIVITY. Among the cowards who populate major corporations,
when groveling stops enough for actual work to be done, when vertical “moves up” stop
enough for actual horizontal work to get done, is a strange culture of “positivity”. Linkedin
is a great place to see this mind-numbing “everyone always praising each other for every-
thing”. Someone posts a totally worthless inane article saying well what people said every
month for the last 75 years, and it gets dozens of likes and cute little praisy comments.
Read corporation “vision” and “principles” documents for another example. These namby-
pamby self praising self inflating empty-headed puffery displays act as if the corporate cul-
ture is “we were great in the past, are great now, and will be enormously greater in the
future--we have never done wrong and will always do only great wonderful things”. Anyone
who believes this prayer is a fool as most big firms are selling somewhere things that kill
people in ways not yet made illegal.
There is a cost to this sub-culture of positivity in major corporations. Not what you and I
might at first expect. It is not the cost of hiding ugly truths that later come back and bite
us. Rather it is the cost of being unable to differ from self, of being unable to erect anti-cul-
tures to one’s own present culture, that is, the cost of being unable to innovate.
The type of “man” who thrives in monkey hierarchies is one who psychopathically “fits in”
and, as British research has found, rewards himself when at the very top by first stopping lis-
tening and “fitting in” with all those he needed on his way up. All that “being nice” goes
out the window, at least till dangerous to his career repercussions appear (see the new CEO
of Microsoft’s sexism statements right after his arrival at the top for a good example). This
sort of person is not good at allowing or “fitting himself in” to anti-cultures, however deeply
nested. An therefore, this type of “man” selects, hires, promotes others who are, if any-
thing, the antithesis of anti-culture mastery. Therefore the first anti-culture of most inno-
vators is hiding inside big firms as disguised skunkworks scarfing resources secretly from
other initiatives and budgets and the second anti-culture is, out of frustration of getting no
support from the big corporation, quitting and forming a venture of one’s own, to “do it
right” and “give this great, under-appreciated idea a home”.
In truth, there are no innovation whatsoever that are not anti-cultures, and nested, recur-
sively created anti-cultures. The most nesting levels, the bigger the scale of history rolled
back or re-directed by the innovation.
NESTED ANTI-CULTURES:
AN ANTI-CULTURE INSIDE AN ANTI-CULTURE INSIDE AN ANTI-CULTURE
ANTI-
Apple Valley vaporware Silicon Valley
AUTISM Victor Take autism countered by
(void culture) Off Void & Culture Masters Jobs-Cook
ANTI-
MARKET
22,000 techs
Saturn in 10
Digital
Fairchild
multiple tries to
do MORE digitally
Silicon Valley as
(govt. funds)
ANTI-
Years
San Fran peninsula

than ever before
Desert LA move to
Nested Anti-Cultures
SPREAD concentrated
(social fusion) difference
ANTI- Rest of West seek fortune
California
WISE USA in gold rush
(risk all)
ANTI- USA West USA East move to remove
CLASS-SYSTEM Coast class system & land
constraints
(egality)
ANTI- European move to
British Isles
LAND Continent concentrated
(trade) difference
THE KEY: inside one anti-culture form another, and inside it, form
another, recursively = communities that are anti- reduce needed
mental effort and stridency = quiet but deep deepening of difference
THE OTHER CREATIVITY & NOVELTY SCIENCES ARE ALSO NESTED ANTI-CULTURES. Some
not to the extent of innovation, and some more than innovation.
DESIGN AS VARIOUS ANTI-CULTURES

The table given somewhat below summarizes an inductive model of design work, taken from
16 extremely diverse design projects across a span of 30 years and 3 continents. From the
similarities and differences and direction of evolution of these projects, abstract aspects of
design itself were derived. The result is 7 dimensions of an anthropology of design given
below:
forces influencing design,
design as a novelty science,
with both of those influencing:

the designer,
the purpose of design,
the design process,
the designs produced,
and the kinds of design we bother distinguishing.
Much of design that catches attention, gets studied, gets invented and made widely known is
undoing prior design and changes in cultures of various aspects of design. Design as an ope-
ation on cultures in designing (and designers, designs, design purposes, etc. for all the seven
model components) and an undoing of those cultures is the primary result of this study. The
entire world comes to us, when born, as “already designed” by people prior to us in need,
aspiration, means, and much else. We grow into a world not quite fitting our needs, aspira-
tions, means, and much else. Do we do design work, by, at first, un-designing everything
around us.
In this sense---design---may be a purified essence of the tendency of Western cultures to

self-negate, to continually change and re-do themselves based on a negation principle at
their core (as described on the micro-scale by Sartre, and on the macro scale by Joseph
Campbell. Tribal wholenesses as aims of industrial society design may be an escape from
the self negation, and striving, at the core of Western experience. We design to undo the
self negation striving at our culture/civilization's core. Tribal indigenous societies may
design, as whole communities (Bali, Tonga, Japan, etc.) to escape the self negation striving
that leads to Western cultures.
In this view, design is poised between worlds, between worldviews, exquisitely tipping a lit-
tle one way and the other way—tantalizingly ambiguous, tantalizingly between paradigms,
tempting us to escape the essence of who and how we are. For tribal indigenous societie
design, in this model's view, is a tip-toeing into self negation; for industrial societies design
is a tip-toeing into indigenous wholeness.
There is something intellectually satisfying to locate design as the essence of what entire
civilizations are and do. The quite broad and general anti-ness of this model in a way
explains why so many artists and designersstray into useless chaos, and experiment, failed
strayings that leave worth and value behind in their escape from present systems and ways.
Some negations, some antinesses hit the mark and add value, others miss the mark and end
up just useless tries. The anti-ness of design culture and designer personality may be pro-
found parts of design overall (in the view of the model of this paper). Consider Palm an anti-
Zaurus design in 1995, the Flip camera an anti-Japanese camera design, the iPod an anti-
tape-walkman design, for 3 examples.
Also, the tyranny of development, improvement, work load reduction, that colonizers
impose on indigenous people thinking that indigenous people must flee work loads like indus-
trial peoples, is explained by this model as doing for indigenous people the opposite of what
design does for industrial people. For industrials, design liberates them from self negation
striving into wholeness of indigenous cultures: developers do the opposite in their designs of
“development” of indigenous cultures---they design ways for indigenous cultures to
“improve” by self negating striving.
RESULTS: A TENTATIVE MODEL OF THE DIMENSIONS OF AN ANTHROPOLOGY OF DESIGN

DESIGN AS: UN-CULTURING, ANTI-& UN- DESIGNING, CIVILIZATIONAL SELF NEGATION
FORCES INFLUENCING DESIGN (Design's Evolutionary Dynamics)
Design as Globalization Sociology of Relativize Business Web/media/
anti-right- knowledge absolutes religions devices & social
ness flows computational
analogs
The globe as Each home a Communities of “The” way Blue suit Expansion of who
global practice & scope becomes “a” religion designs =
designer: museum = of trust networks way = replaced by T- INCREASES IN
creation CULTURES = CULTURES OF CULTURE shirts = CULTURE
automata INTERACTING PRACTICE REPERTOIRES CULTURES INVOLVEMENTS IN
replace my CHALLENGED DESIGN
culture is best
DESIGN DESIGNER DESIGN DESIGN THE DESIGN DESIGN KINDS
ONTOLOGY PURPOSE PROCESS ITSELF
Crossing • From either • At rare tipping • As meta- • Of • Lock in of design
art of points or at ness: meta- experiences process to right
fields science to whole system design, of designers, ways or design
both tweaks = design of of users, of objects to first
together = CAUSAL design self of others wins not best
CROSS FIELD CULTURE West processes, = CULTURE due to learning
CULTURE or East recursions = OF costs =
ALGORITHM PERFORMANC ACADEMIA AS
CULTURE E ARTS CULTURE
• Of design BREAKER/
processes and EXPANDER OR
design events CULTURE-
= ALGORITHM BARRIER
CULTURE
Un-doing • Culture of • As de- • Done by • Archaeology • Indigenous
designer industrializing brainstorms, of design = wholes =
bias anti-science = STRIVE TO by TRIZ = everything INDIGENOUS
pro-art bias UN-DO STRIVE limited extant is “a CULTURES
to educated ORIENTED RAT fractions of design”, • industrial
designers = RACE CULTURE all possible decoding fragments =
CULTURE OF Social what it was INDUSTRIAL
DESIGNERS Automata = designed for, CULTURES
CULTURE OF to do, then
ALGORITHMI updating for
C USE OF today =
HUMANS CULTURE OF
DEMYSTIFICA
TIONS
Scale & • Lone to • For media • Social • Scale of • Designs of

crowd/wiki amplification = automata designing proesses,
scope via web, to POP CLTURE with monumental, events, devices,
expansion whole BUBBLE RIDING cooperating ideational, interfaces that
culture or competing human = never existed
designing in plural models AUDIENCE before =
indigenous of creativity TYPE INVENTING USER
cultures, to or innovation CULTURES EXPERIENCES
all in the etc. = (Jobsisms)
social CULTURE OF
computation PLURAL
that was APPROACH
TQM = ESCAPING
INCREASED RIGHTNESS
CULTURE
DIVERSITY
Design • Professionals • As de- Capture/ • Of objects, • Designs of
to users = organizing = enhancement processes, events, systems,
deploymen DEMISE OF VENTURES AS of everyday events = flows that turn
t PROFESSION ANTI-BIG-FIRM designing by FIRMWARE ordinary non-
AL CULTURES CULTURES us all, like CULTURE design activity
MIT LEVELS into design
neighborhood outcomes =
make labs = INTRASTRUCTUR
WHOLE AL DESIGN
POPULATION CULTURE
DESIGNS
Negation • Male (now • As un- • As un- • Designs as • Moral fits or
society-wide culturing, de- culturing = anti-designs, challenges to
power dominant, designing = DESIGN AS undoing slots/niches =
negation Y DESIGNS AS UNDOING prevalent CONSUMER
chromosome ANTI- ENCULTURAT designs, Palm CULTURE
) to female = ESTABLISHED IONS as anti- ESCAPES
GENDER DESIGNS Zaurus, Flip
CULTURES CULTURE as anti-Sony =
• as in general an NEGATION AS
anti-ness = WHOS,
NOVELTY AS PERFORMANC
UN-DOING E
Audience • The designer • For flow • As culture • Designing the • Designing
as performer ecstasy = UNDO penetration, designer, the processes,
= SHOW CULTURE OF operations on design releasing designs
CULTURE, DEVELOPMENT, culture, release, the as performances
ARTFULNESS DE-CIVILIZE blends of design we design =
• as cultures = functioning META-SHOWS,
performances = DESIGN AS as META-
LIKE VS. CULTURE performance PERFORMANES
INTEREST WORK =
BRAIN TRADE- AMAZEMENT,
OFFS IN SHOW
AUDIENCES BUSINESS
CULTURE
Model Equals 3 Equals ESCAPING Equals Equals Equals DESIGN

LEVELS: ACADEMIA'S CULTURE AUDIENCE PERFORMANCE
repertoires NOVELTY AMERICAN BIAS EVOLVING, CULTURES CREATES CUTURES
replace WITHIN, AT, escaping CULTURES AS DIFFER the story
rightnesses BEYOND academia's ABANDONED designers are a determines the
CULTURES: dominance by NICHES natural different meaning ,value,
design American selection not audience for salience, sales
protocol culture's mania the designs than and historic worth
singularities for single narrow optimization of users/ of designs = Steve
are where empiric models, fitness via receivers of Jobs effect
creativity impact from variation, designs—both
models clash; repertoires of combination, engage designs
54 models of diverse models selection, and as
innovation not single right-y reproduction performances
each with “my model is
different roles better than
for design and yours”
culture adolescence
Design as In relations In relation to In relation to In relation to In relation to
art, dance, to design, plural not evolution performance composing
innovation, single right-y processes stories and
perfor- creativity models games
mance, models
show
DESIGN AS NOVELTY SCIENCE (1 OF 30)--Its Relation to Inventing, Innovating, +

THE NESTED ANTI-CULTURE MODEL OF INNOVATION
the implementation
questions
HOW DO YOU DO THIS? The problem doing this approach to innovation is it takes time to separate with
others into an anti-culture to one you are in, and more time to separate within
that new anti-culture into an anti-anti-culture with others. Because these sep-
arations are done, not alone, but with like-minded others, each separation
takes time. Fortunately you can move into cultures, like Silicon Valley, already
nested six or 8 or more layers deep via prior groups splitting off in prior history.
The cost, however, of moving directly into these places is--you will not be
accepted and fit as who you now are---Silicon Vallley will demand you remove
from your values, self, habits, views traces of half a dozen major cultures
accepted everywhere else on earth. You will be laughed at, mocked, publically
humiliated, ordered to wise up, fired for “taking everyone here back to Wall
Street” “stinking of MBA disease” and like faults (I do not exaggerate here).
If you try to nest, recursively, your own invented anti-cultures within anti-cul-
tures--it takes years. If you move to places already thusly nested--you face
years of self change and editing, under rather harsh enviroment demands and
reactions. There is no short cut to history-changing innovation. It is not for
wimps and MBAs and it does not come free.

THE NESTED ANTI-CULTURE MODEL OF INNOVATION
the implementation
questions
WHAT ARE THE MAJOR What amazes is the utter arrogance and stupidity of East Coast religion of busi-
OBSTACLES YOU ENCOUN- ness “people”-ish entities, often carriers of the MBA disease, who move to Sili-
TER? con Valley and are surprised that everything about them is treated with
contempt. Did they really think Harvard and MIT are not sick and generating
elitist, vertical oriented, self uberalles, analysis uberalles monstrosities? Can’t
they read the West Coast business press all over the web? Have they no com-
monsense or self awareness? Of course not--they are carriers of twin diseases--
the East Coast religion of business and the MBA disease. Every intelligent being
on the West coast sees these diseases in full and rejects even the tiniest iota
from them. To “move” into already deeply nested anti-cultures is not some-
thing done physically but something done psychically. For overly male narcis-
sist elitists produced by MIT-Harvard this sort of inner self examination and
change is totally new, never faced before, not part of “returns to investors” and
“shareholder rights”.
WHY DO MANY NEVER The East Coast religion of business has spread to Spain, Australia, and many
ATTEMPT IT? other nations (but not France, not Japan, not Germany, and not China). From
its sick point of view, everything is an analysis technique so “entrepreneur-
ship” has courses teaching plans and business models and other “techniques”.
The idea that motive is 10,000 times more vital than technique to build some-
thing never occurs to the sickos that Harvard-MIT generate. So these diseased
minds march across the world filled with MBA program “techniques” for “new”-
y business models, business plans, market segments--as if they, thusly
equipped, are a great resource the world of Silicon Valley tech ventures needs!
How utterly deluded can people be. The world, and all its best parts, are built
more out of motive and love and passion than out of stuff professors are good
at--mere technique.
12. The Interacting Religions of Business Model of

Innovation
The lunch room at the world #3 ranked grad school of business where I first worked, 2 years
before my Ph.d., was a non-intellectual experience. The competition between faculty was
so great that everyone edited out of every remark every idea that interested them. When
we went to conferences at Harvard it was the same--we warned each other on the plane not
to divulge any idea of interest--otherwise if we mentioned something, it would show up in
months on a paper by a Harvard guy and one or two of his grad students. So my years at this
famous place were empty of ideas and good discussions--an intellectual void, created by dog
eat dog vertical competition culture of the place. It was always a pleasure to visit global
rank 20 departments in other cities--where ideas were discussed in hallways and at lunches!
Years later I was in the midst of interviewing 150 founders of Silicon Valley tech ventures
(not “business ventures” which schools of business bally-hoo as student projects, confusing
new shoe stores with new technologies). Several patterns were becoming more and more
evident. I found myself filling in remarks of the person I was interviewing (usually annoying
them) because I could so well guess what was coming next. They all shared deeply nested
anti-cultures that I was gradually seeing. These shared views had at first taken me aback
because they violated my own natural, deeply held beliefs and practices. But when my
offense at that subsided, I could begin to see clearly that Silicon Valley was built on a basis
antithetical to the East Coast Harvard-MIT religion of business.
Similarly, my first years in Japan, working for two Deming Prize, for best quality, firm
exposed me to another Religion of Business, quite different than the USA East Coast one and
the USA West Coast one. My first years at Thompson Paris and NVPhilips, Eindhoven, intro-
duced me to two still other Religions of Business--Nordic EU and Southern (via France).
Later speeches at Karlsruhe Institute of Technology got me face to face with another--the
German Guild Meister Religion of Business. These days I work in China in the midst of their
Religion of Business. It is working inside this variety that makes the word “Religion” neces-
sary, for in each case, a group tightly holds to its narrow way of doing business, it narrow
ways and rites and rituals of “leading”, and the like, rejecting all data that might challenge
existing commitments, practices, and beliefs. Religions of Business are heavily defended, so
much so that huge corporations actually choose death to making changes in them.
THE MAJOR INNOVATIONS IN BUSINESS PRACTICE--WHERE DID THEY COME FROM? The
press, the media, and foolish MBAs are constantly generating the impression that great leaps
forward in business practice come from “brilliant analyses” of “professors of business”.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. ALl major improvements in global business practice
came from one Religion of Business, haltingly and unwillingly borrowing techniques from
another--forced to do so by wars, or depressions, or other dire straights.
In World War II Americans on the Western front fighting Germany were astonished at how
everything German was superior to everything American except sheer numbers. So you shot
your first German to get great boots, your second to get a bazooka that blew up the enemy
not yourself, your third to get a tank with 2-way radios so local tank commanders could feed
back to generals when the assumptions of battle by generals and their plans turned out to be
horribly wrong. The generation of Americans that fought that way, came home and for the
next 20 years studied and applied German ordinary management techniques of the 1920s,
disguised as “techniques” by an Austrian in American, named Peter Drucker, who taught
“management by objectives”. Millions of Americans learned 1920s German management
methods disguised as “Prof. Drucker’s brilliant method--MbO”.
In the late 1970s, Ford got tired of waiting, General Motors got tired of waiting--that is, tired
of waiting for colleges of business to spread Japan’s world dominating quality methods of
doing business. So Ford set up its own college--the American Supplier Institute--and General
Motors set up its own college--The Crosby Institute. All the suppliers of both firms were
required to train all managers and lead workers in those emergency colleges. It was 15
years later before the first quality courses appeared in top ten US schools of business and the
version of Japan’s team, statistical, democratic technologies, mass workshop invention cam-
paigns quality approaches, thusly taught, was gutted--all the team stuff stripped out and
replaced with usual American individual uberalles, all the statistical stuff stripped out and
replaced with American Phd level maths, all the democratization of technology replaced
with Phd. delivered new techs, all the mass whole workforce invention campaigns simply for-
gotten about entirely. The managers in the USA and the professors in the USA preferred
changes that left managers in charge and running everything and denied those parts of Japa-
nese TQM that got ordinary blue collar workers doing MIT level statistical studies, and robot
inventions.
Havard professors even stripped the word “Japan” out of these TQM methods from Japan
and substituted the word “lean”--so they could pretend that they--professors--had invented
new “lean” methods of doing work. In a few years, this had succeeded, and Americans
switched to lean this and lean that, without realizing they were doing things the Japanese
way (actually a pale rendition of Japan’s way). This sort of intellectual dishonesty was and
is today rampant among professors.
Similar CERN in Switzerland brought us the world wide web and the touch screen interface.
While Americans depended on “the market” to do all (according to their Religion of Business
where “the market” was God--now replaced by “shareholders” being God), the Europeans,
in joint government funded research groups, changed computing forever, without seeking or
getting profits.
So, summarizing, we have Americans learning German techniques, the world learning Japa-
nese quality techniques, the world learning Swiss computing approaches. Virtually all major
changes in global business practice have come from such interactions of differing Religions of
Business.
EXCELLENCE NESTED
OF PERSONAL
11 WEALTH BUILDING ANTI-
FOR ELITES CULTURES 19
10 Mind Finance 18 Out- Aim All at
Over Analysis 12 source Tipping 20
Body Uberalles All Points not
ANTI- Skill & Only higH Flows Profit
Void EXCELLENCE
CUSTOMER Profession East rank &Homes West Masters OF ULTIMATE
ANTI- 9Ranking Coast
Knowledge 17 Coast for Depth INFO
is Used TRANSPA-
LABOR
Tandem USA 13 Invent
USA 21
RENCY
work abuses Vertic- Disrespect Social
EXCELLENCE
OF SCALE
3
others but ality
profits for
self great All
16
Focus
of Work &
Non-
improve- Power fromElites
ments
3 for Defense
Then Struggle
to Commer-Ride
Plasma
cialize ProfoundSocial
24 Info Tech Automata
Idea Fusion
after Ego
Stripped
Off
ANTI-
PEER
EXCELLENCE
forced
from
Psycho- 14 via Product Tuned
Ecosystem Inter- 22 27
2 Basic Drive to abroad pathology dynamics Update Co-
15 23 26
Span
Indus- Monopoly
tries
4
Demo-
cratize
2
to actions
4 Life of
for
Excellence Management
with
not Cost Labor
Mid-
28
1
Continent
Robber
Elite Brit
Products The 8 Major Global Perfecting
25
German
Size for
Excellence
Baron 5 Guild
RELIGIONS
Drive for Wealth to
Totalization USA
Phds all Luthern 29
Huge over normal Meister Self Disci-
of Scale Founda-
tions jobs pline to
Ruthless Build on Self Appre- Lower
Exploit- Other Managing Costs
tice Path
OF
8 ation of Emerging 32Guild WORLD
ANTI- 6
Labor & Industries Traditions to Real 30 BEST
PERFOR-
COMPETI- Govt. Jobs
MANCE
7
TION
EXCELLENCE 1 5
31 AT ANY COST
ANTI-LARGE-
OF SCALE-
58
20 Year
59
Govt. Waves of
Shaped Aspects
Evolu- Developed
tions 60
BUSINESS 34
The ment Reach
35
Self Culture
Masters for
Manage-Global
SCALE
36
Vast
Initiatives
Extreme
Lack of
China Power at
All major innovations Commu-
nity Doer
Constant
Reconfigure
Continental All Levels in business practice Nordic forCare Social
57 Mass Mass Manage 33
Full script Europe Patient
change
balancings Projects by Jail &
61 come from their societies =
can drift Egality Nation
Multi-
37
Lack of Leaders
Violence
interactions follow
flows Demo-
Know-
ledge
64
Psycho- Must Appear
logical Superior
Self Improve- to All
ment Followers 62
8 Compu-
51 Invent/Install
tational Anti-
Ancient Families
43
6
Industrial of Firms
40
Techs
Design Dailylife
Scale 38
Assem-
cratized Shrunk to bly
63ANTI-
50 Sociality Culture 42 Districts Together 39
Totalize 52
Whole 44 OVERALL
MULTIPLE
ACTORS
49
Bodies of
Knowledge Japan Social
Statistical
Totalizing
Workforce
Algorithms7 41
Extended
Family
Economies
Whole
Southern
Leap to
Deepest
Ideas
Possible
Now
SOCIETAL
ANTI-
EXCELLENCE
EMOTIVE Perfecting Quality Centered

Line
district Work to Sex, BAD
SMOOTHNESS of Process
EXCELLENCE Aim
53
Org Ideal upgrade
campaigns Live Sun, 45 STYLE
Total Fun
Money- Style
Mass Knowledge Less
Workforce Deployment Great Through
Inventings to All Lives Out
56 48 for All Life-
54 ANTI-
PROFESSION
Span 46
DISPOSITIONAL
55 ANTI-
VERTICALITYEXCELLENCE 47
THE CONTEXT, CULT, CULTURE, SOCIAL LIFE OF INFORMATION ISSUE. When BMW and
Mercedes chose South Carolina for production localized in the USA, they negotiated a state-
wide apprentice system, to compensate for America’s lack of it and German dependence on
it for hiring competent workers. What both the Germans and the official of South Carolina
forgot was unspoken, unseen, invisible other culture differences that made erecting a work-
ing apprentice system in South Carolina nearly impossible. Germany is a rule following soci-
ety. It was never a nation and for thousands of years a buch of dutchies, loosely held
together by this or that empire. Loyalities were rarely to anyting beyond 20 kilometers from
where people grew up and worked. So rules were the bridge that got non-local non-friends
able to do business together. South Carolina was a part of American culture and America
hates rule in principle. So the South Carolina apprentice system trained up young people but
did not bother to adjust yearly so those people got jobs when done with apprenticing. Soon
no young people bothered apprenticing.
Transfers of practices across national and other cultures, only work when detailed investiga-
tion of these invisible supports and hindrances is done.
This means that, say for example, when TQM from Japan, is tried in the USA, with or without
the word “lean” substituting for the word “Japan”, it is usual that a pale rendition of the
results and of the method itself, as done in Japan, eventuate. But we have to remember
there are no medium size or large size companies anywhere in the world today that do not
do some sort of Six Sigma or other TQM training all the time. It is a technique, that even in
its attenuated form, has conquered the world. You cannot compete without doing it half
decently.
That gives us two layers of innovating from interacting Religions of Business:
1. teach yourself a technique from another Religion of Business

2. account for invisible support/hindrance differences between culture of origin
and culture doing the borrowing, to preserve full power of what is copied.
This is amazingly rarely done. The norm is pale rendition copyings: where anything in the
technique that challenges local culture norms and ways is dropped, and where supports in
the origin culture missing in the target culture are not noticed.
HOW EXACTLY DO RELIGIONS OF BUSINESS INTERACT--AND HOW DOES THAT GIVE RISE TO
INNOVATION? When TQM spread across the world, Americans embraced it readily and
quickly, though in pale rendition form, by Americanizing it in ways the Americans themselves
did not notice or account for. The German Guild Meisters, however, were much more con-
sciously aware of the limited ways they wanted TQM to look and act in their German Guild
Meister context. They much more consciously gutted the heart of Japan’s TQM methods, so
they would not decrement traditional German Guild Meister religion of business capabilities.
The Americans have a self image of being “open to the world” but they are pretty much as
given to assimilating away differences as Germans are. The Germans, on the other hand, do
not bother with an image of themselves as “open to the world”, and they are committed to
maintaining their German Guild Meister Religion in all its details. They implemented the
least of Japan’s TQM they could get remain competitive with.
Now, how do you do innovation, big ones, using interacting Religions of Business? To see how
we have to strip off the whole idea and image of “it is about techniques from one religion of
business going to another religion of business”. It is not about techniques--that is a gross

distortion added by professors of colleges of business.
How is innovation done differently in each religion of business? In Japan it tends to be entire
workforce invention campaigns---10,000 workgroups invent a robot each of their work area
and winners are chosen and perfected by engineers into a product line (Pana-robots from
Panasonic were developed this way). In Germany innovations tend to come from commit-
tees of committees, mitbestimmung dynamics, where new perfectings of lots of components
are asked for and their emergence managed cooperatively over rather long periods of time.
Excellence at the end if the goal not speed or profits now. In the West Coast USA religion of
business, nested anti-cultures give rise to enormous streams of inventions along with com-
munities of people having norms and routines for wanting and handling them. A population
of tiny tech ventures, averaging a total of 7 employees total each, outsource everything
except their core tech idea (IP). In the East Coast USA religion of business vulchure capital-
ist hedge funds buy up ailing firms, load them with debt, run them for quick payoffs, and
leave behind rotting shells of companies with masses of unemployed workers. Returns to
shareholders are maximized short term while industries are firm by firm gutted.
However, these examples are enough to show up an anti-culture principle at work in all
cases. The German Guild Meister religion of business works as an anti-culture to other reli-
gions of business. It is export facing in more large scale and fundamental ways that the
other religions of business. It sees itself as anti-ing, that is, countering, all the mousy little
other global religions of business who settle, for one reason or another, for anything less
than world best performance. Though the Japanese, through their quality efforts, often
compete for world best performance, they finally, are cost constrained in ways German
Guild Meisters are not.
The Japanese totalization of quality religion of business is anti-profession and anti-vertical-

ity. Its computational sociality roots see the entire workforce as something you can use as a
computer. Japan’s religion of business aspires to social means of leveraging mass brain
power of masses of people and firms. The US West Coast religion of business aims for simi-
lar powers achieved via technologies of connection and communication. The East Coast USA
religion of business is an anti-customer anti-workforce approach to innovation--gut and run,
with returns to hedge fund shareholders. Collateral fear in other managements supposedly
makes them “more efficient” (looking in the short term, under-investing in the intermediate
term). In a similar way, all the other religiions of business can, as indicated on the diagram
above, be seen to be formed around particular anti-cultures.
When two of these global religions of business collide, often in crises or competitive
onslaughts--it forces one or both of them to learn from the other. Frequently underneath
any overt techniques involves and transferred, however distortedly, is the learning of some-
thing much deeper--a bit of the anti-culture of the other. So those encountering Japan
imbibed a bit of anti-verticality and a bit of anti-profession. Those encountering Swiss web
and touch screen innovations thereby imbibed a bit of Germanis Guild Meister focus on sheer
excellence. Those encountering the US East Coast religion of business, come away touched
also by something deeper--an inversion of priorities, with wealthy shareholders the purpose
of all and customers, workforce, and product, mere excuses for enriching shareholders. The
Interactions among global religions of business transfer some techniques, underneath of
which they also transfer a bit of the particular anti-culture each religion of business is about
and for.
To be even clearer about this--each religion of business aims for its own particular kind of
excellence---defined differently--indicated in the diagram above. Innovation as a result of
colliding excellences you could call it
INNOVATION FROM COLLIDING EXCELLENCES

The TQM religion of business from Japan, in its march around the world gave rise to what
innovations? Well it changed the commonsense of all businesses worldwide from monkey
hierarchy vertical dynamics to horizontal customers sat driven processes stretched across
supplier, producer, customer firms. This was its INNOVATION ONE, shall we say.
There is another act that took place, perhaps an even bigger and more amazing one. TQM by
virtue of the new commonsense view it spread, fixed an immense technology problem with
information technology. The new horizontal commonsense that TQM’s spread introduced,
formed the perfect target for application of “the web” in the 1990s, to the horizontal pro-
cesses TQM modeled and drove by customer sat in the 1980s. Suddenly there was something
between companies needing tight statistical cooperative control among firms, with the web
there to allow all the firms involved to instantly share process information, actions, and
results. TQM paved the way for effective web application to business. Call this INNOVATON
TWO.
In a similar way, other interactions of religions of business gave rise to INNOVATION ONES fol-
lowed by INNOVATION TWOS. In part this was the deeper alternative forms of excellence
underneath particulars interacting, spreading and changing traditional views within a target
religion of business.

THE INTERACTING RELIGIONS OF BUSINESS (COLLIDING EXCELLENCES) MODEL OF INNOVATION
implementation
questions
HOW DO YOU DO The major innovations in business practice of the last 120 years came from colliding
THIS? excellences of diverse global religions of business interacting. Wars constituted some of
these interactions; global competitive marches of one form of excellence constituted
another (Silicon Valley’ digital techs, Japan’s TQM, etc.). Also there were pieces devel-
oped in one religion of business that fit a burgeoning innovation from another religion of
business--as CERN’s web and touch screen techs were grabbed by the digital tech revolu-
tions from Silicon Valley. Innovation springs up wherever these religions of business and
their differing excellences interact deeply enough to overcome human ego and not
invented here obstinancy.
WHAT ARE THE This is not a cute little method that one person can go out the door, now, and do this
MAJOR OBSTA- afternoon. This is entire religions of business colliding harshly and deeply enough to
CLES YOU overcome ego and not-invented-here-obstinancies. However, one can manage one’s
ENCOUNTER? career so as to wend a way among these religions of business and their various excel-
lences. Then those differing excellences can interact in you. I, the author of this book,
Richard Greene, picked up quality circle details while working in Deming Prize winner
companies in Japan, then returned to the US to do artificial intelligence programming--so
effortlessly, without much aim and effort, I threw stats out and replaced them with AI
software, making high tech circles, knowledge system circls, robotization circles, inven-
tion circles, artificial intelligence circles, neural net circles in 7 major global corpora-
tions. Circles as a social way to democratize spread of high technologies from Japan
combined with world best sofware from the US--two excellences of two different reli-
gions of business.

THE INTERACTING RELIGIONS OF BUSINESS (COLLIDING EXCELLENCES) MODEL OF INNOVATION
implementation
questions
WHY DO MANY Few of us have 20+ years to invest and perspective long enough to match. Perhaps the
NEVER ATTEMPT best we can do is spot particular global religions of business stongly interacting around us
IT? and investigate those interactions for innovations they may give rise to.
13. The Insight Pulsed Systems Model of Inno-

vation
Below I present stages of several diverse life areas, all of which are version of one insight
process is the first table presented here: 1) a table of the 25 steps of the insight process
found in all creative work; 2) a diagram of the main dynamics hidden inside that table of 25
steps; 3) a list of the main dynamics in or implied in that diagram 4) a table of stages of
penetrating a culture that shows the insight process from creative work at work on culture
elements and that suggests marriages, friendships, and other inter-personal relationships
and inter-group alliances as evincing highly similar dynamics 5) a table of how people
develop personally by changing, at each stage, from “being” something unselfconsciously, to
“having” that aspect, managing it carefully, avoiding the harms of automatic everywhere use
of it 6) a model of the process of social revolutions with engagement in how things are finally
broken, liberating people into a no man’s land where, with others thusly painfully giving up
on the way things are, they collaborate to invent an utterly new society/way-of-living
together 7) a triangle model of the functions of all religions including a self change function
that is the same insight and self development process in all the other models above 8) three
models of stages in mystical experience 9) A SUMMARY TABLE showing 12 diverse domains of
life where all insight process dynamics rule, centrally. After all that I connect these things
with how innovations appear.
The insight process is an immensely central aspect of human being in the world--in fact, it is
the primary process by which people “learn the world” introduced in briefer form, earlier in
this book. Here, all the dynamics associated with it, including punch line effects of sudden
solution appearance after months/years of work, and unplanned emergence from things
interacting of better than expected ideas, are presented. Seeing one process underneath
millions of similar projects and creativity sciences and their results allows: 1) focus on
essentials 2) learning carry over from some projects to others 3) practice and perfecting of
key dynamics in the model 4) subcreation invention of tools and facilities to amplify human
brain power in each of its steps.
Among others, all innovations come from processes having these Insight dynamics. Hence
the dynamics in this chapter are innovation dynamics while being something more than that
and more general than that as well. This tells us that innovations are the result of longer,
deeper, “heftier” doing of what we already do in lots of areas of life. Knowing, thusly, what
exact dynamics are involved, and seeing many other areas of creativity in life where they
appear, allows anyone to focus on what innovation requires is constituted of.
Readers will self identify with the steps in the insight process in this chapter, and how they
show up in self development, in penetrating new groups and cultures, in religious experi-
ence, in performing arts, social revolution, and the other areas dealt with below. You can
take something already a well practiced part of your life and spruce it up, expand it in
scale, and turn out history changing whole-field-changing innovations.
The Insight Process from Reviewed Literature

Exhausting First Impressions Depth Struggle Insight as Victory
Generate
Try Existing Stop Existing Specify New Candidate
Frame Frame Frame Solution Reduce and Test
Components
Generate
Alternative Partial Recognize and
The Represent the Unrepresent the Represent Points Solutions and Combine Solution
Insight Problem Problem of Failure Solution Components
Process Components
Engagement, Engagement,
Engagement, Detachment, Inductive Model Detachment, Inductive Model
Inductive Model Model Breaking Building (of Model Breaking Building (of best
Building, this and Expanding, Failure Points), and Expanding, solution
problem consists things that are X things that are X what about trying combination),
of X have not been don’t work X things that are X
tried yet help in way Y
Select 1. Select Prob- 6. Select 11. Select Solu- 16. Select Paral- 21. Select Combi-
lem Assumptions tion Attempts lel Project nations
both problem and (Implicit in the that failed thus Involvements of partial solutions
features of the problem, you, far multi-task in wildly and solution ele-
problem to attend your background) different projects ments gained from
to to refresh frames, analogies with other
contexts, morale, domains
images
Abstract 2. Abstract Fea- 7. Abstract Con- 12. Abstract 17. Abstract Anal- 22. Abstract Pat-
tures straints Failed Hypotheses ogies in Other terns from combina-
from problem (witting and abstract hypothe- Domains tions and analogies
descriptions of unwitting) ses from failed to find what is to try
others and new solution attempts common about
descriptions you problems across
generate domains and
potential solutions
across them
Index 3. Case Index-- 8. Context Index- 13. Failure Index- 18. Discourse 23. Partial Solution
Match Cases find -Switch Contexts -Specify Causes of Index--Seek Out Index--
past problems and activities Failure New Discourse separate helpful
similar to current state why and how Partners from unhelpful pat-
one each hypothesis and discuss your terns among solu-
failed stuck-nesses with tion elements
them
Stray 4. Represent 9. Apply Outside 14. Reverse Fail- 19. Apply Out-of- 24. Specify What
Problem of Field ure Causes Field Solutions Part of Each Pat-
in multiple ways, knowledge, reverse causes of Components tern Works
as many ways as images, tech- failure to find inside your own and does not work
possible, both niques what each tells field
you about nature
careful and play-
of eventual solu-
ful tion
Invari- 5. Find Repre- 10. Find Repre- 15. Find Eventual 20. Find Invari- 25. Find Invariants
ants sentation Invari- sentation Vari- Solution Attribute ants in Aspects of Among Working
ants ants Invariants Partial Solutions Patterns
to problem across what varies as you find invariants in that work partially as your overall solu-
various represen- change ways to all solutions tries tion
that failed and all
tations, these will represent the
reverse specifica-
be rather abstract problem tions of eventual
solution
insight model
The insight model below presents 25 steps in any insight process. There are five
columns each dealing with a different operation on frameworks. There are five
rows each dealing with a different smaller scale operation of frameworks.
Insights result from trying things that fail. Insights are built on whatever it is that
accumulates with more and more accumulated failed solution attempts (yes, even
frustration that accumulates is a material for building insight, an essential mate-
rial).
Careful examination of the model below, shows the columns alternate between an
engagement step and a detachment step. Creative people engage intensely then
pull back and drop effort. Creative people rationally engage intensely then drop
out into semi-conscious unrelated reverie. It is the alternation of these periods
of engagement and detachment that produce insight. While alternating thusly,
there is a progression achieved. Creative people move from concrete aspects of
the situation they consider to more and more abstract aspects. This is repre-
sented in the model below as five successively more focussing rows. Each row
tightens the net, increases focus, but in more and more abstract ways.
The model says insight is produced by alternating engagement with detachment on
successively more abstractly focussed representations of the situation one is deal-
ing with. As failed solution attempts accumulate and as partial solutions are grad-
ually found, indexing becomes essential. Similarities and differences among
failed attempts and partial solutions are noted and grouped into hierarchical mod-
els, indexes. These become, if enough failed attempts are attempted and enough
partial solutions are found, indirect, possibly inverse, specifications of what even-
tual solutions must handle or be like. It is the often unconscious accumulation of
these ever tighter more elaborated specifications-by-inverting indexes of accumu-
lated failures and partial solutions, that spawns insights. Eventually, what the
failures and partial successes are saying becomes, in an instant, operative, uni-
fied, pregnant.
Each row of the model below can foster sub-insights, that combined, amount to
the overall insight into a solution. The alternation of engagement with detach-
ment across each row can lead to insights as the fifth step in each row. The spec-
ification of a new frame in the third column, followed by specifying where it works
better and where it works worse than the previous frame in column four, can cause
insight to emerge in column five as such hints are combined into attempted partial
solutions.
Each column of the model below can foster sub-insights too, that combined,
amount to the overall insight into a solution. The successive abstractions that
lead to more and more focus when moving down each column, can reveal relations
among situation elements that are hidden by apparent features of the situation.
In particular, the fourth row--straying--and the second row--abstracting are both
detachment steps, while the first, third, and fifth rows are engagement steps.
Thus, movement across rows as alternating periods of engagement and detach-
ment is somewhat matched by movement down columns as alternating periods of
engagement and detachment of a somewhat less heavy-handed obvious sort.
Insight is an intimate process within individual minds. It is somewhat of an exag-
geration to present a step by step 25 step model of it. Such systematic regularity
seems a bit too regular and imposing for the variety and idiosyncrasies of human-
kind, but the model below merely groups and organizes what dozens of research-
ers have found across hundreds of detailed case studies of insight. It also
embodies results from the few researchers who have studied inside the mind pro-
cess steps of inventing, creating, and having insights. Some of the 25 steps can be
done in the blink of an eye. Others may take minutes or months. It is likely, how-
ever, that the great majority of creative people go through nearly all the 25 steps
in the model, when insights occur. It is useful to keep in mind that most of the 25
steps are frustrating accumulations of failed solution attempts. Only the ends of
the rows and ends of the columns are sub-insight locations in this model with step
25 being the location of the overall eventual solution revealing insight.
Exhausting First Impressions

Try Existing Frame
Represent the Problem
Engagement, Inductive Model Building, this problem consists of X
1. Select Problem
both problem and features of the problem to attend to
2. Abstract Features
from problem descriptions of others and new descriptions you generate
3. Case Index--Match Cases find past problems similar to current one
4. Represent Problem
in multiple ways, as many ways as possible, both careful and playful
5. Find Representation Invariants
to problem across various representations, these will be rather abstract
The first column in the insight model is where people get rid of their first impres-
sions, where they exhaust them. It is a matter of stripping them bare. You try all
that you know. If you are lucky and the problem is simple, this column is all you
need. At step 5, find what does not vary as you vary representations you know of
for the problem. There is where solution occurs if the problem is easy.
Key here is a case index, matching aspects of the problem to past cases you and
others have experienced. Care in building this index is important. The quality of
past cases you know about and the quality of your index of features in them that
may match features in your present case are important.
Stop Existing Frame
Unrepresent the Problem
Detachment, Model Breaking and Expanding, things that are X have not been tried
yet
6. Select Assumptions
(Implicit in the problem, you, your background)
7. Abstract Constraints
(witting and unwitting)
8. Context Index--Switch Contexts

and activities
9. Apply Outside of Field
knowledge, images, techniques
10. Find Representation Variants
what varies as you change ways to represent the problem
The second column is where people give up on all they already know and detach
from it, trying to imagine approaches they have never personally tried before or
imagined before. This is not easy or pleasant work. It comes only when your frus-
tration with finding that all you already know does not work is high. The morale
for going beyond all you now know comes from conviction that all you now know is
not enough. If there is even a hint that somewhere in the back of your mind is
something you already know that is adequate to solve the situation, you cannot
make progress in this column. Progress in this column comes only when you give
up, utterly, on all you already know.
Key here is recognizing what contexts you have been operating in, during efforts to
solve this problem, and during your entire life thus far. Building an index of con-
texts thus known and tried by you and imagining new contexts beyond all that is a
key step in this column. Identifying unconsciously used past such contexts and
identifying alternatives for all the contexts you have known and used thus far are
not easy. They are hard work.
Depth Struggle
Specify New Frame
Represent Points of Failure
Engagement, Inductive Model Building (of Failure Points), things that are X don’t
work
11. Select Solution Attempts

that failed thus far
12. Abstract Failed Hypotheses
abstract hypotheses from failed solution attempts
13. Failure Index--Specify Causes of Failure
state why and how each hypothesis failed
14. Reverse Failure Causes
reverse causes of failure to find what each tells you about nature of eventual solution
15. Find Eventual Solution Attribute Invariants
find invariants in all solutions tries that failed and all reverse specifications of even-
tual solution
The third column is where, during each insight process, invention of the utterly
new takes place, not as the insight itself, but in the form of new frameworks, not
part of what one already knows and uses, invented here to fill the void created in
column one when all the frameworks that one already knew were found inade-
quate. Not just one new framework gets invented here, but one after another, as
each is found, somehow wanting.
Key here is the failure index--what is similar and different among failed cases.
This failure index is developed, failure by failure. Only people who are curious
about and interested in their own failures can build it. People who abhor their
own failures cannot build it. They do not examine their failures in loving detail
enough. As the failure index is gradually built up, creators notice patterns in what
fails. It is these patterns, inverted, that begin to specify what an eventual solu-
tion must be like. It is these patterns that prepare the way for the overall insight.
Generate Candidate Solution Components

Generate Alternative Partial Solutions and Solution Components
Detachment, Model Breaking and Expanding, what about trying X
16. Select Parallel Project Involvements

multi-task in wildly different projects to refresh frames, contexts, morale, images
17. Abstract Analogies in Other Domains
to find what is common about problems across domains and potential solutions across
them
18. Discourse Index--Seek Out New Discourse Partners
and discuss your stuck-nesses with them
19. Apply Out-of-Field Solutions Components
inside your own field
20. Find Invariants in Aspects of Partial Solutions
that work partially
The fourth column is where solution components are accumulated from partially
successful new frameworks the last column produced. This requires patience.
You want desperately your eventual solution, but you cannot get it. Instead you
get fragments--this one works in this way, but not that way, this other one works in
this other way but not in these ways. By accumulating such fragments larger and
larger portions of your eventual solution appear before you, however, often requir-
ing you to completely reorganize how your fragments fit with each other, dropping
some, emphasizing others.
Key here is a discourse index you build with outsiders through casual or intense
conversation. By discussing what is lacking, not working, and how you are stuck
with other people, you discover what you would much much later, if ever, discover
by talking with yourself. Describing what frustrates and stymies you mobilizes
your emotions for reorganizing partial solution components. It is the discourse
with strangers that frees up present arrangements among solution components for
rearrangement. Such conversations with strangers can take the form of face to
face talk, or reading good books.
Insight as Victory
Reduce and Test
Recognize and Combine Solution Components
Engagement, Inductive Model Building (of best solution combination), things

that are X help in way Y
21. Select Combinations
of partial solutions and solution elements gained from analogies with other
domains
22. Abstract Patterns from combinations and analogies to try
23. Partial Solution Index--
separate helpful from unhelpful patterns among solution elements
24. Specify What Part of Each Pattern Works
and does not work
25. Find Invariants Among Working Patterns
as your overall solution
The fifth column is where creators learn from accumulated con-
figurations of partial solution components. As such attempted
compositions of solution components are tried, patterns among
them are noticed. An index built of what works and does not
work among such patterns results in detecting attributes of even-
tual solution to the overall problem. Insights, the big ones, come
in the midst of conscious or unconscious recognition of patterns
among tried compositions of partial solution components.
The Insight Model of Creativity

Managing Minds: Calculative & Associative
Accumulation
Alternation Frame Invention Direction Exhausting
Distinction End of the Road
Indexing
Accumulation Accumulation Accumulation Accumulation

Alternation
Distinction
Indexing
Alternation
Distinction
Indexing
Alternation
Distinction
Indexing
Alternation
Distinction
Indexing
Insight
Straying Direction
Straying Direction
Straying Direction
Event
Straying Direction
Exhausting Exhausting Exhausting Exhausting

End of the Road End of the Road End of the Road End of the Road
The Insight Process: Vertical and Horizontal Dimensions
PENETRATING CULTURES IS AN
INSIGHT PROCESS
1. alternating engagement with
detachment
2. applied to ever more abstract
models of reality
3. trying all you know till in despair
because none of it works
4. at that point of despairing in all
you now are and know a door opens
5. collecting try after try, failure
after failure till despair
6. lovingly studying each failure
7. indexing your failures till patterns
among them begin to specify more
and more what any eventual
solution must be like, INVERSELY
8. THE DESPAIR DOORWAY---despair
opens a door
9. you stop loving parts of you enough
(deep unconscious, that is, cultural
parts) for them to CHANGE
10. THE INSIGHT AVALANCHE--some
slight butterfly wing flap changes
everything--the whole system
changes or is seen differently
11. Every prior try, failure, approach
suddenly explained by ONE totally
new idea!
A RECURSIVE PROCESS--
INSIGHTS WITHIN INSIGHTS
l. PENETRATING A CULTURE NEW TO YOU IS AN INSIGHT

Stages of Penetrating Any Culture
Speed of relation typical

going through dominant to what is errors NEW
the nine
stages can
vary but not
response otherness essential POWERS
the order of via
stages gone
through liberations
Knowing all is dif- my other- doing noth- missing what is freed from own
ferent ness is ing is learn- the same tribal ways,
advantage ing neuroses
typical
error: all is the my other- learning is missing what is freed from
knowing same ness is dis- doing different romantic indis-
more than advantage criminate wor-
you know ship of other
ways
I do not my other- learning is missing what you freed from
know ness is unlearning actually know attempting too
neutral fast too easy
answers
Doing getting otherness essence is success on the freed from tour-
serious is a tool unimportant margins, missing ism to pene-
success in the trate beneath
typical
center surfaces
error:
doing more fighting for otherness essence is missing side- freed from
than you mastery is con- victory on effects of exist- impactless mar-
realize you quered any terms ing results ginality
are doing mastery is otherness essence main effects for freed from hid-
impossible is uncon- defeats me you not main ing bad side-
querable effects for them; effects of clum-
missing main sily done deeds
effects
Being partial otherness willing to be social reception freed from oth-
under- is mun- ordinary mistaken for erness as a main
standing dane impacting the resistance or
typical
other’s system obstacle
error:
being more partial the other is enjoying the wrong limits freed from
than you capability familiar limits enjoyed; avenues grandiose pene-
really are of success missed tration goals
in the situa- contribu- familiar- loyalty hap- deciding when to freed to master
tion tory oppor- ity is other pily split contribute to parts of the
tunity among two which side sty- other not all.
ways mies action
PROCESS-----therefore, WORKING IN SEVERAL CULTURES

EQUALS PRACTICING INSIGHT EQUALS PREP FOR CREAT-
ING LATER ON
STAGES OF PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT

Modified from Robert Kegan’s In Over Our Heads, Harvard Univ. Press, 1994.
Name/Objects Cans/Persons Cannots/Self
The SELF DEVELOPMENT ALGORITHM--

Learn to “Have” what you fomerly “Were”
Object perma- Can recognize objects and persons Cannot distinguish own perception
nence of inde- exist independently of our own of object from actual properties of
pendent sensing of them; can distinguish the object; cannot do cause-effect
elements inner sensation from outer stimulus reasoning; cannot recognize that
other persons have their own pur-
poses independently of ourselves;
I have nothing. cannot see oneself as having
impulses that one can control or
manage
I am objects.
Perceptions Demanding need fulfillment Transient Emotional States
Within Category Unites plural data in the actual Cannot experience “the future” co-
Thinking under one category; can do cause- present with “the present”, that is
effect reasoning; can construct own implicit as consequences of present
point of view and see others have actions; Cannot subordinate current
I have objects; different point of view; can regu- category to another for same data
late own impulses, needs, goals; or a possible category that is other,
can delay gratification hence, has no ability to create long
I am my needs range plans, patterns, or generali-
zations; cannot reason abstractly or
form hypotheses; cannot take own
point of view and other’s point of
view simultaneously; cannot con-
struct obligations and expectations
to maintain mutual interpersonal
relations; cannot internally coordi-
nate more than one point of view or
need; cannot distinguish one’s
needs from oneself; cannot self
appreciate “ I have low self
esteem”.
Cause-effect Transactional reciprocity Enduring Dispositions: Needs, pref-
erences

Cross- Categories Can reason abstractly, can reason Cannot systematically produce all
Thinking [Tradi- about reasoning; can experience possible relations; systematically
tionalism] the future as co-present with the isolate variables to test hypotheses;
present--implicit in what ones com- cannot construct generalized sys-
mits to in the present; can create tem regulating interpersonal rela-
hypotheses and test them; can form tionships; cannot organize own
negative classes; can form personal states or internal phenomena into
I have needs;
ideals; can be aware of shared feel- systematic whole; cannot distin-
ings and expectations that take guish self from one’s relationships
I am my values, I precedence over own feelings and (cannot see self as author of rela-
am my relations expectations; can internalize tions).
another’s point of view; can empa-
thize on internal not transactive
level; responsive to socialization
without being responsible for it
Abstractions: ide- Mutuality: can internalize another’s Inner States: self consciousness
als, values, gen- point of view
eralization,
hypotheses
System-Complex Can be free from any ideas or val- cannot establish two different
Thinking [Mod- ues in principle; is author of own power positions within one relation-
ernism] values and manager of own rela- ship; cannot own their own work;
tionships; can create relation cannot detect how the institutional
I have values and between independent value-gener- settings I am in subtly control my
relations; ators rather than by sharing values; values and life outcomes, limiting
I am my commit- have separate behaviors of others my autonomy
ments; I am my causing my feeling so they are
loyalties; others responsible for behaviors but I am
concerns are my responsible for feelings I get from
their behaviors, not them; others
concerns
are not responsible for how I feel
Ideology as The- Regulate relationships and multiple Self authorship: identity, auton-
ory of Relation- roles; maintaining boundaries and omy, self regulation; a self indepen-
ships: organize, setting limits in relationships dent of duties, roles, and relations
evaluate, and (having duties not being them)
create ideals
and values

Trans-System Can be free of any system of values As yet unknown. This stage proba-
Thinking [post or ideology; can unravel any subtle bly exists only because human life-
modernism] system of values in institutional set- span have extended from 50 to 75
tings; can detect how power under- years of age in the last 50 years.
I have theories lies innocuous seeming hierarchies
and systems, and procedures around me; can
commitments and build relations between wholly
loyalties incompatible systems and cultures
I am refusal of
mystifying some
one system or
ideology
Procedures for Negotiating the provisional erecting Self whose construction is relativ-
De-constructing of boundaries and limits in new ized: my whole self is in need of
ideologies and types of relationships between re-invention to relate to selves of
systems incompatible systems other cultures and genders; recog-
nize possibility of borrowing styles
across gender and culture gaps
without unwitting participation in
power sources hidden behind gen-
der and culture behaviors;
64 Dynamics of Creation Power (from the Social

Revolution Process--Arendt, May, Fiske)
death sen- STUBBORN REAL- 217. Mind as Repeated Labor; repeated blocking or
ITY failure; drawing five jacks
tence
Limitless FAILURE OF 218. Inevitability of Despair; exhaustion of all you do and
ENTIRE SELF know; quicksand, every move sinks me deeper
Inadequacy
DESPAIR I AM MY ENEMY 219. Letting Go of Self and World; something fundamen-
tal in who you are or what the world is, is at fault; house
of mirrors
THIS LIFE IS 220. Letting Go of All Provisos and Excuses; utter despair
OVER at continuing, having a life, as at present; caught in the
headlights
last straw AT LIMIT OF TOL- 221. Forced to Change; saturation; end of the road
Stopping Existence Mortality
ERANCE;
Absurd BEYOND TOLER- 222. Forced to Radical Totalizing Change; super satura-
Turning
Discovering Liberty
ANCE; tion; not even close, miss by a mile

Point COLLAPSE OF 223. Anihilation of All Partial Responses; tipping point
HOMELESS THE OLD SELF; releases system-wide avalanches in me; the butterfly
flaps one wing
COMMIT TO 224. Nothingness Embraced as Better; absolute end of
UNKNOWN; road of existing system and you; Alice alls through the
rabbit hole into another world
act of rebel- HAVING SHEER 225. Standing Against; the act of courage of saying
EXISTENCE “no”; choosingmy destiny, so this is my battleground
lion
Inventing DEFINING 226. Forcing Response, burned bridges, a bulls eye
MYSELF on my forehead
Your Self
THE BREAK WANTING CHAL- 227. Forcing Death of Old Ways; refused compro-
LENGE mises and threats; the rat rejects its cheese
WANTING VIC- 228. Meeting the Onslaught; start of war of libera-
TORY tion; they just don’t get the point
entry to no NECESSITHY FOR 229. Practically Impractical; utter loneliness; the
ME road never before taken
man’s land
Impossible UNSEEABLE VIC- 230. The Optimism of Hopelessness; hopeless odds;
TORY the outrageous is my normalcy
Task
UNCER- FIGHTING ALL 231. Confirmationlessness; the whole world is my
enemy; with friends like you who needs enemies
TAINTY FINDING 232. Plural Uniqueness; discovery of other liberated
ANOTHER LIBER- ones; utterly alone together, simultaneous discovery
ATED ONE
emergence TOUGH TOGETH- 233. Saved by Dire Threat; fighting for survival
ERNESS together; eleven fingers in the dike
of col-
leagues VISION BEYOND 234. Unencumbered Actions; imagining alternative
TOUGHNESS AND worlds and institutions together; living fantasy
Wealth of THE PAST
the Not Yet BEYOND 235. Rethinking All; refusal of past inside selves in
SURVIVAL EXCUSES own operatons; reflective garbage disposal
COMMUNITY POSESSING ONLY 236. Living in Visions; making and keeping promises
HONOR to each others; building houses with words
emergence LIVING SHEER237. Unencumbered Actions; novel intents and
EXPERIMENT means attempted; bricolage
of novelty
From Try- SURVIVING 238. Handling Essentials with Innovations; focus
EXPERIMENTALLY from survival struggles; a boat made of balloons
ing to Trying
MICRO SURPRISED BY239. Insights as Doors Not Contents; emergence of
NOVELTY solutions better than imagined or planned ones; my
INSTITU- ideas are birth leavings of the real ideas
TION SEPARATING 240. Perceiving Emergents; struggle to see and pre-
DEVELOP- NOVELTY FROM serve what emerges; in this haystack there is a nee-
Spawing Surprise Natality
MENT CHAFF dle somewhere I believe

emegence CAPTIVATED BY 241. Investing All Self, Time, Past; labor to create
Obeying Freedom
POSSIBILITY OF really new vision and realize it; sweating inventions

of power NEW NOVELTY
from noth- FASHIONING THE 242. Projecting New Designs; one new niche
ing NEW NOVELTY deserves/requires another; forced into more innova-
The Promise ECOLOGICALLY tion than planned; this innovation has a hole there
Land requiring that innovation; fashioning and plugging
PROMISE holes in being
POWER ENACTING THE 243. Launch Initiatives Handle Consequences; risk-
NEW NOVELTY filled action to realize novelty; pulling bottom cards
form a house of cards
SURPRISED BY 244. Power from Honor; emergence of new power
POWER beyond planned or envisioned powers; the story
retelling game done with inventions--our process is
better than our intended result so let’s institutional-
ize that
emergence ESCAPE FROM 245. Settling for Unsettledness; abandonment of
LIFESTYLES personal lifestyle goals; a cityscape made of tight-
of public
forms of ropes
happiness RELEASED FROM 246. Happily Unhappy; immolation of daily happi-
PRIVATE HAPPI- nesses; work as one long party; my old self and life
Completely NESS and happinesses were but hobbies, these new ones
Expended are real
Life “flow” THESE BEGIN- 247. Victory Realized; realization that colleague
PIONEER NINGS ARE END- interactions already are your new envirioned world;
HAPPINESS INGS
the hut is really a castle
SURPRISED BY 248. Beyond All Dreams; sudden emergence of a
HAPPINESS new public form of happiness; if I were to live for a
1000 years....; I am doing daily what others only
dream about or read about in books
drama “see AGAINST ALL 249. David versus Goliath; the unfair fight; root for
ODDS the underdog
what is hap-
pening RADICAL IMPRO- 250. All Responses Inventions; the unimagined tac-
VISATION tics; unheard of acts applied at unheard of places
here”
Whistle SURPRISED BY 251. Resistance Becomes Conquest; the miracle of
VICTORY victories; the slammed door becomes archway into a
Points new world
Found ENTIRE OLD WAY 252. Loyality Switchby Bystander Masses; hints of
GLOBAL VIS- UNDERMINED entire systems crumbling; one pillar pulled and the
IBILITY entire ediface tumbles
representa- I AM THIS 253. Transformational Identity; new personal,
FUTURE group, mankind identities discovered; continually
tiveness
“show the remaking “I” not inheriting it
way” I LIBERATE 254. Globalization of Local Acts; possibility for
EVERYONE everyone now changed by what we do here and now;
Global and Historical Dreams
The Most changing the definition of humanness

Individual
Local Globality Plurality
I LEAD THE 255. Global last Straw Generation; unity of mankind

Becomes WORLD experienced in shared vision of new future; eyes
the Most lighting up with hope worldwide
Social I AM THE WAY 256. Instructionless Instructing; my life becomes
GLOBAL teaching; the garbageman professor
POSSIBILITY
haven POSSIBILITY FOR 257. Demonstrating Possibility; exported hope; peo-
OTHERS ple everywhere seeing possibility where before
“send me
your hud- there was none
INVITING ALL 258. Novelty’s Generosity; limitless sympathy; see-
dled OTHERS ing all those others trapped in their selves and lives
masses” NEW RECRUITS 259. Training the World; immigration; volunteer
Replication army
Your Selves MY STORY COPI- 260. Inspiring Emulation; replicated liberation and
A WORLD OUSLY COPIED freedom; baby revolutions spawned everywhere
OF LIBERA-
TIONS
fame “the POWERLESS PAST 261. Status from Transformation Contribution;
audience of beyond the past; beyond past status hierarchies;
the unborn new monkeys, new bananas
and ances- DAILY TOTAL 262. Pioneering Normalcy; completely relevant
RELEVANCE daily lives; my privacy published
tors” AVATAR EXIST- 263. Emergent Divinity; living archetypes; olym-
Humanity’s ENCE pion destiny; the purpose of my life was this all
Drama along though I was probably never going to discover
HISTORICI- it in my old way of living
ZATION OF WRITING HIS- 264. I Write History; writing history ourselves, writ-
PERSONS TORY WITH ing with deeds not words; living ideas
DEEDS, SPEAK-
ING WITH ACTS
measuring INSTITUTIONAL 265. Ecosystems Disrupted; the new encounters all

MISFIT institutinal arrangements; the old church beside the
fragility of
cell phone store
the new RELATIONSHIPS 266. Emotions Disrupted; the new counters all per-
Baby Care MISFIT sonal habits; powers that be besides themselves
RISKS OF COOPERATION 267. Agreement Disrupted; the new is not well
BIRTH MISFIT defined enough to be consensed on; suddenly people
must stay awake during meetings
UNFATHOMED 268. Novelty as Door Not Content; the new as it
first appears may only be the tip of an iceberg of
further novelty; pull the string and a new sun
appears
countering COUNTER INSTI- 269. Breaking Inter-Organization Dependencies; the
TUTIONAL past assimilate the new institutionally; old things
eroding ASSIMILATION are easy to do
powers of COUNTER PER- 270. Breaking Inter-Personal Dependencies; the
the past SONAL PROCESS past assimilates the new procedurally; old things are
Distinguish- ASSIMILATION automatic
ing COUNTER INTER- 271. Breaking Misinterpretations; the past assimi-
ASSIMILA- PRETIVE ASSIMI- lates the new into plural diverse past frameworks of
LATION interpretation; “oh we used to that all the time”
TION
THREATS COUNTER 272. Breaking Mindlessness; the passage of time
OFFENSE FOR- causes forgetting of “last straw” violations, the
GETTING arrogance of past systems now overthrown, the
harm they did gets forgotten; “what was I revolting
Conserving Novelty Immortality
about”
acting to MONITOR ERO- 273. Erosion Watches; set up monitoring of specific
Defending the Future
SIONS erosion types; keeping watch on the sneaky past

protect the
new from COUNTER ERO- 274. Erosions Blocked; counter particular erosion
SIONS actions; blocking and tackling the past
the old INSTITUTIONAL- 275. New orthodoxy Establishment; institutionaliz-
Socializing IZING COUNTER- ing cntinual monitoring and countering of erosion
Transforma- ING forces; ossification vaccines
tion MONITORING 276. Inviting Liberation from Your Just Created Nov-
NEW PARA- INSTITUTIONAL- elty; monitoring of effectiveness of institutionaliz-
IZING ing of continual monitoring and countering; self
DIGM ESTAB-
LISHED criticism of self ossifications
acting to SEEING WITH 277. Persuing Other Possible Liberations; seeing
NEW EYES the entire past differently from new viewpoints;
revise the
poking society lookking for soft spots
old in light ANALOGOUS LIB- 278. Surveying Possible Liberations; finding analo-
of the new ERATIONS gous parts of the past needing analogous liberations;
Back to Zero investigating each possible such liberation spot;
OLD PARA- detecting revolution
DIGM SPOTTING OVER- 279. Self Editing of Strained Analogies; overween-
REPLACED WEENING ing analogous wanted changed found and debunked;
editing own ideas, finding borders of validity of own
recently installed innovations, subtracting enthu-
siams out to see novelties naked for what they are,
good and bad mixed
SEEKING ANALO- 280. Normalization of New Liberation Seeking; 0
.
GOUS LIBERA- institutionalizing continual search for further similar .
TIONS revisions of past; liquefying society; from solid to
1
.
gas, from gas to plasm

.
2
.
.
3
.
.
4
.
This book was written to educate you not please you or inflate your self regard. Beyond mere business mod- .
5
els of innovation and venal personal and national cultures of innovation. Let’s use our brains folks. .
.
6
.
.
TERESA OF AVILA’S STAGES OF MYSTICAL EXPERIENCE:

ST. TERESA, STAGE 1. The first, or "mental prayer", is that of devout
contemplation or concentration, the withdrawal of the soul from with-
out and especially the devout observance of the passion of Christ and
penitence (Autobiography 11.20).
ST. TERESA, STAGE 2. The second is the "prayer of quiet", in which at

least the human will is lost in that of God by virtue of a charismatic,
supernatural state given by God, while the other faculties, such as
memory, reason, and imagination, are not yet secure from worldly dis-
traction. While a partial distraction is due to outer performances such
as repetition of prayers and writing down spiritual things, yet the pre-
vailing state is one of quietude (Autobiography 14.1).
ST. TERESA, STAGE 3. The "devotion of union" is not only a supernatu-

ral but an essentially ecstatic state. Here there is also an absorption of
the reason in God, and only the memory and imagination are left to
ramble. This state is characterized by a blissful peace, a sweet slumber
of at least the higher soul faculties, or a conscious rapture in the love of
God.
ST. TERESA, STAGE 4. The fourth is the "devotion of ecstasy or rap-

ture," a passive state, in which the feeling of being in the body disap-
pears (2 Corinthians 12:2-3). Sense activity ceases; memory and
imagination are also absorbed in God or intoxicated. Body and spirit are
in the throes of a sweet, happy pain, alternating between a fearful fiery
glow, a complete impotence and unconsciousness, and a spell of stran-
gulation, sometimes by such an ecstatic flight that the body is literally
lifted into space .[citation needed] This after half an hour is followed by
a reactionary relaxation of a few hours in a swoon-like weakness,
attended by a negation of all the faculties in the union with God. The
subject awakens from this in tears; it is the climax of mystical experi-
ence, producing a trance. Indeed, she was said to have been observed
levitating during Mass on more than one occasion.[citat
GUYON & ST. JOHN, RAPID OSCILLATIONS STAGES OF MYSTICAL EXPE-

RIENCE.
Rapid oscillations between a joyous and a painful consciousness seem to
occur most often at the beginning of a new period of the Mystic Way:
between Purgation and Illumination, and again between Illumination
and the Dark Night: for these mental states are, as a rule, gradually not
abruptly established. Mystics call such oscillations thegGame of Love in
which God plays, as it were, hide and seek with the questing soul. I
have already quoted a characteristic instance from the life of Rulman
Merswin, 787 who passed the whole intervening period between his con-
version and entrance on the Dark Night, or school of suffering love in
such a state of disequilibrium. Thus too Madame Guyon, who has
described with much elaboration of detail her symptoms and sufferings
during the oncoming and duration of the Night? or, as she calls its
intensest period the Mystic Death? traces its beginning in short recur-
rent states of privation, or dullness of feeling, such as ascetic writers
call aridityh: in which the self loses all interest in and affection for
those divine realities which had previously filled its life. This privation
followed upon, or was the reaction from, an illuminated period of
extreme joy and security, in which, as she says, the presence of God
never left me for an instant. But how dear I paid for this time of happi-
ness! For this possession, which seemed to me entire and perfect? and
the more perfect the more it was secret, and foreign to the senses,
steadfast and exempt from change? was but the preparation for a total
deprivation, lasting many years, without any support or hope of its
return. As Madame Guyon never attempted to control her states, but
made a point of conforming to her own description of the resigned soul

as God’s weathercock, we have in her an unequalled opportunity of
study.
I endured, she says, long periods of privation, towards the end almost
continual: but still I had from time to time inflowings of Thy Divinity so
deep and intimate, so vivid and so penetrating, that it was easy for me
to judge that Thou wast but hidden from me and not lost. For although
during the times of privation it seemed to me that I had utterly lost
Thee, a certain deep support remained, though the soul knew it not:
and she only became aware of that support by her subsequent total
deprivation thereof. Every time that Thou didst return with more good-
ness and strength, Thou didst return also with greater splendour; so
that in a few hours Thou didst rebuild all the ruins of my unfaithfulness
and didst make good to me with profusion all my loss.
Here we have, from the psychological point of view, a perfect example

of the oscillations of consciousness on the threshold of a new state. The
old equilibrium, the old grouping round a centre characterized by plea-
sure-affirmation, has been lost; the new grouping round a centre char-
acterized by pain-negation is not yet established. Madame Guyon is
standing, or rather swinging, between two worlds, the helpless prey of
her own shifting and uncontrollable psychic and spiritual states. But
slowly the pendulum approaches its limit: the states of privation,
become almost continual, the reactions to illumination, become less. At
last they cease entirely, the new state is established, and the Dark Night
has really set in.
The theory here advanced that the Dark Nighth is, on its psychic side,
partly a condition of fatigue, partly a state of transition, is borne out by
the mental and moral disorder which seems, in many subjects, to be its
dominant character. When they are in it everything seems to go wrongh
with them. They are tormented by evil thoughts and abrupt tempta-
tions, lose grasp not only of their spiritual but also of their worldly
affairs. Thus Lucie-Christine says: Often during my great temptations to
sadness I am plunged in such spiritual darkness that I think myself
utterly lost in falsehood and illusion; deceiving both myself and others.
This temptation is the most terrible of all. The health of those passing
through this phase often suffers, they become godd and their friends
forsake them; their intellectual life is at a low ebb. In their own words
trials of every kind, exterior and interior crosses, abound.
Now trials, taken en bloc , mean a disharmony between the self and the
world with which it has to deal. Nothing is a trial when we are able to
cope with it efficiently. Things try us when we are not adequate to
them: when they are abnormally hard or we abnormally weak. This
aspect of the matter becomes prominent when we look further into the
history of Madame Guyonfs experiences. Thanks to the unctuous and
detailed manner in which she has analysed her spiritual griefs, this part
of her autobiography is a psychological document of unique importance
for the study of the Dark Nighth as it appears in a devout but somewhat
self-occupied soul.
As her consciousness of God was gradually extinguished, a mental and

moral chaos seems to have invaded Madame Guyon and accompanied
the more spiritual miseries of her state. So soon as I perceived the hap-
piness of any state, or its beauty, or the necessity of a virtue, it seemed
to me that I fell incessantly into the contrary vice: as if this perception,
which though very rapid was always accompanied by love, were only
given to me that I might experience its opposite. I was given an intense
perception of the purity of God; and so far as my feelings went, I myself
became more and more impure: for in reality this state is very purify-
ing, but I was far from understanding this. . . . My imagination was in a

state of appalling confusion, and gave me no rest. I could not speak of
Thee, oh my God, for I became utterly stupid; nor could I even grasp
what was said when I heard Thee spoken of. . . . I found myself hard
towards God, insensible to His mercies; I could not perceive any good
thing that I had done in my whole life. The good appeared to me evil;
and that which is terrible it seemed to me that this state must last for
ever.
OTHER STAGE MODELS OF MYSTICAL EXPERIENCE:

In her book, Mysticism, EU distills from the writings and experiences of
Western mystics what she considers to be the characteristic stages or
experiences that mark the progress of the mystic.
AWAKENING: the first step toward the mystic goal in which a person
awakens to the existence of a divine order or reality. "This experience,
usually abrupt and well-marked, is accompanied by intense feelings of
joy and exhaltation." (p. 169) Psychologically, this awakening of tran-
scendental consciousness is a form of conversion.
PURGATION: This first phase of awakening soon shades into the second ?
purgation. The mystic increasingly realizes his or her imperfection and
finiteness in contrast to the sacred and attempts by means of discipline
and or mortification to eliminate all that stands in the way of coming
into deeper contact with the transcendent. "The first thing that the self
observes when it turns back upon itself in that awful moment of lucidity
[of awakening] is the horrible contrast between its clouded contours
and the pure sharp radiance of the Real; between its muddled faulty
life, its perverse self-centered drifting, and [the clarity of the transcen-
dent]." (p.200)
ILLUMINATION: the pain and effort of purgation open before long upon
the third phase of mystic life -- illumination. Illumination results from
having purged oneself of attachments to the things of the senses and
having substituted for them an attachment to the ttranscendent. It is
"a state which includes in itself many of the stages of contemplation,
visions and adventures of the soul described in " the writings of the
great mystics. But deep as its joys may be, illumination is not finally
true union with the absolute, and Underhill warns of its dangers: "In
persons opf feeble or diffuse intelligencecand above all in victims of
self-regarding spirituality, this deep absorption in the sense of Divine
Reality may easily degenerate into a monoideism. Then the eshady sidef
of Illumination, a selfish preoccupation with transcendental joys, the
espiritual gluttonyf condemned by St. John of the Cross, comes out. (p.
246)"
AWAKENING, PURGATION and ILLUMINATION form the "first mystic life"

and many mystics never go beyond it. (Many people not usually consid-
ered "mystics" have shared to some extent at least the experience of
the Illuminated state.)
THE DARK NIGHT OF THE SOUL: In the strongest mystics, Illumination

gives way to what St. John of the Cross called "the dark night of the
soul." This fourth phase of mystic development is the final, deepest and
most radical purgation the mystic experiences in his movement into the
divine. The heart and mind are arid; no longer does the mystic experi-
ence the joys (the mere pleasures) of Illumination. The task now is to
learn to "dissociate the personal satisfaction of mystical vision from the
reality of mystical life." (p. 170) In other words, the mystic must over-
come all attachment to self and ego (to selfish ego) in order to merge
with the great One in, under, behind and through all things. To do this,
the mystic must finally give up the greatest good he or she has ever
known ? the powerful attachment to the transcendent pleasures and

visions of Illumination. Giving them up, all things seem at first to have
become ashes ? the Divine seems to have fled.
UNION: But passing through the dark night, the mystic enters at last into
Union, the fifth and last phase of mystic expansion into the transcen-
dent. Union is essentially ineffable. In it, one no longer merely per-
ceives and enjoys the transcendent (as with Illumination) but becomes
one with it.
THE INSIGHT PROCESS AS FOUND IN 12 DIVERSE REALMS OF WORK AND LIFE

THE INSIGHT PROCESS
As the fundamental “child scientist”-like investigative process by which we learn the world
alternate engage with detach applied to ever more abstract representations
exhaust existing frames, invent new frames, specify where/how they fail
collect & index failures till despair at solving as who you now are (the Despair
Doorway) reverse indexed failures to specify ever more clearly what eventual
solution must be/do
MAKING CREATIV- we engage then detach from a challenge/problem, engaging/detach-
THE ITY ing over more and more abstract representations of the situation,
WORLD
NEW trying/exhausting all our existing ways and frameworks, collecting
and indexing what works and does not work, till failures accumulate
so much we despair of ever solving as how we now think and who we
now are, sudden reversal of what failed reveals substantial spec of
what eventual solution is, suddenly solution appears.
MAKING PERFOR- self as both violin and violinist--using too little of self, using too
PER- MANCE much of self, refining what of self is used, not used, repeating per-
SONS
& formance so that each performance is actually a new creation in use
PEOPLE of self as violin violinist terms
PRAYER look at self from cosmic whole viewpoint as outside-of-self (with its
flaws) way to change self
SELF change what we used to “BE” so we have “HAVE” it instead--the
DEVELOP- Despair Doorway: only when we fail to attain our fondest goals do
MENT
we loosen our habitual love of self enough to change parts of us

THE INSIGHT PROCESS
solution must be/do
MAKING ZEN 1) give up the outside-in delusion of proper sitting 2) when you have
SOCIET- MEDITA- the strong motivation to escape from ego, locale, self, the limita-
IES TION
tions your one biologic life has placed on you 3) watch own mind at
work undistracted by your surroundings, by your brain’s social-ver-
bal models (count breaths in your mind to shut down this verbal
machinery), and undistracted by your from-childhood feeling that
your self is somewhere right behind your eyes (what “counts”
breaths, when you notice, is not behind eyes but at base of spine) 4)
observe your mind at work for however long you can--do not judge
merely observe 5) at some point, undeterminable, you will mentally
notice your own mind does nothing but generate worries--ignore this
and get past it--do not react to it--mental observations are not
enough 6) at another later point, for most people, you will despair
at ever being happy in any way while following every minute of your
life your own mind’s dictates--an immense misery at being trapped
inside your own worry--generator mind will overwhelm you 7) SOME-
TIMES at the moment of depair MOKSHA comes--complete liberation
from self, local, viewpoint behind eyes--this comes as instant
immense compassion for all beings around you at that very instant
torturing themselves with ego and locale and being separate, also an
instant dropping of separation--that, over there, is you and you are
that object over there, also simultaneous noticing of immensely pre-
cise percepts (a brain cortext indexes falls away from actual RAW
file experiences into you senses). 8) though the ecstasy will fall
away leaving you like a shipwrecked sailor on the usual earthly ego
shore, the necessity, respect for, and power of the entire world and
of your entire self-ego will be GONE, making return to non-self and
the ALL quick and less effortful the more you practice shutting down
obedience to your ego-mind and its torturing efforts to make a sepa-
rated you all the time. 9) repeated pratice of 8) will result, gradu-
ally, and not slowly, with spotting cues all over your environment,
activities, and relationships that throw you into separation and ego
consciousness--you learn to spot, and eridicate the power of these
cues and substitute cues toward non-separation and non-ego being
in the world.
CULTURE notice embrace positives till overwhelmed by negatives, then refine
PENETRA- distinctions and re-embrace
TION
SOCIAL engage till a last straw ruins any hope of existing in present arrange-
REVOLU- ments, throwing you into “no man’s land” where meet other liber-
TION
ated ones to together invent the utterly new in history

THE INSIGHT PROCESS
solution must be/do
MAKING MYSTICAL awakening, purgation, illumination; rapid oscillations between joy-
INNER EXPERI- ous union and dark night of abandonment, loss, & despair
EXPERI- ENCE
ENCE
& MORAL pre-convention (carrot stick rules), egocentric judging (good = helps
MODELS DEVELOP- me), obedience (avoid punish = good even if do not like personally),
MENT
instrumentalist (fair reciprocal market exchanges of good = what-
ever works for self and others), conventional status (whatever raises
my repute among all others = good, and good for me), interpersonal
liking (what pleases others = I am good; good intentions = I am good,
niceness = I am good), law and order (good = doing duty, pleasing
authorities), principled autonomy (me following and improving my
model of goodness = good), rights and due process (goodness = my
model is relative to what my society learned thru history = my model
is relative), responsible to improve the world and its models of right-
ness and due process (goodness = finding flaws in models, my own
and others, and implementing improvements in them.
COLLEGE ME UBERALLES--own views are righter than others’ views, REVATIV-
UNDER- IST FATALISM--everyone thinks they are right = everyone is wrong,
GRAD
DEVELOP- PROCEDURAL RELATIVISM--what is right and wrong depends on ori-
MENT gins of people plus situations they face, COMMITTED PROVISIONAL
RELATIVISM--everyone must act and react using their current models
but when new data comes they constantly upgrade to better beliefs

THE INSIGHT PROCESS
solution must be/do
MAKING RELATION- CO-DEPENDENCE, COUNTER-DEPENDENCE, IN-DEPENDENCE, INTER-
RELA- SHIP DEPENCENCE; similar attraction, similar values/views, similar
TIONS DEVELOP-
BE- MENT needs, similar relation mis-managements, similar relationship chal-
TWEEN lenges and development dreams; similarities noticed, comfort inter-
PEOPLE acting and being together, mutual self disclosure exchanges, de-
escalation of differences-fights-failings, empathetic view of differ-
ences, complementary needs (we fit), others view us as well work-
ing single entity-identity; satisfied with our mutual awareness,
satisfied with experienced outcomes of being together, satisfied
with overall benefits of having/handling our disagreements and dif-
ferences, satisfied with how others see us as a unit and our “unit”
gets us treated and seen in society.
FRIEND- CO-DEPENDENCE, COUNTER-DEPENDENCE, IN-DEPENDENCE, INTER-
SHIP DEPENCENCE; showing up compatible together somewhere, gradual
DEVELOP-
MENT expansipon of mutually compatible activities-sites-ways, positive
engagement of gradually disclosed aspects and needs (not just fun
things) of each other; room both found and made to shift how and
over what we engage and detach with each other; mutual victory
getting over rough patches including boredom caused withdrawal;
advancing new growth aspects of self can be inserted into the rela-
tionship as needed without keeping a static old self in it.
MARRIAGE CO-DEPENDENCE, COUNTER-DEPENDENCE, IN-DEPENDENCE, INTER-
DEVELOP- DEPENCENCE; infatuating discovery of sex, intimacy, togetherness
MENT
intensity; friendship remains after 18 month point of sexual inten-
sity decline; multi-dimensional compatibility develops (conversa-
tional, sexual, enable each others life dreams), penetration of the
other culture that each other is and represents, evolution together
of less costly/emotionally-hurtful ways of disagreeing and going after
change in each other; subserving self to the relationship not to the
other person; acceptance of vulnerabilithy to all the joys and harms
of life when embrace relating to another person; together leaving a
legacy to those not yet born beyond current era criteria-success-
fads-monies
SOME MORE DYNAMICS OF INSIGHT PROCESSES. There are two related aspects not men-
tioned directly above. One is the non-linear systems effects of populations of things inter-
acting, in minds, and in the world, with creative, innovators tuning those interactions by
adjusting the degree of connectedness in the populations, degree of diversity in them, and
the degree of distribution of various kinds of authority to initiate throughout them. The
RESULT of this tuning of populations of interacting things is, at special unpredictable times,
the sudden emergence of wonderful order and pattern that no one entity in the population
intended, planned, or devised. Simulations, for example, of hunter gathers software agents
interacting over millions of years, produces invention of currency, banks, loans, and interest
rates, without anything in the software having a mind and being capable of what you and I
call “invention”. This means new institutions in human history can get “invented” without
any particular inventor human being directly involved--they may emerge from myriad popu-
lation interactions. The third aspect is called, commonly, the PUNCH-LINE effect--the sud-
den appearance of insights after much failure and wayward lack of progress. Just the way a
punch line in humor shifts audience minds from one framework to an entirely different one,
producing laughter (sexual noises--push, deeper, more, harder, faster--from behind a hotel
door as new customers walk by so they stop and listen in, slipping and pushing open a door,
where, what they thought was sexual turns out to be a man and woman jumping up and
down on a large over-stuffed suitcase). Furthermore, another non-linear system dynamics in
insight processes is the recursive embedding of smaller insight processes within larger ones
(the first model of insight above had sub-insights like this emerging at the ends of all rows
and of all columns). This gives up the following non-linear components of insight processes:
POPULATIONS INTERACTING IN MINDS populations of

things interacting within minds: ideas, failed solu-
tion attempts, partial solutions, solution ideas by
analogy from other domains, untried frames, new
frame inventions, causes of try failure, indexing of
failures, indexing of reasons for failure, indexing of
what is shared across partial solution parts that
work
POPULATIONS INTERACTING BETWEEN MINDS popula-
tions of things interacting between minds: cre-
ators, creative works, other domains
TUNING INTERACTIONS tuning of interaction within
such populations--adjust degree of: connectedness,
diversity, distribution of kinds of initiative taking by
population members
SUDDEN EMERGENTS sudden emergence of pattern
and order = insights
SUDDEN REFRAMINGS punch-line effect of such sud-
den emergents = what was seen in one or several
old frames suddenly seen in entirely new frame
FRACTALITY OF INSIGHT insights inside insights
inside insights--sub-insights within insights
PULSED SYSTEMS reject more and more connection
pushed by vendors, in favor of, a rhythm of connec-
tion with isolation, tuned till innovation emerges
(tuning this rhythm).
These can be added to the points below as things to manage, lead, adjust, strengthen, use in
innovation processes to move a team from ho-hum “for show” male hormone levels of inno-
vation to history and field changing levels. Therefore the above dynamics can be found in
the 12 diverse areas of THE INSIGHT PROCESS table above.
HOW DOES THE INSIGHT PROCESS PRODUCE HISTORY-CHANGING SCALE INNOVATIONS?
Japan has a TV program called Project X about the most impressive innovations done by Jap-
anese companies in the last 50 or so years. There are a lot of similarities across the innova-
tion cases presented.
1) ALTERNATION--periods of engagement, visibility, support alternating with peri-

ods of abandonment, disguised skunkworks minimal efforts to keep an idea
alive, scarfing resources from other budgets
2) INCREASES IN ABSTRACTION--the particulars around the idea when it first
appeared, get refined, handed off to other supporters from other firms and
professions, who view the same aspects from different viewpoints, making
the idea itself increasingly abstract while yet being increasingly particular
3) EXHAUSTING, INVENTING, TESTING, POST-MORTEM ANALYSIS OF FRAMES--as
innovation ideas get handed off from one era to another one firm to another,
one technology base to another, one form of the idea to another, people keep
applying different frameworks to it, testing them, finding them wanting, and
trying to come up with or invent better frameworks
4) INDEXING COLLECTED FAILURES--innovation projects most easily appear as
giant sequences of expensive demoralizing big failures, both to insiders and
to outsiders, but the insiders are kept going by an intense flame of a powerful
idea itself--so the “innovators” keep trying and keep failing, and study lov-
ingly their own failures, trying to fail less and less fundamentally with their
next tries--collecting so many failed tries of such diversity that what is left to
try becomes ever more clear and fundamental
5) THE DESPAIR POINT & DOORWAY--all the Project X show projects reached one
or more points of real despair, where the idea had no supporters at all work-
ing in it anywhere and everyone completely forgot about it, it appeared.
Strangely, in every case, it was just after such periods that fundamental
insights appeared--someone no even working on the idea, in some totally
other project and form of work, sees or finds or imagines something that res-
urrects the original, now dropped, idea
6) SOLUTION AS REVERSAL OF FAILURE INDEX--the form of the final successful
innovation idea comes from pruning away all the ideas in the past that were
tried and failed, seeing patterns in how they all failed, seeing what was never
yet tried--both of these getting narrower and more specific over time as mul-
tiple tries prune away the easy and unworkable ideas--till, suddenly, an
approach or idea no one personally wanted or imagined, solves everything--as
sudden appearance when all hope was lost and no one was working on the
project out of despair.
Now tellilng people the doorway to innovation is despair--so people go out and by putting
themselves into despair--hope to innovate--that will, of course, not work. A failure
sequence has to be accumulated, how each of its tries failed has to be noticed and indexed.
All existing ways and frameworks have to be tried and found wanting. Hard mental work
inventing frameworks no one now has or has ever imagined has to be done, and those new
frames tried, usually without success. No pride is available to keep people going--as to out-
siders, all those involved look like fools continually failing. So a certain toughness or nutty
courage to pursue the unlikely and impossible has to be there in some few people. Institu-
tional arrangements flux from supportive, to tolerant, to hostile, to unaware.
Let us say you are managing a team trying to come up with some great new technology,
device, system, effective care, or other innovation. What does the Insight Process of this
chapter suggest doing?
A. get the team to a point of super-engagement--trying all they know and can do
B. alternate that by getting the team to drop all, to take a break, to escape all
the effort, tries, contexts built up on the project
C. keep track of what the individuals and team model their problem as--watch
for increasing abstraction of what features they see the problem they face
having
D. get the team to try more diverse frameworks till all the frameworks they can
think of or find in reading, interviews, or on the web have failed
E. get the team inventing new frameworks around the problem no one of them
and no one in history has ever applied before--invention of new frameworks
often is essential in order to solve the really tough invention and innovation
problems
F. get the team lovingly investigating precisely how each try failed, why it failed,
what modifications in that try or other tries those failings suggest
G. observe for the despair point, when all in the team have done and tried all
that their current ways, views, brains can think of--when they and their
brains are absolutely empty of ways to go--do not avoid this point but observe
it appearing and dwell on it--letting negative emotion well up and get
expressed--you want personal statements of hopelessness to appear, you
want people to drop out, in despair
F. stay in touch with those in despair and the drop outs, in a background sort of
way, so you can spot and communicate to all, when a drop out, or a team in
despair, suddenly thinks of something none of them thought of trying before,
when hidden deep self change has occured due to despair and failure getting
people to un-love who they now are and how they now think and proceed.
G. re-constitute the team around these utterly new to all and to history ways to
go, new frames to try, new versions of the idea.
These steps are the Insight Process Model of Innovation.

THE INSIGHT PROCESS MODEL OF INNOVATION
implementation
questions
HOW DO YOU DO What goes on when teams super-engage is a social plasma gets cre-
THIS? ated, that strips ideas of their source, ego, and thereby ideas interact
faster and more freely. Similarly when team super-detach, they
depart from all the culture, habits, approaches they just developed
and used together--deliberately trying to de-rut, to feel, imagine,
think beyond all past stuff they used. What goes on when teams max-
imize the number of things they try and therefore fail at--well the first
benefit this brings is trying much more than fear of looking bad, or
fear of looking not smart would allow. The more a team tries, the
more they use up all the “good” ideas and approaches strored up in
minds of the team members--reaching the point where minds are truly
empty, blank, having no ways to go, forces new ways of thought,
generation of new ideas (this is a kind of hard work people avoid).
Similarly, for all the other Insight Process steps, each step works on
minds and emotions in ways that prepare for actual eruption of the
truly new in history--what has never been thought of or tried. This is
work of self overcoming, of self extinction, of stripping postures of
competent-looking and impressing-others off of team members and
the team as a whole. This is the door to the emotional work of inno-
vating.
WHAT ARE THE MAJOR It is easy to write words like--try till you have no ideas left at all--work
OBSTACLES YOU till the entire team is hopeless, in despair, dropping out. The words
ENCOUNTER?
are easy, but the situations they describe are horrible, not fun, costly,
emotional. It is like the Zen Meditation process above--you watch
your own mind tilll you fall into real despair of ever reaching any sort
of happiness while following that sort of worry-generating mind.
When you despair--suddenly--you find yourself being beyond and
behind your own mind--watching it, happily do its stupid pain-inducing
dance, no longer following its dictates. Innovating is an emotional
journey that all the business professors and textbooks ignore because
emotions are not male enough for them.
WHY DO MANY NEVER Males in general are always willing to settle for looking innovative
ATTEMPT IT? rather than being innovative. For them everything is for personal rank
improvement. This is the biggest reason that innovation fails--males
do not really intend it, they settle for looking it. To achieve innova-
tion you have to get beyond these hormonal monkey shenanigans that
absolutely fill all workplaces and organizations because they are zoos
filled with males. The next chapter deals with this as a short cut to
major innovations.
14. The Feminizations Model of Innovation

Brains are not what makes us intelligent. Anthropologists say the tools outside our brains
that ampifly slow, partial, biased, incomplete things in our brains are what differentiate us
from other animals the most--our tools outside our brains amplifying brain functions make us
smart.
Furthermore, brains are layered--compilations of periods of years and centuries with events
compiled into continued processes compiled into institutions and their structures compiled
into personal routines and habits compiled into mental talents and abilities compiled into
epigenitic codings as mythelated wrappings around DNA, compiled into DNA genes. This is
roughly experience coded into software coded into firmware coded into hardware--a transi-
tion of making repeated needed things more unconsciously, effortlessly, automatically,
quickly executed at a cost of loss of flexibility of doing and responding differently.
So when we read that male brains are hard wired for X and female brains for Y, Japanese
brains for A and American brains for B--we can consider BOTH optimized for operating in
their own limited biased partial neurotic nationalistic environments. American brains do
American standard things faster and easier and more blindly automically than Japanese do
American things. Conversely, Japanese brains do Japanese standard things faster and easier
and more blindly automatically than American brains do them. Each brain is optimized for
the particular limited neurotic culture it operates its life in.
So the differences in brain wiring:
1. make it efficient (and a prison hard to escape) to do

things of your own area in that areaa7s standard ways
2. make it hard to diverge from the ways of your own area
and do things contrary, new, different than standard
ways of operating there
3. can be reduced, amplified, countered by tools outside
brains enabling you to do things in other areas’ ways
even if not as automatically and unconsciously as you do
your own area’s ways
EXAMPLE: can I use a computer language optimized for
graphic processing to parse sentence grammar and
detect words and their meanings in speech? OF COURSE I
can but using such a language makes it more work (and
more error-filled) to do so than using a language
optimized for parsing sentence grammar would.
EXAMPLE: do my gender’s/nation’s/profession’s/social-
class’ brain hardwired ways represent how my gender/
etc. ancestors operated in limited environments or
represent a compensation for weaknesses in how other
genders/nations/etc around me operated that my
ancestors had to deal with? Female brain wiring comes
from centuries of domination by males = good at
everything males did not demand and notice and at
things compensating for what was ruled out for females
by male dictated limitations on females, or female brain
wiring comes from centuries of parallel development in
male and females of complementary ways and roles?
If males grew up in different environments than females, and therefore, also females than
males--independenly of each other--fine. Each brain ends up optimized for repeated opera-
tions needed in its differing environment of use. BUT if males beat the hell out of women,
traded them a sex tools, hid them away to grow fat in homes--as many tribal and middle east
societies do in the 21st century--then females did not grow up in an indepdently parallel dif-
fering environment but rather in an environment that males grossly forced on them and beat
them into conformance to. In that case, female brain wiring, is a learned, encoded, hard-
ware form of being beaten, traded as sex tools, and imprisoned in homes. It is perfectly
clear from primitive societies today around the world that the latter is the case--female
brains come to use hardwired to optimize the margins not ruled out for them by dictatorial
males throughout history.
Consider the Jews, in 1500+ years of Christian societies--where regular pograms killed them
off, forced migration, and laws forbid access to the “considered best at the time” profes-
sions. The Jews drifted to occupations allowed them on the margins--trade, finance, textual
study. Over centuries they excelled at precisely professions and activities everyone else in
Christian Europe avoided, shunned, denigrated. Given 1500+ years the entire upper class of
Europe ended up indebted to Jewish banks. The Christians denigrated their own margins
and low status occupations, till Jews good at that over-looked stuff, developed immense
power. God’s little revenge, one could say. Interestingly, in Japan circa 1800, the entire
Samurai class was indebted to lower status commerce people, for much the same reason--
commerce class kimonos being shabby gray on the outside, with luxurious gold and reds and
purples inside as the lining, to conform to laws forbidding luxurious colors on kimono out-
sides but not insides.
Are women doing the same? Why are not women, world-wide, dictating to men based on
brains in them good at precisely what men are avoiding, denigrating, shunning?
There is another side--the immense suffering men endure daily of lack of sex, controlled by
women, who demand social high rank and power to open their legs to a man (University of
British Columbia replicated research showing a straight rising line correlation between the
wealth-looking-ness of men and their “sexual appeal” to 150 women viewing the same men
entering a restaurant disguised in one of 3 ways--as poor, as middle class, and a rich). Men
suffer the female monopoly on sex and in response develop wealth and power to get it; exer-
cising control over women via the wealth and power they develop. The idea of mutual con-
sent eroded by the un-mutual suffering from desire in men and women (British replicated
research, now many years repeated, showing women given male levels of testeserone, com-
plain of a “bitter, painful sexual urgency that I would never want to live with”). Men given
male hormones reduced temporarily to female levels say “there is a certain comfort and
relaxation that makes me unproductive and not very worried about my unproductivity”
(these attitudes echoed in chemical castration programs for male sex offenders).
Till sexual drive suffering is equalized between the sexes, power differences will not be
equalized. Women may hate that fact but hatred does not constitute fact, truth, or ways
likely to ever succeed. Part of this is women, dominated by men for centuries, sexuallly
unable to act overtly (female modesty it was called), sexually suffering a 40 minute male
ejaculation program that ignored female orgasm potentials--females may have developed a
genetic reduction in sexual urgency given centuries of such treatment. Nikos Katzanzakis,
the Greek writer (his movie “Zorba the Greek”) won a Nobel prize, with the committee com-
menting “for the most accurate portrayal of male female relations in world litearature”. He
strangely wrote that women have sex with men out of a deep feeling of pity, and men praise
the beauty of aging women out of a deep feeling of pity--each gender gradually made aware
of the delusional desires of the other and the kindness of humoring those needs rather than
wishing them away. Do not ask the aging woman to go without a feeling of her own beauty;
do not ask a man for friendship before releasing him from his torture by sexual urgency--
instead, recognize these un-erase-able drives in each gender and take pity on them, act with
kindness to release women from torture by a need for beauty and men from torture by sex-
ual urgency. That was what the Nobel committee awarded his prize for--they wrote.
HENCE--women today and men today can deliberately install

extend mind tools, beyond their own brains, that
compensate for hard wired effortless automaticities of
their own brains--mitigating history-written-into-brain-
hardware biases and flaws and partialities and
weaknesses. THE RESULT--men who “have” and “wield”
their malenesses rather than blindly everywhere
automatically be them; women who “have” and “wield”
their feminities, rather than blindly everywhere
automatically be them; NOTE--this, formally, is the self
development process Prof. Kegan diagrammed earlier in
this book--changing being X into having X at each stage of
self development.
THE “ENTERING A FOREST OF ERECT PENISES” EXPERIENCE OF MODERN WORKFORCES.

The vast majority of contemporary workplaces consider themselves “professional” and
define as “acting professionally” male emotion and male ways of work. Female emotions
and way are “unprofessional” and ruled out, negatively sanctioned. For example males
occupying early minutes of every meeting with adolescent displays of self importance and
self praise, males backbiting and secretly undermining accomlishments of competing other
males at work--these activities are tolerated if not openly encouraged. Many a CEO has
publically written of wanting his VPs to not be too good to or nice to each other--”a healthy
contention and fight for dominance” keeps people on their toes. These male status, terri-
tory fights, strutting displays of self importance--behaviors and emotions are treated in com-
pany bylaws and norms “professional” behaviors. Females behaviors of showing emotion at
work, of establishing intimacy with customers or employees, are ruled “unprofessional” and
grounds for demotion or dismissal. The workplace, worldwide, is extremely male in all its
attitudes, norms, requirements, ways, aims, styles, values, routines, deeds, and much else.
Even the products produced by nearly all workplaces are extremely male. The work process
designs that produce them are extremely male. The way people are treated and organized
are extremely male. There is no greater uniformity at work than the complete absence of
female ways, views, values, deeds, talents in favor of male ones.
So let me be clear here--nearly all workplaces, worldwide, are extremely emotional places,
but because those constantly required emotions displayed are male, the leaders of those
workplaces, and the laws and rules made by those leaders, treat that stuff as “professional”
not as emotional ways and contents of work. Modern leaders are, nearly all, totally blind to
the enormous emotionality to thought and process, aim and strategy, product and organiza-
tion at work, and how that de-rationalizes work and leads, again and again, to disaster.
Disasters caused by this, tend to last decades--Euro-Disney for one example, General Motors,
bankrupt for the last 45 years as another (secret indirect bailouts replaced these days by
more overt bailouts).
A FEW TECHNOLOGY EXAMPLES.
My students, 20 some years ago, examine 100+ “re-engineering” projects comparing process
descriptors before re-engineering and after it. In all cases, every single case, the 80+% of
the descriptors shifted from male to female. Re-engineering was a technical male-ish way
to make work processes more feminine (see my old book Managing Complexity for the
details on this including quoted statements by the managers, engineers, and customers
involved).
NEARLY ALL CREATIONS, INNOVATIONS, GREAT DESIGNS

FEMINIZE SYSTEMS, WAYS, AND PRODUCTS OF WORK.
Below is a table of worldwide shifts in basic business practices now constituting a new com-
monsense. Technology vendors have been pushing cellular, smartphone, social media, arti-
ficial intelligence, cloud, web services technologies for decades now. When you examine
what each of these does to actual work processes, 80+% of changes move processes in femi-
nine directions--the below are male-looking ways to feminize work processes. What is
“feminization” of a work process?
64 Innovations that Managers Implemented in the 1990s

Workgroup Level Department & Organization Inter-organization
Process Level Level Level
Downsizing value engineer- outsourcing firm break up supplier qualifica-
ing tion
Just-in-Time open book man- process manage- horizontal man- supplier-company
agement ment agement co-location
Quality circles kaizen (continu- quality and pol- supply chain man-
ous improve- icy deployment agement
ment)
Cycle time A delta T workouts mass customiza- alliance manage-
tion ment
Self manage- visual manage- manage by sig- autonomous industrial district
ment ment nal and control workteams networks
points
Team man- fool proofing problem solving cross functional supplier-customer
agement teams teams co-design
Information workflow group- subsetted social SAP, ERP, horizon- cloud computing
integration ware media tal data systems
Re-engineer- assumption new materials for organizational multi-firm unit of
ing breaking work functions re-architecting competition
Procedural 360 degree eval- open door man- peer review of customer review of
justice uation agement manager deci- manager decisions
sions
Diversity culture sensitiza- multi-protocol management set multi-company
tion teaming switches career pathing
64 Innovations that Managers Implemented in the 1990s

Entrepreneur- workgroup design best practice intrapreneuring technoparks
ing competitions commercializa-
tion
Globalization workgroup proto- world product transnational regional trade
col repertoires sourcing operations investment blocks
Organiza- best practice benchmarking knowledge depo- project knowledge
tional learn- sharing sition layer depositories
ing
Systems gam- micro-worlds process simula- social info net- virtual business
ing gaming tions work simulations gaming
Virtualization virtual work- emailable soft- self-assembling just-in-time multi-
groups ware agents workforces firm project assem-
bly
Agile SWAT SWAT workgroup self emergent self emergent self emergent orga-
organization assembly process design organization nization alliance
assembly
Biosense Scientific meet- Tuning emergent Sociallly connec- Product and tech
Replacing ing management- innovations from tionist work- venture ecosystem
Mechanosense -all attendees departmental/ forces; mass niche dynamics
lead group process natural workforce crowd
assigned handling selection evolu- designings
of group chosen tion processes
agenda topics.
The diagram below summarizes a huge research literature on brain difference based (per-
haps) differences in average male female median behaviors. Males and females can be
treated as two different cultures and therefore like all cultures though median behaviors are
quite different, the two cultures’ populations greatly overlap for up to 28% of women on
average act more male-ly than average males and up to 33% of men on average act more
female-ly than average females. Such overlaps occur for each separately identifiable type
of behavior and attitude that we can observe, notice, care about, and/or measure. So we
can never say, while being strictly accurate--that males act X way and females act Y way.
We have to keep in mind provisos of:
each group is a DISTRIBUTION of ways not all acting at one

point’s way
the distributions OVERLAP so a significant percent of males
act more femininely than average females, and a
significant percent of females act more male-ly than
average males
there is such overlapping distributions FOR EVERY TRAIT/
ATTITUDE/BEHAVIOR of observable and of interest to us.
(see Your Door to Culture Power by RTGreene for a
comprehensive set of such provisos about handling
cultures).
THE HYPOTHESIS OF MALE-MIS-RULE--THE FUNDAMENTAL UN-INTELLIGENCE OF ANY

RULE/RULING BY ANY MALE. If you consider some history--the mass killing wars of Europe,
every 40 or so years for centuries, the current treatment of women in primitive, tribal, and
Middle East societies (including the so-called religiously “devout”)--along with examination
of all current world history books used in colleges and schools (where “great” men are nearly
all “men” and nearly all “mass killers”) the idea that “rule by males” does not work well, in
fact, that it is terribly dangerous, then and now--does not surprise and gets a lot of obvious
historic support.
Consider William James, brother of Henry, circa 1900, the leading psychologist in America at
the time (though at that time most competent psychologists and psychological research was
done in German graduate schools--American lacking any grad schools). He wrote in letters
about the healthy “cleansing of the dross from humanity by healthy regular wars”. Typical
male intelligence at work, many of us might say. Killing off millions who were underclass,
poorly educated, not wealthy, lacking novel writing skills and Harvard degrees, was, com-
monsense circa 1900. WELL NOT QUITE--for the Ascona community was rising in the hills of
Switzerland, with Herman Hesse, Isadora Duncan, Karl Gustav Jung, and others, in a free
love anti-war community opposing the build up to World War I and its actual conduct.
Ascona was a rare community quite feminine in its norms, ways, activities, and manage-
ment. Similarly, nightly shows and improvs in Paris at Le Chat Noire, where Picasso first
posted paintings outside of Spain--mocked the malenesses that led to mass killings in that
war, all led by esteemed high class “educated” “great” leaders and “men”. At some point
humanity has to consider the word “man” and “mass killer” more than coincidentally
related--at least a lot of current history books in schools and colleges might, as a first step,
stop called “great” anyone in history who killed more than 100,000 people. That would
make for interesting books---with virtually none of the names familiar to us and a lot of
female names here and there.
THE 2008/2009 GLOBAL FINANCE CRISIS. British researchers, but no American ones, wrote
huge studies showing a connection between super-male behaviors--on Wall Street, in the uni-
versities those traders graduated from and in the faculty selected by America’s top schools
of business to research and teach--and disaster. The total lack of feminine ways and norms
led to unchecked insanity inherent in male acting and thinking alone. The American press
never wrote this--only Britain. Similarly British TV for generations has been filled with com-
edies mocking bosses, capitalism, products, and worklife in businesses while America has
extremely few and far between such comedies---Americans are unable to laugh at business,
apparently having little in their lives other than money seeking, some observe.
All of History Mistaken: the Optimal Unit of Thought is Heterosexual

Pairs, not Lone Individuals Whether Male or Female
Male Heterosexual Female
Pair
Behavioral Brain Basis Balanced Behavioral Brain Basis
Trait Capability Trait
discrete focal hemispheres 1. general general all- hemispheres more the
capabilities more different survey plus brain same
deep focus mobilizatio
n
discrete more grey less 2. well connectedn more white less grey
capability not white connected deep ess not
connected- capabilities discrete
ness capabilities
extreme bias high associative 3. tolerant of more high associative
to unity/ cortext larger on ambiguity while tolerance cortext larger on right
coherence in left side of brain capable of for side of brain
higher ambiguous
thought forcing decisive realities in
action higher
thought
discrete focal process tasks 4. general general all- process tasks using
capabilities using less of brain survey plus brain more of brain and
and one side only deep focus mobilizatio both sides
n
reasonless emotion 5. can reason know emotion processing
emotions processing stays about emotions reasons for moves up from
in amygdala from or ignore them emotions amygdala to cortext
6 to 17 years = from 6 th 17 = can give
cannot give reasons for emotions
reasons for
emotions
more bigger size bigger 6. well more more dendrite
discrete number of connected deep interaction connections and glial
capabilities neurons capabilities among infrastructure
capabilities
sense/ layer of deep 7. recalls sense/ layer of deep limbic
remember limbic system dangers and all remember system emotion
dangers well alarm alert other extreme all emotions memory
memory well
emotions well
orients in slopes and spatial 8. orients well orients in word list and text
space well rotations better in space and language paragraph recall
social well better
relationships
fast inferior parietal 9. fast fast Broca and Wernicke
processing of lobule bigger = processing of processing areas larger = better
spatial math and space and social of language language and orgasmic
problems Einstein joy from language use
relations
(language)
abstract language 10. can abstract language processing
unity favored processing on left operate unity and on both sides of brain
over side of brain abstractly or ambiguous (orientals = both sides
ambiguous realities cuz kanji)
realities concretely as balanced
needed
masters stress increases 11. masterful masters stress reduces learning
dangers learning in dangerous peace
and in peaceful
situations
talent for system systems 12. sees talent for empathy systems
abstract situations concrete
spatial abstractly and emotive
representatio representat
ns concetely ions
drive for preoptic 13. drive to drive for suprachiasmatic

mating hypothalamus mate and to rhythm of nucleus of
behaviors larger = mating nurture mating hypothalamus larger =
behavior strong alternating circadian rhythm and
with reproduction system
nurture strong; spherical in
behaviors men, oval in females
can endure less pain sense = 14. sensitive cannot more pain sense =
war needs less to pain and able endure war needs twice as much
morphine to ignore it morphine
quick focus rapidly focus on 15. precise precise rapidly see fine details
salient item comprehensive comprehens
views and fast ive survey
focussed views
orientation navigate using 16. can orient orientation navitage using
without abstract in entirely with concrete landmarks
familiarity coordinate unknown and in familiarity
spaces
familiar
surrounds
Male Female Discourse Differences (behaviors only)

Input/Output talk for status 17. achieves Input/ talk for connection
both separation Output
from and unity
with others well
talk for exclusion 18. achieves talk for inclusion
both separation
from and unity
with others well
tell 19. transmits listen
and receives
info well
drive for 20. achieves drive to fit in
individual difference and
distinction similarity well
Emotion feeling as 21. can shun Emotion feeling as interesting

embarrasing or dwell on
feellings
mis-hearing as 22. sense mis-hearing as
status threat relation or relation threat
status threats
well
harshness as sign 23. likes harshness as sings of
of respect harshness and rejection
dislikes
harshness
backward 24. can forward reasoning
reasoning envision and
can
incrementally
improve
Purpose info (mind to 25. can engage Purpose relation (person to
mind talk) whole persons person talk)
or ideas alone
talk to solve 26. can fix talk for empathy
morale and
situations/
problems
exactitude 27. can be detail
precise and
detailed both
persevere to save 28. can persevere to save face
truth preserve truth
and social
relations both
Conflict independent 29. can lead Conflict dependent
and follow well
contest 30. can community
challenge and
support well
argumentative 31. can insist apologetic
and be
deferential as
needed
contradiction not 32. can clear contradiction
tolerated up confusions tolerated
and tolerate
them if needed
HOW DOES “FEMINIZING” THINGS, INNOVATE? First we have to take care of some concet-
ual house-cleaning. Feminizing of a system, product, organization can be done by anyone--it
is not a kind of leadership, and it can be done without anyone leading at all, or with anyone
at all leading, the old, the young, the neurotic, the male, the wimpy, the female. Feminiz-
ing a thing means shifting its descriptors toward the female side of the table above and away
from the male side--pure and simple--regardless of how this is achieved or who leads it.
Second, when people do something differently, they necessarily design it, perhaps easily,
perhaps requiring elaborate challenging design process work. At each step of design there is
a duality--aim for feminine ends/performances/configurations/ways-of-operating AND do
you next design step femininely. The former is always what we are talking about in this
chapter--shifting systems to more feminine ways, means, ends, results. The latter is an
optional way to perhaps achieve such ends, not an essential point for this chapter. This
chapter does not care how, or by what process you achieve more feminine versions of prod-
ucts, organizations, systems, and people.
However, at each individual step of design, you face a choice of “what would a more femi-
nine version of this component or trait look like and operate like--and do we want that, in
the end?”
CASE EXAMPLE--FIRST SALES VIA FEMININE BUSINESS CONFERENCE DESIGN. Ross Perot
was, among other not very nice things, one of the world’s greatest salespersons. He sold a
gullibe chairman of General Motors that GM needed to own its own satellite and computer
companies. GM thereafter bought Ross Perot’s computer system integration company, EDS,
for a high price (a few years later, having gotten no worth from the purchase GM sold it back
to Ross for a bigger fortune = Ross is a great salesperson!).
Though Ross was a great salesperson--the first two years of EDS being inside GM, no one sold
anything (approximately). Thousands of salesperson in EDS sold nothing to GM and newpa-
pers wrote big articles, nationwide about this. I made the first big sale other than Ross
Perot. Here is how I did it.
I was a beginning low lever programmer, hired to start up artificial intelligence program-
ming. But because no one sold anything I had no work to do. One day my boss gave me 4
newly graduated 22 year olds to “make clones of you”. So me and my 4 new young employ-
ees sat around a table, drinking beer and wondering what to do with our time. One guy said-
-why not solve the biggest problem of our company. That sounded good so we did a survey of
both GM managers and EDS managers, asking them what the biggest problem of EDS inside
GM was. Everyone agreed it was failure to sell due to a militarist self promotatory EDS male
culture that offended GM people as arrogant and ignorant (GM has more Phds than EDS had
total employees).
It was clear that everything about EDS was the problem, not some tactic or method or boss,
or budget or proejct--everything EDS felt, thought, and did was the problem. EDS was, in
toto, a failure culture. We had to reverse the traits of EDS totally, to define a new possible
solution culture. I have written this up in detail in several prior books.
So we defined that falure culture--male, militarist (EDS hired a lot of ex-military “take the
hill” style mangers), self promotatory, poorly educated and technically ignorant, dated data
processing ways and software experience without high tech exposure, used to selling to
other military guys in defense department sloppy multi-year projects with poor quality con-
trols. We reverse every element of that failure culture to get a solution culture which
naturally ended up being feminine--listen not talk, self denigrate not self inflate, ask for
help and advice, not give help and advice, get emotionally close to GM leader not stay male-
ly distant comparing rank, etc. Then we used that solution culture to design a sale event,
making the sale event embody our new solution culture.
1) a solution culture way of work (way of design)

2) a solution culture embodying endpoint of work (a feminine
event).
The conference we ended up with was strange = feminine:
a. only 1 EDS speaker, me, for first 3 minutes only

LISTEN NOT SPEAK
b. presentations by GM engineers to GM execs of
possible high tech software projects for current
year GM goals
PRAISE/HIGHLIGHT WISE CUSTOMER IDEAS
c. afternoon demos of 33 AI systems done by other
firms in or for other auto companies (with EDS
sales people at each demo table and ONLY taking
notes, never talking
GET ADVICE FROM CUSTOMER
ADMIT VALUE OF OTHER VENDORS
d. 500 page book of transcribed GM exec reactions to
all demos analyzed and published to top 2000 GM
managers of the host division of GM
LET ALL MAKE OWN DECISION WITH ALL DATA
e. 30 EDS managers and employees at the very end
(to trumpets) bowed in line, thanked GM for their
advice and attention, and each one in 15 seconds
mentioned something valuable they learned today
from GM people and comments.
RITUALIZE RESPECT AND GRATITUDE.
RESULT: FIRST SALE BY SOMEONE OTHER THAN C.E.O.
INITIATED BY EXECS RECEIVING THE 500 PAGE BOOK.
Not only did this result in the first large sale, something thousands of salespersons had not
been able in two years to do, but I was invited to lunch with Roger Smith, GM’s chairman,
then to lunch with Ross Perot. Ross later flew me to Arlington, Virginia personally, to work
for US government agencies on artificial intelligence applications. A female conference for-
mat got me promoted 16 levels within a year of hire--not bad.
Note there was no competition in our doing of this--because no EDS male could imagine
and want and implement a female style of conferencing. To others, the ineffective-with-
GM male way of thinking, feeling, doing was “natural” “how all of us operate” “how business
for eons had been conducted” “usual professional operating style”. That is was sick, neu-
rotic, and grossly offending EDS’ largest customer never seemed to get into their thick male
skulls. EDS managers--all of them--preferred failure to acting non-male-ly. THAT is the
problem. ultimately--preferring continual mass killings and failures to self change and
expansion of repertoires of thinking, feeling, and acting to include the female pole on the
32 dimensions of human doings in the table above.
NOTE that the above story is a story of an innovative form of conference producing an inno-
vative result--solution of an immense nationally-publicized-and-mocked company failing.
The impossible got done via an impossible process--acting femininely to create a female
style of conference--Artificial Intelligence Workshop Fairs (see my first book Turning the
Tables by McGraw Hill).
SO HOW DOES “FEMINIZING” THINGS, INNOVATE?
1. assume all aspects of a group cause its biggest failures or missed opportunities
2. characterize the ways of the group (its culture--use 64 dimensions of all cul-
tures, provided in the table below)
3. for each culture element found, specify which (possibly several) of the 32
male-female behavior differences in the table in this chapter, it embodies
4. reverse all culture elements
5. identify for each reversed culture element which of the 32 male-female differ-
ence dimensions it shifts toward the feminine, or towards the male.
6. use that resulting “solution” culture to define a new way of work and new
products of work.
Notice in the diagram below of 64 dimensions by which any two cultures may be dis-
tinguished, one fourth of all dimensions are “gender”--a 16 item short version of the
more complete 32 items already provided in a table above in this chapter. So this
chapter’s model of innovation holds that:
MOST FAILURES, DYSFUNCTIONS, WEAKNESSES, HARMS, AND FLAWS IN PRODUCTS,

PERSONS, SYSTEMS, WAYS OF THIS WORLD COME FROM EXCESS MALE-NESS
EONS OF MALES DESIGNING, RUNNING, CONTROLLING THINGS HAVE RESULTED IN

EXTREMELY HARMFUL TOLERANCE OF MALE WAYS THAT ARE MURDEROUSLY
HARMFUL, ACROSS CENTURIES, WITHOUT IMPROVEMENT.
Simply by trying out more feminine ways and traits of things, you have the chance for
history-shaking scale innovation. The blindness of existing males to the highly emo-
tional nature of how they work, installed as “professional” everywhere, means there
is little or no competition when you try out feminine forms of things.
64 DIMENSIONS OF EVERY CULTURE--

FOR CULTURE OF DEVICES, SYSTEMS, WAYS, MARKETS, USERS.
SOCIAL RANK hierarchy or make or encourage status differences or
egalitarian equality among users
PSYCHO- power from make users closer to each other or more
LOGY closeness or power distant in relationship terms
Hampden_ from distance
achieved or ascribed privilege pre-arranged roles/users or
Turner, rank high contribution ones
Hofstede, foreground item or require noticing foreground items or
Tropenaar background noticed background items to do work
Nisbet
s, Nisbet
GROUP individual or require/encourage individual work or
communitarian group-produced work
universalist or require/encourage visionary users or
particularist (vision exact/detailed users
vs. case details are
real)
inner or outer locus establish/confirm self as controlling or
of control situation as controlling
environment: make environments of work controllable
controllable or or uncontrollable
uncontrollable
TIME analysis or synthesis encourage making distinctions or
combining differences
serial or parallel encourage sequential work or working in
parallel
one chance or allow full easy recovery from errors or
several chance lives punish/ruin work with error
causation: plural establish things from single causes or
distributed or single from cumulations of causes
local
RELATION friends over favor right ideas or right relationships
the most
rightness or right
over friends
humans primary or centralize humans or centralize all living
equal to other life beings
right vs. right or encourage formulating ambiguous
right vs. wrong situations thoroughly or categorizing
situations int pre-set good and bad types
categories or interact entity to entity or person to
relationships Nisbet person
GENDER INPUT/ status or connection reward out-doing others or connecting

well to others
STYLE OUTPUT
exclusion or progress via more and more excluding or
Tannen, inclusion via more and more including
de tell or listen provide info for others or obtain info
from others
Beauvoir,
drive for individual: encourage users to look distinct from
Friedan, distinction or fitting others or fit in with others
Nisbet in Nisbet
EMOTION feelling as: respect and encourage expressing/using
feelings or hinder it
interesting or
embarrassing
mis-hearing as: make loneliness or feeling insulted the
relation or status result of response failures
threat
harshness as: make personal rejection or respect the
personal rejection or result of harsh reactions
sign of respect
backward reasoning extend aspects of present situation
or forward reasoning toward solutions needed or extend back
Nisbet from solutions needed to pre-solution
steps needed
PURPOSE info: mind to mind link thought to thought or person to
person
or relation: person
to person
talk to solve or talkuse interactions to solve or to
for empathy emotionally understand others’
viewpoints and situations
exactitude or detail require or encourage precision or
thorough coverage of details
preserve: save face favor being true at a cost of being hated
or save truth Nisbet or being loved at a cost of being untrue
CONFLICT independent or use interactions to make user more

independent or to make them more
dependent
dependent
contest or establish competition or victories among
community users or shared feeling and community
among them
argumentative or encourage argumentative/challenging
apologetic inputs or accomodating/apologetic ones
contradiction: use and produce contradictions or avoid
tolerated or not and fail when things contradict
tolerated Nisbet
EXISTEN- SITUATION MYSTERY: why treat users as expendible and work as

something? vital or treat works as expendible and
TIAL people or institutions
eternal users as vital
QUES- ARBITRARYNESS: why require and reward users for the group/
here, now? role they belong to or for the functions
TIONS ethnic group basis or
function basis they perform
Kukai, Lao
Tsu, EMPTINESS: where is invite users to construct the meaning of
meaning? their experiences and work or to find it
Sartre, found or made meaning
Kierkegaar RELATIVITY: what is believe/value users because of who they

true? are or because of what they do
d, Nisbet life/groups are
arrangements of: tasks or
people Nisbet
CHOICE FREEDOM: you can’t see make users free to play any role they want or
me free to pursue any goal they want
role = i.d. or intent = i.d.
LONELINESS: why love encourage users to love/depend on the
dies? roles others play or love the
love the role or love the
person personalities others have
INAUTHENTICITY: why pull users beyond current views, habits,
does posessing make me and goals or pull users more into current
object
adaptors or views, habits, goals
revolutionaries
RESPONSIBILITY: what/ require a different user persona in
who am I? different application situation or require
the self is: unitary across
situations or varies by the same user persona across all
situation Nisbet situations
IMPACT MORTALITY: must I die? pull users beyond living and earth or pull
death is most real or life users more into living and earth
is most real
NAUSEA: why engage punish or react badly most to users who fail
ugly life? to depend on and trust others or who fail to
flaw: ingratitude or
unfree go beyond others and their own selves
CONTINGENCY: why can I punish or react badly most to users who
not make my own story bother other users or who bother
don’t bother others or
self Nisbet themselves
FUTILITY: will it/I make a reward most users who conform to
difference?
preserve: peacefulness of tasks/others or who upset tasks/others
exteriors or fairness of
exteriors Nisbet
FLAW TRAGEDY: how could I have consequences users discover by

have known? surprise later or have opportunities
deny consequences or
deny possibilities users discover by surprise later
SIN: why I don’t do my invite blaming the interface/technology
own plans? for failure to reach goals or invite users
situation or self to blame
blaming themselves
NO ESCAPE: why is not produces results when individuals input/
choosing also choosing? act or when groups input/act
groups act or self acts
AUDIENCE: am I expose others to my deeds as a story of
heard?seen? possible value or expose me and other
life is a story of: my
experiences or the group users to the group’s deeds as a story of
experiences I play roles possible value
in Nisbet
COMMUN- WORK seniors: caring or encourage seniors to help juniors or to

competitive hinder them
ITY
work: pleasant end treat work as a pleasant end in life or as
Geetz, or unpleasant means an unpleasant means in life
Weisbord, results: from effort reward the most talent with good results
Greene, or talent or reward effort the most with good
results
Grunell,
work to feel good encourage people to work to appreciate
Todorov, about self or work to better them selves or to work to critique
Nisbet critique and improve and improve them selves
self Nisbet
SACRED gods: immanent or provide value and meaning from
transcendent immediate sources to immediate work
or from distant sources to distant work
results
primacy: life or sacrifice quality of work life for results
quality of life or sacrifice quality of results for quality
of work life
the world: is sacred treat all steps of work as valued and
or is fallen meaning-filled or treat all steps of work
as instrumental tools toward valued
goals
substance or object highlight what things are made of or
seen Nisbet highlight what things are made of
substances
CREATION drive to center or encourage people to leave how others
are or to more deeply embed themselves
drive to margins
in how others are
self indulgent reward extremes of thought or behavior
asceticism or or moderation of them
moderation
focus from single focus users on single efforts/directions
project or from or on plural simultaneous efforts/
parallel projects directions
choice: one pole or require choosing among polar opposites
other or blended or blending differences into a moderate
middle Nisbet middle
COMPLEX- gradual change or produce gradual improvements and

results or sudden large leap
avalanches
ITY improvements and results
homogeniety or reward/require greater diversity among
diversity users/a user or greater homogeneity
design or emergence produce results by step by step
designing or results that self emerge
from myriad interactions
world reality is: 64. require/reward keeping promises
stable or in flux more than changing them or require/
(contracts always reward changing promises more than
renegotiable) Nisbet keeping them

THE FEMINIZATIONS MODEL OF INNOVATION
the implementation
questions
HOW DO YOU DO THIS? 1) explore/imagine current ways/devices/systems made more feminine--how,
why to what benefit
2) diagnose current failings, flaws, harms--trace back to excess malenesses in
them, reverse those male-nesses, that is, feminize the items
3) measure degrees of maleness and femininity in devices, systems, etc. and
differentiate by upping maleness across some features and femininity across
others and observe what works best
4) measure the degrees of maleness of users, and degrees of maleness called
forth in users by device features and interfaces--and shift to callilng forth more
feminine reactions and ways
5) trace back in exactitude the kinds of excess maleness that shaped, designed,
defined in the past, what is now present versions of things--and undo those
male influences a new designs to try out
WHAT ARE THE MAJOR This model of innovation is widely messed up by confusing it with males leading
OBSTACLES YOU ENCOUN- or feamales leading. In fact, factions co-op this mode of innovation to make
TER? their own bigoted political points. This is a mode of innovation that can be
done by anyone and women are not particularly good at it--too many of them
have absorbed too many male ways overall and too many of them are too com-
promised with male norms and requirements where they now work. Another
confusion wrongly assume this mode of innovation fosters “female versions” of
products and systems, aiming at females as users or customers. That is not
what this mode of innovation is about. “Feminizing” products, ways, systems,
here refers to changing them so accurate descriptors of them sift toward the
female columns in the table of 32 male female differences in the table above in
this chapter.
WHY DO MANY NEVER Everyone executes their own stuff, their own “born and raised into me” ways,
ATTEMPT IT? effortlessly, sharing routines that mesh with routines of many similarly born and
raised others, executing automatically and unconsciously--this ease, effort-
lessly, and automaticity, combined a masterful performance of such ways when
sharing them with others--are bribes--paying people to stay local, stay un-edu-
cated, stay as they were raised, stay not involved in laborious, un-natural,
effortful, un-masterfully executed ways of others. So most people would rather
fail repeatedly and disasterously ultimately rather than make such deep
changes that cost them--ease, unconscious executive, masterful execution,
meshing ways widely shared with others.
15. The Creativity Grammar Model of

Innovation
We all have a single word “creativity” for it. Simple minds, conclude from that, that “cre-
ativity” is and must be, basically, one thing. Academics seem to be simple minded in this
way, for they all publish and research their own “one best model” of creativity, arguing and
showing with data, how “my model is better than yours”. It is said such male competitions
for being best are a way that competition accelerates human insight and improvement. Oth-
ers have noticed how most such models do not bother incorporating features from models of
others, and most such data does really fairly compare the relative truthfulness and power of
these models. It pays academics to have models not tested and proven, as that makes it
possible to publish endless new models and articles, for academic promotions. However it
makes entire research literatures not converge on refined and replicated results of high
power and impact. Instead we get Amabile’s model, with great time and expense (because
Harvard is rich) filled with fully “validated” variables no one else has, applied sincerely over
years and millions spent at Procter & Gamble, published in Harvard Business Review as P&G’s
Corporate New Ventures program, and producing the copying 8 years later of a hit Japa-
nese product. Most readers would call that, not creativity, but delayed copying. Harvard,
journals, and publishers are not so picky--delayed copying looks enough to make Amabile
dean of Harvard’s business school, though her model of creativity does not at all work or
have any impact worth considering. Truths that do nothig--should be a slogan for much of
academia.
CEOs, however, other than at P&G, are more intelligent as a whole. They do not trust any
one academic to have “the best” single model of something. They doubt that. They cannot
take the risk of investing in only one model of something important. They trust several
diverse models, from diverse sources, that compensate for each other’s weaknesses. You
and I are probably on the CEO side of this argument. We do not care how many articles a
model produces; we care how much of reality by how much, it changes. Models that are
“validated” but useless (laughable so in Amabile’s case) when applied are, shall we say, less
than appealing.
THE THEORY POWER MODEL OF INNOVATING--later in this book I present this

model, but there is a role for a mention of it here, in this chapter on the
Creawtivity-Model-Grammar Model of Innovation. The more theories a per-
son has, the more abstract they are, the more diverse from each other they
are, the more that person NOTICES, IMAGINES, CAN DO. The world is, sim-
ply, larger for such people. So when CEOs insist on several models from sev-
eral diverse sources that compensate for each others’ biases and weaknesses,
they are revealing more of situations, and creating more possible avenues of
action and reaction. They are making their firm live and work in a larger
world than competitors using fewer models, less abstract models, less diverse
models.
Are You Creative?

60 Models of Creativity and the 960 Ways to Improve Your Creativity that They Suggest
Fractal of Contents
Page 533 System Models Hexagon
Page 8 Overview of the 60 Models Page 559 Simonton Hexagon
Page 22 Catalog Models Hexagon Page 573 System Effects 128 Triangle
Page 32 128 box Recommendations Model Page 579 326 System Effects Hexagons
Page 70 to 74 Scientific Creativity Quad-Hexagons Page 332 Ways Orgs Learn 64 Quad Page 376 Knowledge Evolution Hexagon Page 604 Adjacent Beyond 64 Quads
Page 93 48 Culture Dimensions Triangle Page 336 Organizing for Meta-Cognition Page 444 96 Simple Program Intuitions Page 641 Systems Models Combined
Page 100 Career 64 Quad Page 344 64 Ways Orgs Learn Table Page 457 Knowledge Evolution Combined Page 644 Purity Models Hexagon
Page 114 64 Social Processes Quad Page 367 Rise of Science Table Page 461 Experiment Hexagon Page 711 Creation Engineering 128 Triangle
Page 121 Catalog Models Combined Page 373 Group Models Combined Page 530 Experiment Models Combined Page 712 Purity Models Combined
Page 124 Blend Models Hexagon Page 716 Self Models Hexagon
Page 173 Power Creation Quad 64 Page 805 Composing/Performing 128 Triangle
14 These models
3
Page 168 Social Automaton Table Page 806 Self Models Combined
Page 202 Blend Models Combined These System see creativity Page 809 Mind Models Hexagon
as social
4
models are Page 876 Mind Models Combined
Page 205 Social Models Hexagon mixtures, blends, 13 Model relations & Page 879 Flow Diagrams of All 60 Models
Page 260 Cluster Creation Space and combinations dynamics Page 982 Grounding Example Tables for All
Page 281 Social Models Combined of things. p216 p225 of sorts. 60 Models
p206
Page 284 Group Models Hexagon 8 p300 Page 1056 References
Page 329 General Computation Disci- Com- Social 19 Process
Page 331 Social Process Event Types pline p142 munity Compu- ext
The M Com- of tation Deploy-
l f- St udy T at Any
A Se eativity th urse
2
7 ment These
Comp ost
SOCIAL
bines Ideas Mass models see

Tuning 15 o
Book rehensive
p134 9 Solving group-ness
20 p314 making on Cr & Any C
Parti- p239
er s o n i e
p l in
P
on Cr These Culture cipatory Social 24 p285 procedures
y Disc r
5
Optimize creative
in An College o se
p162
BL
e
that h ativity models are Art &
OU
Mixing Paradox Move- Demyst- Ideal y

EN
as giant collections
Design Flow
n
in A any Can U
GR
Ever Door- p262 17 ment ification

D
based on single themes p125

b
Publi een or matrix frameworks.
way Meta- 21 Comp !
shed! Question 3
12 Idea
Market- p183 18 p250
16
p358
23 Cognition 25 Today
2 10 Space p349
30 Dialectics
P66
Finding p56 ing Social p323 26
Scale Share p377
Traits p44 p192
Blend Connec- Simple
p33 Darwinian tion- 22 Programs Compilation
CATA Systems 4 11 ism EDGEN p388 Cycle
1
Recommen-
LOG p75
Combined
60 p439 NO WL
K OLUTIO Relocating
EV Idea p401
1
p426 Fractal These
dations Thought Recurrence Idea Ecosystemsdynamics models see
p23
Garbage Types
6 Can p89
5 Models of 29
28 p411
Waves 27
among
ideas themselves that
become creativity
Within the mind dynamics 58
Creativity Create by 36 p473
or constructs that
“create”.
Making
p836 Sense
Cognitive 56
57 Percept
MIN
Invent p846 p854
D
Experience
59 Realizatn.
Substrate
p866
Copyright 2002 by
Richard Tabor Greene
All Rights Reserved
US Government
Registered
p520
Social Balancing
Automata p462
34 p511
Fractal
35 EX
PERIM
Solution
ENT
Culture
Policy by
6 31
Operator Update 52 Career Adjacent 42 Model Experiments
Extremes Invent Investing Beyond Expan- Creation p489
Insight p763 sion
40 p599 32 The N
33 Events p499
p823 60 p775
p810 Interest 53 p787 46 p686 Population ex
n ces
55
Ecstasy 54 41 Automaton A fter R t Stage
Sc ie These models see &D
Arts & ls & Groups
10
p700 p617
51 Perfor- 47 Surprise solids disolved into
SY
u a mance Info
Individ Companies Non- hypotheses making
LF
Extended
ST
Crea- Influence Design creativity.

Self Linear
NGOs & & Styles
SE
The
E
dynamics Deve- tivity p587

PURITY
s Systems
Venture Tradition
of creating p674
a self if lop- 50 p717 48 p534
39
Fash io n &
Covers:
extended
Kaufmann’s Investigations Channel 49

result in p749
creativity.
ment
p734
Anxiety
Courage 45
Perfor-
mance
44
p645
Sub-
creations
System 38
Effects p544
These models
p562
7
37
Darwin- Introducing:
9
These p664 see non-linear ian
aspects of reality
Wolfram’s Simple Programs models see
some single p656
that make creativity
inevitable in Fractal
Abbott’s Chaos of Disciplines
8
function or 43 the universe
Simonton’s Origins of Genius

aim that done
purely results
in creativity.
Produc-
tivity
Concept
Root-Bernstein’s Discovering
and many others
Models
In the 1980s, all over the world, hundreds of artificial intelligence programmers built what
was called “expert systems”. These were software systems built in two steps: one, protocol
analysis of how experts did their best work (often every 15 seconds what was on the mind of
experts in mid-process for processes days and weeks long, producing 500+ page books of
transcripts); two, systematizing that book into standard operators applied to standard oper-
ands, and computer code for those operator-operand combinations mimicking expert design
and decision processes. This often took the form of software objects (from object oriented
programming) with artificial intelligence rules applied to them (usually with meta-rules =
rules for when to give priority to which types of rule based on conditions of the moment).
In this way tens of millions of the inside-mind principles and rules of design from thousands
of world best designers, composers, performers, deciders, organizers, etc. were elicited in
protocol analysis interviews, turned into code, tested, refined and edited. An immense
amount of knowledge of how expert minds differed from novice and amateur minds resulted.
One big observation--these world best designers, composers, etc. used not one model of
creativity but several or many from an entire repertoire of models of creating.
60 MODELS OF CREATIVITY Brief Paragraphs

Set of MODEL Paragraph description of each of 60 models
10
CATA- Recom- 1. I make a creative life by making interior and exterior room for
LOG menda- creating and by embracing paradox enough to do wide-ranging mental
tions travel, then that creative life I built builds a creation machine
consisting of myriad small subcreations of tool and motive and then uses
that machine to make actual history-changing creations. That machine
makes my thinking terribly productive, to which I add conquering blocks
that appear, and pruning noise from signal to reveal emergent creations.
Traits 2. I collect traits that creative people, works, domains, and fields
have, organize them, and regularly review them to improve the
creativity of my work, including: problem finding,bricolage, violation,
ingenue sources of variation; metaphor, abstraction, index events, and
multiple worlds sources of combination; counter intuition, multi-scale
articulation, aesthetics, and saturated fields sources of selecting
variants; explanatory power, tool and frame invention, question
invention, and zeitgeist tipping points sources of reproducing.
Question 3. I collect ways that creative people find great questions to tackle,
Finding organize them, and regularly review them to improve the creativity of
my work, including: reverse, depersonalize, undo successes, expand
models sources of finding opportunity/gaps; fully represent, socially
index, seek intersections, index sources of idea leverage; change
measures, scales, adjustments, models sources of re-representing
issues; relate, imply, unify, cross-fields sources of change of logic.
4. I notice how persons and works in my domain, and how my domain
Darwinian itself and the people who run it, all four, foster the basic evolution
Systems functions of variation, combination, selection, and reproduction. I use
the result to position myself for maximal creativity.
5. I select certain types of thinking and develop them individually as
Combined well as exploring possible combinations of them till creativity results,
Thought including: thought inputs like empathy, doubt, observation, pattern
Types recognition; thought operators like associate, arrange, play, represent;
grounding ideas like abstracting from cases, concretly apply to cases,
extrace from routines, turn ideas into routines; outputting thoughts like
images, analogies, models and syntheses; and combinations of all the
afore-mentioned types of thought.
Garbage 6. I use nearly all fundamental parts of my existence from personal
Can identity to social dynamics around me to ways of work to develop
partial creations of life and work style that become tools for making
creative works, including four cycles: my creations change the
environments I work in which change what I create, my creations
change my career and the cultures I work in which change what I
create, the subcreations of tool and method and motive I create change
the amount and type of mental flexibility and breath I apply which
change subcreations I invent, my creations change my process of
creating which changes what I create.
BLEND Culture 7. I use the various cultures I have been exposed to, have within me, or
Mixing live among now, blending them till creation emerges; this involves:
several ways of mixing cultures applied to the culture of several aspects
of life and work (gender, era, devices, nation, etc.), the results of that
steeped till mixed cultures start to penetrate each other, producing four
creativity effects—repertoire of ways expansion, exercise in spotting
and handling surprise, vacuum of old ways drawing out new unused
potentials, metaphors mapping things in one culture to things in others.
Discipline 8. I use the various fields I have been exposed to, have mastered, or
Combines live among now, blending them till creation emerges, by: seeing the
intellectual forces behind fields that generate and kill them, by seeing
how new ways to access the world and data generate fields and changes
in fields, by mapping similarities/differences among fields, using
multiple field views and methods applied to any one case, choosing
unlikely fields to apply, using the questions/methods/tools/results of
other fields, combining fields in various ways, and spotting and avoiding
meretricious superficial fields and methods.
Tuning 9. I position myself between extremes and polar opposites, tuning my
approach toward subtle points between extremes where creativity
happens, tuning—relations between me and my field of work, between
me and each of my works, between levels of detail in my works,
between thoughts in my mind—optimizing A while keeping costs of A
acceptable and keeping minimal levels of B for all As and Bs in trade-off
design relations in my process, work, and the people in my field
encountering my work.
Paradox 10. I seek out paradoxes and force myself against them till they, in
Doorway turn, force my thinking out of its ruts and into lateral, peripheral new
paths that open up creativity to me; this involves: paradox generators
(circularity, assumeds, anomaly, incompletenesses; negation-caused-
gaps, anxiety defenses, social origins of identity, costs of talents/skills)
forcing on me self anihilation, which opens new associative breadth
(peripheral seeing, mental laterality, forced abstraction and
alternatives, forced emotional laterality—jokes, forced framework
repertoires and balances among their aspects), which, if I have the
courage to see it, exposes the non-linear nature of reality to me (path
dependence, message stickiness, centrality illusion, magic solving
fetishes around and in me), making me creative.
Scale 11. I seek out phenomena on multiple size scales, aligning them by
Blend similarities of various sorts, till phenomena on one size scale solve
major problems on other size scales: theorize on all scales, model
inter-scale effects, model within scale effects, measure and tool
inventions, till better measures, discovered scale effects, remaining
within/between scale anomalies reveal the utterly new to me.
Idea 12. I market ideas within my own mind to various viewpoints I can
Marketing develop mentally, then select best fit ideas to market, again within my
own mind to representations of actual social market forces in my field,
till I come up with a creative work as the package that transmits that
idea to those social market forces in my field effectively: market
problems/approaches/partial-solutions etc. to myself within my own
mind, packaging an idea tailoring it for myself, my field, history,
competitors, and changes needed in history, till modifications of idea-
packaging, target audience, the idea message, and channel make it
creative,
This book was written to educate you regardless of the
not please you idea'syour
or inflate actual
selfcontent.
regard. Beyond mere business mod-
SOCIAL Commu- 13. I assemble possibly relevant ideas and let them interact as their
nity of own natures dictate, noticing how they pair up, conflict, sequence
Ideas themselves and in general inter-relate, till powerful interesting such
idea assemblages come to my attention as possible creations; this
involves stretching between my conscious calculative brain's direct
interventions/generations (from conscious monitoring and meta-
creating) and my unconscious associative brain's observings and lettings
go, idea associations, idea blends, emergence of idea structures and
frames, till a final emergent creation appears., in a kind of ecstatic
experience of beyond-myself “flow” consciousness.
System 14. I influence the social judgement dynamics of that field of people
Model who judge what works are creative or not in the domain in which I work
by tuning the dialog among myself, my creative work, those judges, and
rules of the domain till creation appears; this is done by: managing
some populations of interacting things (creators, works, fields,
domains), turing aspects of how they interact (diversity connectedness,
patchings, reflexivity), and tuning social properties (dialog, social
judgment, group process, and properties of groups), mindful of the
social psych, power politics, culture transmission/assumeds, and
encounters-with-the-other dynamics these tunings involved, till better
than imagined results emerge. ,
Social 15. I am in the midst of a community of people among whom flow
Compu- various social computations having inputs, outputs, and processors
tation consisting of layers each more flexible than the next of hardware,
firmware, software, in each layer of which are operations each having
input, output, and processor (repeating the above endlessly). I manage
that flow till at where I am in the community a critical mass of ideas
appears that becomes creativity—most of the time each function just
listed is done by well structured mass workshop events—develop
interest events, process design events, isolation and combination
events, events that design such events, processes for coordinating/
tuning/switching/monitoring events, and finally product and research
events for developing interests profoundly into creations.
Social 16. I am in the midst of a community of people among whom
Move- frustration builds up till released into a social movement of new ideas
ment by the slightest particular new idea, avalanching the entire community
into a new overall idea configuration.
Space 17. I share the same intellectual space with a community of like-
Sharing minded others, inventing tools that intensify that sharing and pursuing
competitively similar intellectual goals till rather unpredictable
slightnesses among us and the ideas we work with cause creativity to
appear somewhere among us.
Partici- 18. I notice how in modern societies specialization of function has
patory stripped certain kinds of thought, thinking, collaboration, feeling, from
Design entire populations concentrating it in profit-making centralized
industries and create by undoing important pieces of that harmful over-
centralization and over-concentration.
GROUP Mass 19. I define a certain solving process and get many people to
Solving simultaneously apply it while interacting with each other tuning their
motivations, interactions, and configurations till creativity emerges.
Process 20. I come up with one interesting process after another and deploy
Deploy- them across certain social configurations of people, tuning motivations,
ment interactions, and configurations till creativity emerges.
Optimize 21. I identify the intended flow of energy through particular systems
Ideal Flow and optimize the design, environments, conditions, and controls of the
system to get as close as possible all of the energy to flow in the
intended path through the system till performance or qualities never
seen before emerge.
Meta- 22. I organize my tools, facilities, collaborators, associated institutions
Cognition and relationships for heightened meta-cognition--awareness of how we
think and work till creativity emerges.
Social 23. I work in certain idea layers and social relationship layers
Connec- combining and selecting what comes both to my conscious symbolic
tionism mind and what comes to my unconscious associative mind, coaxing ideas
and relationships through phase changes till creative new patterns
emerge.
24. I return power to people who have been habituated to giving power
Demystifi- to things outside themselves via creating works that communicate a
cation demystifying-of-the-world-message--that makes people conscious of
how they have given power and options to things outside themselves
that rule them unwholesomely.
KNOW- Dialectics 25. I find myself embedded in large evolving forces and patterns,
LEDGE defining myself by opposing large established ways, as younger ones
EVOLU gradually define themselves by opposing my work as large established
-TION way.
Compi- 26. I work with many different traits that knowledge has, compiling
lation knowledge from one format to another watching how that affects those
Cycle traits till gaps, distortions, elaborations or the like in those traits reveal
creative possibilities to me.
27. I work in several different ecosystems of ideas and by bridging
Relocating particular ideas from one ecosystem to another or from one idea
Idea Eco- ecosystem to a different social ecosystem, I turn them into creations.
systems
Idea 28. I find myself in an ocean of ideas where waves of coherent
Waves different sets of ideas wash over the diverse parts of society, including
me, regularly such that by setting up tools and workstyles that catch
these passing waves and combine ideas across them, I end up creating.
Fractal 29. I live among different schools of thought that arise and oppose one
Recur- another, fuse and split, so that I use how very abstract idea polarities
rence and oppositions keep reappearing through time and on different scales
of thinking to, by doing the next inevitable step in this process, create.
Simple 30. I analyze situations till I find a way to model all the interesting and
Programs important complexity of the situations using the simplest thinkable
system types yet capable of generating all that complexity, then by
changing such simplest system parameters I generate hosts of creations.
EXPERI Solution 31. I notice how people often choose exactly those solutions
-MENT Culture guaranteed to perpetuate their problems, how failures and missed
opportunities are not accidents so much as logical extensions of entire
“cultures of failing” that build up unseen in people--by reversing traits
of such failure cultures I invent and apply solution cultures that then
create solutions to long standing recalcitrant problems.
Policy by 32. I try certain strategies or policies in order to generate data about
Experi- how reality is really working, then use that revealed data to redefine
ments the problem and devise better strategies and policies revealing in turn
better data on the basis of which to devise better strategies and
policies, repeated endlessly till creation emerges.
Creation 33. I gradually find and combine components of an idea or approach,
Events assembling various people, resources, ideas into a series of events,
designed around particular idea or people combination procedures,
taken from experts, from which emerges a final creation.
Fractal 34. I organize ideas into multi-scale hierarchies, tightly ordered
Model vertically in layers and horizontally in idea-categories, then I expand
Expansion the geometry configuration of the ideas, inventing new ideas at every
level and category, coming up with dozens of creations at once.
Social 35. I tune the interactions among many interacting people, arranged in
Automata certain neighborhoods and trained in certain behaviors of interacting,
adjusting connectedness, diversity, and deployment of initiative-taking
in the system till creations emerge.
Create by 36. I envision my domains of thinking and work using very
Balancing comprehensive abstract models to spot slighted dynamics and over-
emphasized one, then create by devising tactics that rebalance the
domain by emphasizing slighted dynamics on my abstract models or
slighting over-emphasized ones.
SYSTEM Non- 37. I build models of my domain as a network of non-linear interactions

Linear among populations of agents with butterfly effects, system avalanches
Systems from one attractor to another, first mover advantage, and I tune
interactions among agents till better than expected results simply
emerge from sudden system-wide avalanche events.
38. I set up competing ideas, approaches, relationships, or events,
Darwinian such that traits of successful ones combined with variants I invent
populate a new population of competing entities, the whole system
evolving till a creation emerges from this natural selection like process.
System 39. I, like everyone else, suffer from surprises as system effects,
Effects unanticipated and unanticipatable in the non-linear realities of our
lives, intrude, but, unlike everyone else, I catalog, explore, and develop
tools for using these non-linear effects till they become dependable
creations.
Surprise 40. I catalog and study system effects and I catalog and collect unusual
frameworks for viewing matters in my domains, using the former to
anticipate surprise types and the latter to reveal surprising phenomena,
till one such surprise turns into my creation.
Adjacent 41. I start with small tiny creations, that accumulate and combine with
Beyond each new such creation I make, to make myriad new combinations,
some of which are creative, which when identified, pruned of noise, and
combined with my past creations, spawn still more combination
possibilities, some of which turn out to be creations, exponentially
continuing my stream of creations.
Popula- 42. I manage populations of interacting ideas on multiple levels of
tion ideas-in-mind, feeling responses, performance moves and improvs,
Automa- parts of organizations till insights as non-linear system avalanche events
ton happen, generating creations.
PURITY Subcrea- 43. I invent little tools and processes, decor and arrangements of my
tions personal living and workplaces to help me create still more creative
tools, processes, decor, and work arrangements, in a continuing
exponential stream till later ones turn out to be creations or to enable
me, using them, to create what others, lacking such tools and work
arrangements, cannot imagine or produce.
Produc- 44. I generate a lot of ideas and throw away the bad ones, and, by
tivity generating ways of producing more ideas than nearly anyone else in the
same periods of time, and accumulating experience from throwing away
bad ones, more and more of my ideas become creations.
Perfo- 45. I understand that I am a performer, and my performances are the
rmance ideas I produce, which perform before various audiences, using an
anthropological stance of seeing the limitations of culture of my
audiences and the theological stance of seeing the limitations of life
itself and how my audiences position themselves within them to make
my ideas creations.
Influence 46. I seek to influence people and the world via explosively producing
disillusionment with existing frameworks with what I create which must
be timed and positioned, packaged and expressed so as to influence the
field of people in my domain.
Investing 47. I manage a portfolio of diversified investments of time, idea, and
effort in parallel simultaneous projects attempting unlikely outcomes,
mixing venturesome and conservative strategies, till one is a hit, and
turns creative.
Info 48. I find myself in webs and configurations of structured information
Design such that particular structural features of these information
distributions result in creativity--so I work to locate such webs and
locate my self and my work in such webs till I am where creativity
emerges in them. I study operations on accumulated past creations that
produce new ones then extrapolate them to invent my own creations.
SELF Courage 49. I have the strange ability to fully appreciate the worth and
inventiveness of others and traditions around me while simultaneously
challenging and overthrowing all of that in everything I do, resulting in
occasional creations where my challenges get accepted.
Anxiety 50. I notice how the fundamental anxieties of existence inevitably get
Channel side-stepped, omitted, and slighted by people in my domain and the
works they generate till I spot such slightings and by correcting them
reconnect my domain to the deep realities of life, hence, a creation.
Extended 51. The first creation I made was myself, which I made by undoing
Self automatic parts of me put there by where and how I grew up,
Develop- substituting the best from history and the contemporary world, and
ment continuing this invention of myself seamlessly turned into creating in
every field I entered as the idea of extending my self via works I create.
Interest 52. I pursue interest in everything I do, balancing myself at the very
Ecstasy edge of all my capabilities and motives, till I am transported beyond
myself where forces of the universe take hold of me and use me as a
vehicle for their own creating.
Career 53. I create my self, then I create my own career through this world,
Invent then as I transition to bolder and more interesting career paths, I run
out of pre-made ones and start inventing new career paths never seen
before, till one of these transitions becomes creation.
Perfor- 54. I get ideas to perform before me till one set of them captures my
mance interest then I organize ideas into performances before others in the
Creativity form of works that audiences respond to till creation emerges.
MIND Insight 55. I alternate engagement and detachment as I apply known frames to
a challenge, till I run out of existing frames and have to invent new
ones, accumulating failures till they begin to specify, inversely, what
eventual solutions must be like, till a slight new idea avalanches the
entire set of ideas before me into an emergent sudden insight, that
when carefully pruned of noise, reveals a creation.
Cognitive 56. I drive my use of certain common cognitive operators in the mind
Operator far beyond the intensities of use of them by others till results that no
Extremes one has seen before obtain, some of them later being judged creative.
Making 57. I find nearly everything in the world flawed, sloppy, half baked,
Sense deeply unsatisfactory, and lacking basic sense, and I cultivate this
negative vision capability till I see hundreds of ways to improve virtually
everything in life around me, focussing on a few which I actually fix till
judged creative.
Percept 58. I am drawn to the paradoxes, contradictions, gaps, omissions,
Invent anomalies, circular arguments in everything around me, seeing spaces
where everyone else sees objects in scenes, till I dislocate my own
perceptions enough that I see things to fix that when I fix them become
creations.
59. I keep careful track of my experiences accepting no common
Experienc thoughts, explanations, without making sure they make complete sense
e to me and completely explain my experience of things, till I find
Realizatio something everyone else accepts and depends on that has a deep gap in
n it that does not fit my experience--by fixing it I do what others judge
creating.
Substrate 60. I watch as a never-ending stream of new substrates for doing
Update functions enters the world, from global commerce, research, and
technology every day and year, and observe when existing functions and
institutions hold onto past substrates at great cost way past the time
when there are good alternatives substrates--by pioneering replacement
of past substrates for doing functions with new ones from that never-
ending stream, I create.
Design processes, composing processes, and, in a faster way, performance processes have
singularity points--these are places in the process where the person involved stops facing a
dilemma of some sort, unsure which of 2 or 3 or more ways to go. These singularity points
seem to form a spectrum from being unsure what the next step is in a well traveled process,
to feeling out whether one’s entire approach to creating right now is working or not and
whether a fundamental shift in how you create here should be undertaken. Research has
been done indicating that at the upper end of this spectrum, such singularity points in cre-
ative processes are almost always where the creator de-commits to some existing creativity
model and contemplates one or several alternative creativity models, as the possible best
way to go from here.
The question, then, arises--how many such creativity models does a particular creator con-
template? how many such models are in the world for all creators to contemplate, what
kinds of such models are there? when and where do creators shift from one kind of creativity
model to another?
Above the world’s largest, most comprehensive, detailed, multi-level, and diverse model of
creativity models (a meta-model of creativity it is called) is provided in summary form--brief
paragraphs for each of 60 models, organized as ten sets of six models each, stretching from
out-there in society models through systems models to inside the mind models.
THE CREATIVITY-MODEL GRAMMAR MODEL OF INNOVATION holds that innovation comes

from simultaneous presence/use of several diverse creativity model. Innovation is a sort of
larger size, more complex, more diverse scale of creating. The Void Masters of the Zennova-
tion model that starts this book, Jobs-Apple, combined as many as 12 of the 60 models of
creativity in the table above. They also involved half a dozen of 30 Creativity & Novelty Sci-
ences.
There are several such expansions of diversity and scale involved in transforming individual
acts of creation into innovations:
1. from single invention to 200 further ones needed to make

it “take-off” (light bulb + dynamo, wiring, transformers
of Edison)
2. from single Creativity Science to four or six Creativity
Sciences simultaneously done (the Zennovation Model of
Innovation as done by Jobs-Apple: performance,
architecture, systems, invention, design)
3. from single models of creativity to simultaneous doing of
four or more models of creativity (songs of Laura Nyro for
example, as a new genre in pop music--with Japanese-
style distinct mood-phrases not story-linked, changes of
rhythm every two measures, no key changes, re-
purposing of childhood nursrey rhymes, erotic inclusions,
jazz riffs, inserted phrases from leading modern poets,
Dylan-esque social commentary = culture mix, discipline
combine, interest ecstasy, performance, experience
realization, insight models of creating.
Earlier in this book the EDS Artificial intelligence Workshop Fairs innovation in delivery of
high technologies to modern workplaces, and Artificial Intelligence Circles--a combine of
Japan’s quality circles with US advanced software--that expanded delivery of high technolo-
gies from Phd hands to ordinary workteams, were mentioned. These cases clearly show how
multiple creativity models at work, change single inventions into innovations.
FEMININIZATION OF SALES This EDS tactic with GM shifted sales from salespersons to event
format. It also shifted event formats from male self promotions to feminine listening style,
structure, contents. It also depended on fast, widespread, distribution of information--a
500-page book given to 1000 top managers at each sponsor division to indirectly provoke
sales. Let us look at these abstractly:
from process to event form (of sales)--interest ecstasy

model = creating by extreme intensification of
diverse interests
from male to female format (of event)--solution cul-
ture model = creating by reversing all traits of a
problem culture
from sales pitch to info delivery (of persuasion)--mass
solving model = creating by mass-ifying the doer,
changing entire social unit contexts.
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE CIRCLES This was done at Matsushita Electric, Sekisui Chemical in
Japan, at Coopers & Lybrand, EDS, Xerox PARC in the USA, and at Thompson Paris, and
NVPhilips in the EU. In all these firms ordinary workteams were recruited to build knowl-
edge models of some local expertise their performance depended on, which models were
transformed into working software code by visiting expert AI programmers twice a year--the
stats in Japan’s quality circles were switched with US software. Seeing this abstractly we
get:
from circles using stats to circles using AI software--

culture mix model = creating by un-creatively
deploying something from one culture in another
from headquarters Phds defining projects to many
ordinary workteams defining projects--mass solving
model = from few slow elites doing to mass crowds
rapidly doing
from mandated standards to emergent standards
negotiated among AI circle teams--population
automaton model = creations emerging unplanned
from tuned interactions among populations of intel-
ligent agents.
In a similar way, large scale innovations in business practice--like these innovations in how 7
global firms distribute high technologies--tend to be the result of simultaneous delopyment
of several diverse creativity models.
HOW DOES PLURAL CREATIVITY MODEL DEPLOYMENT RESULT IN INNOVATIONS? As is

usual, stories, like the above, from actual cases, do not quite give us a clear picture. Too
many books give us case stories that never quite make their main point clear enough for oth-
ers to do and surpass.
Consider the following:
A different creativity model for each of the below innovation

functions:
1. NEGATION OF APPROACHES (past, popular, personal)
2. CHANGE OF SUBJECT AND/OR OBJECT (what acts, what is
acted on)
3. USE OF THE DIS-RESPECTED OR DIS-USED (using others’
discards, omissions, low in status)
4. EXPANSION OF DIVERSITY OF SOURCE/APPROACH (bigger
and more differences among components, ways)
5. PLURIFYING, DE-EXPERT-IZING DOERS (variety from who
does, more and less elite and more diverse)
6. ALTERNATE UNIVERSE OF TIME, SPACE (using continual
general technical component/system updates)
7. ENTIRE INDUSTRIES/SYSTEMS RECONFIGURED AROUND
NEWLY INVENTED NODE (optimize/re-think all invisible
surrounds/inter-actants to optimally use one new
invention).
The process of one invention\creation to an innovation often looks like this:
SEVEN STEP PROCESS--INNOVATE BY USING GRAMAR OF PLURAL CREATIVITY MODELS
WHICH OF 7
STEPS SPECIFICS FROM ABSTRACT
MAIN CREATIVITY
(function A.I. CIRCLES CREATIVITY MODEL
CONTENT MODEL USED
sequence) EXAMPLE FUNCTIONS
ENACTED
OBSERVA- DEMOCRA- Japan deploys CHANGE SUBJECT CULTURE MIX,

TION--high TIZED stats to entire WHO ACTS (does MASS SOLVING
performance RESEARCH workforces technology applica-
tion)
OBSERVA- ELITE PRO- US deploys new NEGATION OF SOLUTION CUL-
TION--need FESSION WAYS techs ineffec- APPROACHES (flaw TURE
tively via PHDS in US tech delivery)
in HQ
OBSERVA- LIMITS ON Everyone can- NEGATION OF CULTURE MIX
TION--con- LEARNING not master APPROACHES
straints SPEEDS software well (negate stats of
enough in 2 Japan and substitute
years part-time what US is good at--
training to do it high tech software)
well enough to
use
SEVEN STEP PROCESS--INNOVATE BY USING GRAMAR OF PLURAL CREATIVITY MODELS
WHICH OF 7
STEPS SPECIFICS FROM ABSTRACT
MAIN CREATIVITY
(function A.I. CIRCLES CREATIVITY MODEL
CONTENT MODEL USED
sequence) EXAMPLE FUNCTIONS
ENACTED
ADAPTIVE THE POWERS Liberate the US USE OF DIS- DEMYSTIFICA-

INSIGHT-- OF WESTERN inherent talent RESPECTED let work- TION
chance for CULTURE for abstract- ers do research and
betterment ABSTRACT- ness = sofware advanced software
NESS = from US work
weakness of PLURIFYING DE-
eliteness EXPERT-ING DOERS
ADAPTIVE WHAT CAN BE We can democ- EXPANSION OF SCALE BLEND
TACTIC--make DEMOCRA- ratize the mod- DIVERSITY OF
distinctions TIZED VS. eling of expert SOURCE/APPROACH (also MASS
WHAT CAN- knowledge in instead of one group SOLVING MODEL
NOT BE each work- does all, split into is in the design
DEMOCRA- group, and pro- workers modeling of the High
TIZED fessionalize knowledge and pro- Tech Circles
turning that fessionals turning program itself)
model into models into com-
code puter code
ADAPTIVE HIGH VISIBIL- 40 high tech ALTERNATE UNI- POPULATION
POWER POLI- ITY DEEDS circles all over VERSE OF SPACE AND AUTOMATON
TICS--selling a CAUSE PRO- a company in TIME drive the over-
new program MOTIONS annual Presen- all high tech circles
tation Assem- program by single
bly--CEO & VP annual event--that
attended PRESENTS deeds
done and RECRUITS
new circles.
INFORM--to TQM IN USA Some circles ENTIRE INDUSTRIES/ IDEA WAVES
source com- AND SILICON programs cop- SYSTEMS RECONFIG-
munities VALLEY IN ied the High URED via appeal/
USA Tech Circles presentation to two
invention, communities: TQM
some corpo- in USA and Corpora-
rate software/ tion Tech VPs in USA
technology VPs
copied them.

THE CREATIVITY GRAMMAR MODEL OF INNOVATION
the implementation
questions
HOW DO YOU DO THIS? This is tricky. Of course in some dumb direct way you can take out your catalog
of creativity models (my 5000 page book Are You Creative? 60 Models) and
choose 2 or 3 or more than seem relevant and try them out on a project. THIS
however is now how real people innovate. First, along the way they get side-
infights, aspects of the project that call for further and other creativity types.
Second, they, over lifetimes, develop personal familiarity and mastery of some
diverse creativity models, often unconsciously operating inside them, so they
switch models invisibly as if merely a new approach or mode of operation.
Third, most innovative people get sucked in to whatever approaches to creating
and innovating worked well in their past and they spend lifetimes repeating
themselves (Picasso--Des Moiselle D’Avignon then 70 years of copying that).
So, in a project--you innovate, most often, by gradually developing diverse

aspects of the project, but each such aspect call for different creativity mod-
els, till nearly everything about the project amazes, catches attention, suggests
solutions to farflung others = becomes a general transform of larger scale parts
of the world beyond the particular project that gave it birth.
WHAT ARE THE MAJOR Most people fall iln love both with themselves and with whatever approach to
OBSTACLES YOU ENCOUN- creating first made them famous and rewarded. These become ruts they sel-
TER? dom escape, reducing lifetime creation achieved. Frank Lloyd Wright, started
with the culture mix model, simply taking Japanese patterns and doing them in
US settings with US modern materials. But that career ended and he built up
two MORE careers, doing the Gugenheim museum in Manhattan in his 90s. He
differed from himself, rebuilt his client base from zero three two times after
initial success, and changed all his materials and methods twice, after initial
success. His models of creativity for each of his 3 careers, differed. This is
hard to do, but when done it changes the history of entire fields = becomes
innovation.
WHY DO MANY NEVER Initial success bribes creators to stay around, do the same, repeat what worked
ATTEMPT IT? and thereby shrivel the rest of their careers, works, and lives into something
less than innovation.
16. The Other World Explorer (Twin Mod-

els) Model of Innovation
Innovation is a global assignment--it moves you, your family, your career--elsewhere, in
strange foreign lands where old ways do not work and new ways are partly formed, still
being born. Innovation is always a venture, an entrepreneural journey--founding something
that endures and changes history. The various othernesses encountered in innovation from
the global assignment nature to it, and the various risks and things ventured/tried in innova-
tion from the entrepreneural nature to it--combine.
OTHERNESSES ENCOUNTERED + RISKS TAKEN, THINGS TRIED
Innnovators leave the world as at present and enter the world as not yet become. They
dwell and explore strange other arrangements and ways, not yet in existence, playing them
against each other. Gradually they put old and new ways in combination, trying out some of
them, testing them against situations in thought experiments, others in real experiments.
Big corporations often have the slack, the variety of persons, equipment, and ideas, the data
and market tools to support imagined reconfigurations around core new ideas. However,
most such things do not fit the standard global immense profitable ways that sustain the cor-
poration. So those people with the imagined new configurations get frustrated, angry,
thwarded. Eventually there is a last straw, and they leave, go out on their own, to form a
group and organization that loves their new ideas, not merely tolerates them.
We think of innovators as only the latter, but that is only half and often, especially these
days, the easier half. The other half is less visible, usually going on for years inside the slack
inside some big organization doing other things entirely than the innovative idea. New ideas
need a great deal of variety, resources, diversity, slack, tries to be born and small ventures
are often too pressed, too hurried, too hassled, too much given to fire fighting so lovingly
explore worlds of new ideas and new configurations of the world around them.
INNOVATION AS CULTURE CROSSINGS. Successful global assignments come from people

able to translate ways from own culture to their new foreign one and conversely, to translate
certain ways of others, into one’s own non-foreign ways. Entrepreneurship comes from peo-
ple who build a culture that builds an institution bringing something new into the world.
The new baby enterprise is selfish, taking people’s time, taking them away from family,
replacing the old world they used to dwell in, with a writhing, patch-work, evolving mess,
sometimes brilliant, often dismal--it drives moods everywhere and nowhere. The other cul-
ture of living in imagined worlds; the other culture of realizing some dream in this world.
Other worlds, other cultures.
MOTIVE--WHAT GETS PEOPLE SUFFERING FOR YEARS TO ESTABLISH SOMETHING NEW ON

EARTH? We have immense amounts of research on this, under the name “entrepreneur-
ship”. There are at least 64 things that urge people into crossing this boundary, leaving this
world into the suffering of establishing the utterly new. These are doorways into innovation
too, when added to them are the dynamics of successful global assignments, where you live
not in the foreign culture of some other nations, but the foreign to you culture of a new con-
figuration of things in this world, and the enterprise of translating that into something sol-
idly established in this world.
Innovation is entrepreneural and cultural work, done at the same time.
The DETAILS of the two models provided in this chapter are essential, central, important.
For example, sheer friendship is a major reason for and avenue for innovation. Hewlet and
Packhard were student friends who wanted to have a way to live while staying together as
friends. They invented a goofy electronic equipment business sheerlly as a way to get money
to stay together. Their first products were lousy and did not pay; so they got serious, inter-
viewed clients, and made what clients dreamed of. Friendship was the initial “idea” the
initial “drive”--the innovation came from the later style with which they interacted with
each other and with support firms and emerging new technologies in Silicon Valley in its
early days. Few people, when asked, nominate “friendship” as a key driver of innovations--
so most of us are wrong. Friendship is one of 64 boxes on the Sources of Entrepreneurship
model in this chapter--the other 63, while not quite as vital as friendship, are all found in
real enterprises and real innovators and real innovations.
To become an innovator, a special kind of person, who uses particular creations to change
entire fields and history, one has to enter, explore, and embrace othernesses, one has to risk
and try things, learning from much failure and partial successes, what works. Innovators, as
persons, are highly layered beings--they operate in a spectrum to the utterlly fantastic and
impossible, to the utterly mundane and practical. They move ideas down to embodiment,
test various embodiments, and move successful ones still further downward to mass produc-
tion and usage forms. They move situations upward, abstracting key features from them in
numerous ways, trying out diverse abstractions, moving the best of those abstractions
upward to core and new ideas. Up and down, round and round, innovators move between
imagination, imagined realities, real realities.
This chapter has two models, each of 64 concepts ordered fractally. One is a model of 64
dynamics of successful global assignments; the other is a model of 64 dynamics of entrepre-
neurship. These models are TWO Other Worlds of innovators.
THE TWO OTHER-WORLDS OF INNOVATORS:
1) the global assignment dynamics that

innovators experience when they visit imaginary other
worlds of new ideas
2) entrepreneurship dynamics that
innovators experience when they take new ideas back to this

world and explore to find places of fit, where those ideas
change the history of this world.
The other world of global assigments come from people assigned to work in foreign lands.
For innovators the foreign lands are possible futures explored in detail, played off against
each other. The other world of entrepreneurship is one of moving up and down between
things imagined in other worlds and embodiments of those things in real world conditions.
A single creation, invention, great design steps towards becoming an innovation when some-
one elaborates it into becoming an other world reconfiguring things in this world in new
ways, and elaborates that reconfiguration via myriad collateral inventions and designs into
something that can and will be made real. Exploration of an other world of fantasy imagin-
ings and exploration of what parts of that can be made real--two explorations of rather dif-
ferent content and feel.
HOW DO YOU INNOVATE IN THIS SOURCES-OF-ENTREPRENEURSHIP MODEL? You generate

an other world, reconfigurations of things in this one, around one or two immensely new
ideas. You explore that world in detail, comprehensively, lovingly. You then generate ver-
sions of those wonders made do-able, afford-able, in reality without being contaminated by
its flaws and weaknesses. You generate otherness and translate it into realities, often dia-
logically, going back and forth, refining, choosing, combining, reframing, testing,
Innovation in this model always has two phases:
1. GIVING BIRTH TO NEW IDEAS & CONFIGURATIONS

imagined reconfigurations of things in this world
centered around one or two core immensely new idea
2. TRYING OUT WAYS TO MAKE THEM REAL translations
attempted of realizations of these new configurations
into aspects, parts, areas of this world.
IDEA BIRTH FROM IMAGINED WORLD EXPLORATION. From the model of successful global
assignments, we get dynamics. However, that model is in the context of a person from one
nation, working in another nation--”a global assignment”. Here our context is a person in
the initial stages that end up becoming history changing innovations. Innovation starts with
goofy, unintended, casual, accidental entry into a new land--usually not a physical land,
though sometimes it is, usually a land of the imagination, a land big enough and new enough
and attractive enough that it bears examination and further exploration. You globalize self
and other, encounter diversities, transplant things across culture boundaries, and end up
with new frameworks that become new powers of seeing and doing, that change the world
you came from when you get back there. Your “you” becomes permanently larger, and it
lives, “imagines”, works in a larger world.
Globalization of you and your ways and world is not something you aim for--it is just a natu-
ral byproduct of being in some new place, never imagined before, where everyone lives and
thinks by different rules than you. FIRST you enter an imagined world, an other world, a
world that has not become real yet, that exists only as ideas, potentials, many avenues,
untested, uncombined, there to explore. Sensing such other worlds and curiosity to explore
them is the first, globalization of you and your ways step in this journey toward innovation.
All innovations come from explorers of new imagined worlds--period, no exceptions. All
innovations come from such explorers.
43
productizing
side-effects
Institutionalizing
Non-linearity Effects
41 pruning away 42
chaff from
emergents
tuning
finding & interacting
using 44 populations
tipping points till avalanche
Structural Focal Points
35 dimensions 48 morphological 39
of difference forecasting
analysis
creativity
dynamics
inventing or 46 applied 45
improving Idea bridging
processes better Manufacture organization gaps
Righting Business the 40 TRIZ Filling
Equation Imbalances moves of Structural Holes
inventing or 34 inventing 37 creating new 38
33 revolutionizing gaps
customer
satisfactions
better
finding or finding or
following developing 47 bridging 40 bridging
customers 36 suppliers better satisfaction gaps idea network gaps
better
64 Causes/Sources of Entrepreneurship
friends happen 56 want to work 63 escape male 52 revenge for 27
11 to fill key with someone monkey-like being crushed
venture hierarchy by exploitation
role set drive to be
frustrated ownlordbossof or bio-informatics
sharing by rejection of others
extending 54 dreams 53 civilizing 50 own ideas 49 explosive research
established Personal new Refusal to
customer sets Chemistry wildernesses Salute acceleration
Substrate work to fund Parenting reject costs of Combining Industries
Evolution continuance of Invention conformities
9 extending 10 great 61 re-embodying 62 25 communicating
more of 26
established conversations love in a world human
interfaces fathering that erodes it experience
ideas that mothering
stand up to baby ideas automobile erotic haptic
navigation devices driving
entire history 64 past demons societal automation
replacing upgrading & tradition of the past 51 infrastructure 28 infrastructure

established 12 established 55 minimal replacement
technologies functions Personal Motivations industry sets time staging
the polis drive
3
Social Waves reject anonymity from
60 show off
the Combinatorics
tool or 16 cost
7 increase in
organization size personality 19 talent flowing 32 ideas flowing 23
interface obliterations to idea to
oblite- drive to homes institutional
rations leave homes
personal
DNA & computers
as programs
disciplinary re-engineering
as the femininity
aspiration mark on every refounding refounding of of productivity
plural 14 obliterations 13 generational

reflecting 58 situation
57 technologies 30 ideas resourced 29 solving 1
competing Rule Refusal of on new Cluster culture’s
authorities Discontinuity identities Anonymity abstractions Dynamics neuroses
Trend Combining funding flowing Combining
Slack 2 lifestyle & work
Riding 6 audience of drive for historic Technologies
refounding
to realizable Cultures
1 viable obliterations 5 turning the unborn 17 technologies 18 idea 21 framework 22
marginality styles products repertoire
into at new expansion
lifestyles size scales celluarity
pc printers nanofabrics
niches make niches instancing
rise in rise in entooling cultivating intellectual 31
wealth productivity 15 popularity equipping technology 20 tribal immigration
changes 4 creates 8 youthful 59 ecosystem movements in entrepreneur 24 from constrained
aspirations play time competitions divergence dynamics new substrates diasporas to unconstrained
Copyright August 2003 by Richard Tabor Greene, All Rights Reserved, US Government Registered
As you “make it” in this and that part of that other world, you find yourself naturally doing a
lot of mental and emotional and social adaptations, using stuff others do and teaching others
your stuff, for example. At first all this is happenstance, improv-ed, done as needed--but it
becomes more intentional, more investigative. Your curiosity develops and you make
hypotheses, probe, observe results from probes, and learn. You distinguish types of things
you are encountering, degrees of encounter involved, stages of encounter, and, eventually,
uses of what you encounter and uses of your encounter “muscles”, developed in the course
of a lot of encounters with a lot of types of diversity. This too leads to something more
intentional, more disciplined--formal working out of how to transplant various things from
their world to your world and from your world to their world. Things that support and
hinder something established in one world are generally different than in an other world.
So what supports and hinders where X practice developed will both be missing in the world
you transfer that practice to; also there will be new supporlts and new hindrances in that
other world, so four things have to be compensated for: supports in origin missing in target,
hindrances in origin missing in target, supports in target missing in origin, and hindrances in
target missing in origin. Finally you are left with powers, from having inside you and well
practiced inside you, from living and exploring in that other world, new frameworks, new
things to notice and new alternative ways to act, when you come back to your original
world.
Globalizing intensified into studied encounters with studied types of diversity intensifitied
into a deliberate process of transplants across worlds, till this all becomes new powers inside
you of new things to notice and new ways to go when stymied--this is you imagining the new,
exploring the world of possibilities it opens up, and then bringing back gifts to your own real
world. J. R. R. Tolkien wrote up these dynamics in a small book Smith of Wooten Major and
an article The Dynamics of Fairy--about the self transformation journey that all fairy tales
are about. Joseph Campbell wrote this up as the one story shared (subsetted) by all religious
myths, in his book Hero with 1000 Faces. You do bring back new frameworks hence pow-
ers but they are not yet innovations. To become changes in entire fields and history they
have to transform hefty portions of reality back here on earth. That is the steps of the
other model in this chapter.
MAKING NEW WORLD IMAGINED--REAL. The dynamics, from the triangle model provided, of
the first--giving birth to new ideas and configurations in an imagined world--sources of
entrepreneurship--can be summarized briefly here. First there are waves of new technolo-
gies, ideas, even social enthusiasms that pass over whole societies and every field of knowl-
edge, generally lasting 6 to 8 years. Consulting firms make a living selling these to a few first
pioneer firms then spreading initial success proejct to main stream firms in various indus-
tries, then near the end of the 6 to 8 years, un-selling what they have been selling and sell-
ing instead the new rising wave that comes along. Combinatorics is a function that
accelerates and expands in scale and scope as each new technology comes along--for most
new technologies lower coordination costs, expand communication globally making it free,
allow finding and connecting to people with similar interests-needs-capabilities easier. So
just about everyone and every thing combines more often, more easily, more flexibly, with
more other things. Structural focal points are a sort of idea-level version of social waves
plus combinatorics. They are various ways to re-think re-see existing configurations and sys-
tems--from the essence of business as seen by quality totalizations (supplier-producer-cus-
tomer-technosubstrate), spotting networks and gaps between them, finding non-linear
system tipping points where slight inputs change entire system states, generating genuinely
new ideas. Personal motivations are the fourth source of entrepreneurship. These are per-
haps the heftiest source. Smart people treated as employees always get treated--cannot
stand it and burst bounds, go out on their own, carrying precious ideas their firm again and
again denigrated, ignored, mis-handled, or refused to even consider.
Social waves need people with slack resources to use, people who ride trends a ways seeing
from their new viewpoints, people who study the coming evolution in system technology sub-
strates, and they, the social waves, obliterate some existing arrangements, at first only in
the imaginations of pioneer people, but later in reality, stamping out whole industries or seg-
ments of them, with new arrangements. Combinatorics, ever expanding and accelerating as
each new generation of technology arrives, combines technologies, cultures, entire indus-
tries, and tends to move normal areas and related companies into intense Silicon Valley-like
arrangements where interactions speed up, increase in variety and intensity, stripping ego
and ownership of ideas, till a social plasma develops that results in idea fusions that release
“nuclear” amounts of new energy. Structural focal points emerge, naturally, from all this
multi-scale multi-mode combination, as informed ways to focus and find leverage amid all
the new combinations. First there is the supplier-firm-customer-technicalbase essence of
business as defined by quality totalizations, then there is spotting network gaps offering
bridging opportunities, messing with, tuning, interactions among diverse things combined to
benefit from non-linear system effects and emergent results no one plans or intends that
turn out into amazing “insights” or “innovations”. Finally, none of this, all rather mental
perceptual stuff, matters unless carried to intense extremes over long incubation periods by
highly motivated people--people refusing belittling employ arrangements, people finding
mates with whom there is great chemistry, people wanting to make a mark on the world, and
people willing to be parents to baby ideas, protecting them for years as large established
forces brutishly ignore or trample on them.
These are the steps of venturing out--social waves spawning floods of combination in which
pioneer minds spot high leverage focal points that reveal innovations possible while provok-
ing intense motivation for change, leaving a mark on the world, moving history in new direc-
tions.
THE INNOVATOR ALGORITHM

1. EXPLORER--find a new idea world to explore
2. GLOBALIZE--self and other with frameworks and powers
from exploring that other world of ideas
3. ENTERPRISE--figure out what part of reality to transform
using your new frameworks and powers.
This means innovators are alien to us--they are living in an imagined world, not this one, and
they are viewing the things in this one from that other world viewpoint. So they get argu-
mentative at times--frustrated as the rest of us insist on viewing things from this world’s old
tired ways and frameworks. You cannot ideationally and emotionally live in this world and
transform this world--innovators insist. You have to stand somewhere outside, both emo-
tionally outside, and ideationally outside, and from that remoteness handle and change the
things of this world.
You can see here how religions, throughout history, from tribal shamen to various saviors,
trained minds in this sort of split, world crossing, but not directed at innovation, rather
directed at upping priestly social power and monopolies on power. Christians spent their
first 400 years on earth--for example--throwing out any books of the bible about persons
approaching the divine directly personally and kept only books suggesting you had to go
through priests to be saved. This was rather not like innovation. It was a rather bald power
play, spruced up with hefty doses of Sunday delivered fear of “burning in hell fire forever”.
As John Stuart Mill said--there is nothing as despicable as Christian morality based as it is on
getting people to do “good” from fear rather than building on and using each person’s natu-
ral in born sense of fairness, decency, and care for others.
Take the same two world journey of all religions and apply it not to “save souls” but to save
the world, to shake up present ways and commitments and you get “innovation”. In discus-
sions with my own innovation teams I correct remarks made from the standpoint of this
existing world, and remind speakers to stand in our other world then comment.

THE OTHER WORLD EXPLORER MODEL OF INNOVATION
the implementation
questions
HOW DO YOU DO THIS? The innovator algorithm is 3 steps--EXPLORER, find a new idea world to
explore; GLOBALIZE, self and other with frameworks and powers from exploring
that other world of ideas; ENTERPRISE--figure out what part of reality to trans-
form using you nrew frameworks and powers
WHAT ARE THE MAJOR Exploring a new world of ideas is generally not in any job description. If it is
OBSTACLES YOU ENCOUN- really new, no one will pay for it or be interested. Furthermore such explora-
TER? tions tend to be of indefinite length. They can go on and on for years or they
can be short and sweet--no one can predict. What you bring back from such
explorations of other worlds can at first seem to fit nothing in reality, in this
world. Great things can die simply as discouragement from lack of fit, contin-
ues and repeats. There is another EXPLORATION, then, of exploring THIS
WORLD till a place where your new ideas fit is found. This SECOND EXPLORA-
TION is quite different in mental contents and mood and effort and resources
needed than the first exploration of a new world of ideas. Confusing the two
or doing only one kills lots of innovations.
WHY DO MANY NEVER Few have the patience or curiosity or willingness to shuck off old ways requires
ATTEMPT IT? for long time loving exploration of new idea worlds. Few have the paitence,
curiosity, and will to slough old ways needed to epxlore where in this world
some subset of new ideas fits. It takes special kinds of mind of person of per-
sonality to do one huge exploratory journey and follow it with a second rather
different exploratory journey.
43
new
supports
not in
origin culture
Target
Culture
41 new blocks 42
not in
origin
culture
identify
interaction 44 strongest
with practices interactions
Transplant
Across Cultures
35 where 48 where origin 39
origin supports
blocks where missing
missing new
target
46 blocks are 45
business Invent
capabilities Tactics supports
Transplant where new Culture of
What target Origin
business 34 supports 37 blocks 38
33 opportunities are
47 identify
people & 36 business interaction 40 strongest
families practices with practices interactions
64 Tasks of Successful Global Assignments

adapting 56 when in Rome 63 evaluate 52 set up
11 out all that only already all’s use of solace 27
is hard or Roman other’s assess systems
invent different byeffectiveness stuff frame- framework
own entire works explore work preference/ skill/use ratio of
org unique 54 civilization
only 53 detachment’s 50 imbalances 49 into experiences
forms of Inauthentic Uses innovation The Moves of reusable
globality of Diversities powers Using Diversities frameworks
Use Expanded Encounter
Work theory switching:
differences I like Frame Repertoires 62 experiences
turn
Degree
9 reinvent 10 = good; don’t 61 invent new into 25 ratio of 26
own culture like = bad engagement reusable frameworks
in annual means/ frame- deployed per
designed see more points feel what works situation
events of the others
world 64
use global use global 55 cannot 51 number
types & 28
of
scale 12 diversity Deploy Framework instances/type depth of
advantages advantages Powers encountered encounter
invention of invention of
3
Globalize applying into
7 unknown 60
copying Encounter Diversities
abstract 19 relate-at-
find global 16 find local environ- essence 32 repertoire 23
best best distance expansion:
performers performers ment capability frame &
invention expansion
test new of self function
protocols deliberate reflection
become a 14 continually 13 role play 58 adaptations 57 30 depth 29 all other is confused
destination for Mind others’ The Innovativity profession Encounter
acquaintances Extensions viewpoints of Error & organization Uses (= some good some bad)
Self & Family write up Others invention of Diversity Types personal global Encounter Stages
(target & origin) 6 improving
1 practice 2 protocol 5 pursue network
repertoire differences before 17 64 difference 18 building 21 all other is mastered 22
parallel dimensions (= personal repertoire
expansion competing applying
uses expansion)
diverse
turn own ways
build home productize 15 best protocols turn others’ 31
into reusable best protocols 59
community 4 spouse/kid frames for 8 into reusable personality 20 nation all other is good 24 all other is bad
events experiences others frames you use & gender & era (= liberating) (= skilllessness)
17. The Purposes-of-All-Arts Model of Innovation

There are very few graduate schools of design (here we do not consider engineering) in this
world, even fewer Phd. programs in design, and ever fewer design schools, undergrad or
grad, that teach creativity or creativity models directly. Most of the writing and academic
publishing on design is modeled on literary criticism--philosophic musings on trends, mean-
ings, “semiotics”, and nothing much empirical or grounded in data. Opinion reigns supreme
and students of design, for the most part, choose design because math, empirics, statistics,
and data are anathema to them. My own design students were forced in assignments to get
access to and conduct research interviews of the very top designers in Japan: Ando, Miyake,
Kenzo Tange, Hayao Miyazaki, etc. They came back horrified as each such designer had
huge personal libraries of books and read assiduously weekly, with thousands of “well read”
books lining the walls of their studios--my students had entered design to avoid things like
reading.
If we were to do a thought experiment on what a Phd research program in a grad school of

design could be built around--what hard but interesting possibly useful topics it might choose
as its research questions--some of the following always appear:
1. how do we measure the “greatness” of particular designs?

2. how do we re-orient mid-process a design toward eventual later “greatness”
3. what particular modifications, added or subtracted traits of a work or design,
improve its overall “greatness” or reduce that?
4. how many diverse ways are there for a design to amaze us, impress us as
great, change the entire history of its genre of design?
5. to what extent are all innovations, introduction in the world of “great”
designs?
6. what is the contribution of design “greatness” to innovation success and
“greatness”?
These are a suggestive not complete list.
Some of my grad students--researching what made a design “great” and making an app to
predict the eventual greatness of any particular work of art or design--noticed that the
model I had provided to them of “Purposes of All Arts” worked just as well in predicting lev-
els of impact of particular innovations on particular industries. In other words, designs that
changed the history of entire genres of design, did the same things to design that innovations
that changes the entire history of some industry did to that industry. The functions of
impact judged “great” were the same in design and innovation.
That model---64 Purposes of All Arts--is provided below in two formats--as a fractal concept
model diagram and as a prose explanation of each diagram box. Works of art, designs, and
innovations that enact more, more diverse, more thoroughly, more comprehensive pur-
poses on that model, eventually are judged “greater”. Later research by my graduate stu-
dents has found that artists, designers, and recently innovators, given mid-process data on
how many such purposes are enacted by the present partial version of their work, and there-
fore on what purposes are at present missing, not enacted--end up producing “better” and
“greater” final works/designs/innovations than those not given such mid-process data.
What grows a “change” “improvement” “modification” in an organization towards being “an

innovation that changes the entire history of a field” is enacting more purposes of all arts,
more diverse ones of the 64 purposes on my model, more thorough enactment of each such
purpose done. Also, though we have not yet done the research, particular ones of the 64
purposes may result in more impact of an innovation that enactment of others.
Important in this model of innovation is the idea of “enacting” a purpose in a user or client.
So you cannot just look at traits a work, design, or particular innovation “has” from the
viewpoint of its authors and developers. It is enactment of a function in users and customers
of it that counts. Picasso’s most creative single work is a good example--often said to be
Des Moiselles D’avignon. Picasso revealed it, just finished, to a very few close friend artists,
who all hated it. So Picasso put it away for some years, and years later re-introduced it,
whereupon it was soon dominating art world attention (and pricing) all over the world. It
“blew away the competition” to put it colloquially. So “enacting” an intended purpose in
others is a matter of timing. Too late and your purpose bores and appears copycat or deriv-
ative or just off base, irrelevant; too early and your purpose horrifies. This reveals the
social-ness of creativity, great design, and great innovating--you dialog with an era and its
trends, enthusiasms, and bigotries and, if you get it just right, your work “fits and upsets” in
a powerful, beautiful, thrilling way the age accepts inspite of some discomfiture. It is easy
to get it slightly wrong on the conservative side, not challenging existing norms enough, and
other the other bold side, getting beyond the past so much you scare everyone off.
HOW DO YOU INNOVATE IN THIS MODEL OF INNOVATION? Choose some device, situation,
human need, burgeoning trend, or nascent demise/trend/enthusiasm. Examine each of the
64 purposes of all arts, one at a time, in relation to that device, situation, etc. Ask--how
would applying this purpose to something else, X, enact itself on this device, situation, etc.
(example: how would “revealing the hidden” monkey hiearchy aspects of workplace ways
and cultures change the way we meet, discuss, assign tasks? Ask--how modifications of that
device, situations result in enactment of the purpose (example: how would live, behind-
screen, anonymous 20 minute lectures given by each employee, once a month, using voice
disguise technology, to all other employees in a 50 or so person section, reveal the usually
hidden and upend hidden harmful dynamics at work? That is two directions of asking--what
could function Z be applied to, to enact the same function Z there?--and--what modification
of a part of our reality would enact function Z?
Or take any in process would-be innovation--how much, how well, of how many, purposes of
all arts, how distributed on the 64, does that innovation presently enact? What modificatins
of it would get it to enact more purposes, better, better distributed?
Consider the following:
1. does my innovation reveal the hidden (in the 4 ways on the diagram)?
2. does my innovation overcome fixed life limits (airbnb for example)?
3. does my innovation name and tame new terrors & dreams?
4. does my innovation make impossible combinations?
5. does my innovation admit gaps people usually lie about or hide?
and so on for all 84 purposes on 3 levels in the diagram.
Cognitive Fault Lines 64 Historic Levels of 63 Inducing Higher Quality Improving Production 59 Insincerity: 48 Mismatches: 47 Lack of Skills of Spotting Tiny Personal Repertoires
Found and Tripped into Perception/Expression of Requirements in Your 60 Process: and Learning Other Ways: of Thought or Act: 43
Societal Tipping Points: Emotion, Feeling: Customer-Audience: issue responses, 44
lifestyle, family, culture,
roles (reversals) Art reveals our unpre- As we grow older and
Art can reveal new ways
Art can reveal to us the Art can review for us the Art can enlarge your view of work that no one has Responses become habits As we continually change paredness for a world of nearer to death, we find
fault lines in idea terri- history of how people have of what your audience and new values in us that and things around us so diverse values, views, & we occupy a tinier and
tried yet or pioneer lives
tories along which major seen or expressed parts of can aspire to and attempt. of people doing things as things change, gradu- change mismatches appear ways. It shows how we tinier fragment of ways
idea quakes may occur. experience or the world. It can inspire you to lead ally become ineffective where what we provide avoid learning and of being and frameworks
entirely new ways. Seeing
Art shows us tipping By viewing this we can your audience beyond then insincere responses. no longer fits what we or change. It shows how for viewing life. Art
this can cause us to greatly
points where small inputs imagine better percepts or what presently satisfies it. improve how we work or Art reveals how others need. Art reveals hard we work to miss or shows us just how tiny our
have huge It can inspire spur us to attempt our best efforts these emerging slight the ways views, values,
expressions of
outcomes. Beyond our own that you to improve Improve better deeds or intents have Incipient mismatches. of others. Culture and ways are,
make us what your
Quality due to new means unwittingly Edges of as and others who
All
80
creative audiences re-
quires. 79 of getting things become insin-
Consciousness Blindness have larger
selves and lives
contributors. done. cere & ineffec- 75
Art invites us to go Art raises the question 76 What we love the via culture blends.
tive responses.
continually beyond of the quality of all Slight continual in- most, what we are,
Dimensions of all we have seen and Historic Levels Choosing & we see and do, and Mastering 58 Pop Trends: cipient changes go Flight/Fight: 46 Assumed 41 enslaves us, revealed Distaste of or 42
Difference 61 done before. It invites of Improvement Understanding inspires us to improve Changing 45 on all the time, not Goodness of by art that investi- Refusal of
Your Audiences: quite generally the Technologies of seen or named till Born Into:
Analysis: extreme trespass and in Technique: news, music, fears/dreams, gates the certainties Other Cultures:
extrapolation. It shows 62 57 quality of all about Supply and art sees and names self, gender,
Production: lingo, pop threats/chances home, nation, of belief, the costs of
limits to overcome. us. them.
era, profession growing up local.
Art can show the se- Art can show the abstract Art can reveal audiences Our emotions are also
The basics of the world Our own ways of doing
principles by which all to us, possible audiences, Art can reveal new sub- continually changing,
are continually changing Without examining or are automated by lots of
quence of innovations in strates for doing old
techniques in the past were and particular dynamics sensing new fears or
but art updates us, by experiencing the vast practice and lubricated
a field so we notice the functions and new functions
improved. By interpolating in such audiences. By possibilities. Art updates
concentrating the slight majority of places, ways by unthinking social sup-
abstract ways new items to do with old substrates.
or extrapolating along them doing so it can give us the our emotions by making
and incipient changes in to live, or people we have ports. Others’ ways are
got envisioned and done. By doing so, art invites us
or inventing new such idea of how to create what large, clear, dramatic,
all domains of life into confidence the way we hard to do, unautomated
By extrapolating or inter- to radically renew what
dimensions we those audiences and visible slight
dramatic or funny or were born is best. and unsupported. Art
polating along those seen
dimensions or inventing can become Spawn would value or we do and how we do it, changes in mood
otherwise memorable SeeArt attacks this shows how we misinterpret
new ones of our own we creators ourselves. Creation
84
admire. turning everything we
attempt into creation.
events. and emotion in
and around us. 83
Better
basic bias/error
in all of us.
that difficulty as error or
weakness or inferiority
become creative contribu-
Art establishes Art helps us to of others’ ways.
tors to those fields.
in us all the con- see more and
Create Creation Machine See Wanted Novelty 36 See Wanted 35 see it more ac-
Change Logic: 52 Change 51 ditions for be- Conquer Emergent Side-Effects 40 Imbalances Maintained
Representation: coming creative. Failures, Manage & Use it to Create: 55
Conserved: Historic Dreams curately. It gives Overwhelm Because Alternatives 39
It sets up group Emergent Insights: us more of a Intended Effects: Unknown:
Art gives us entirely new world to be in.
logics by which to link and individual 56
Art can expose us to pre- Art causes us to see true democratized We often do or repeat
one thought to another, creativity.
cisely the creation dyna- novelty, newly born into performing, things because we are
revealing new implications unaware that there are
Art gives us entirely new We design and plan good mics or devices we have this world, as it gets at- We build up our selves
of existing knowledge avoided or omitted, there- tacked by established old For eons in rural villages and plans and deeds so alternative values or ways
ways to represent things things but often there
never seen before. These by pushing us over the powers-that-be. It reveals all people performed roles much that we continually to be. Art, by showing
which changes of repre- emerges something better
new implications can edge from self doubt and the ferocity with which in village festivals, getting are blind to unintended dramatically such alterna-
than we planned, which
uncover new problems to sentation can reveal solu- hesitancy to bold attempts the old fights against the limelight and attention for effects of our actions much tives often as lived by
tions to long- we miss if we love or
tackle or new and brazen new. growth. Modern larger than others, reveals
attend to our
solutions to FindNew standing prob-
plans too well. Create innovations. Missing societies have intended ones. Neurotic
our ways as
well known
problems. Questions lems or new
problems worth Art helps us
Creation Polis &lost this till art Art reveals & Paradoxic
traps, & opens
77 tackling. see & value

emergent Capability Limelight
reminds us of
this loss and our
these costs of
doing what we 74
Goalsus to possible
change.
78 73 Art helps us to see
Art reveals entirely results. need for audience. promise.
Art gives us step by Art lets us see what how we are our own
Find 49 new questions that Find Make See Wanted we lack, our desire See Wanted 34 The Cost of 37 Contradictory
53 step the wherewithal Mental Travel enemy, how there
Opportunity mystify us and change Leverage: 50 Interior & Liberations to perform, the atten- Free Collaborations Talents-- Goals:
what we investigate to create ourselves. Find Paradox: are costs of our ta- 38
Gaps: Exterior It inspires the mental 54 33 tion we crave. It re- Neurosis: lents and how our
and pursue. Room: minds of liberations
room for imagining goals are contradic-
and changing all. wanted or dreamed of. tory.
Art shows us gaps all Art shows us places where Art can stop the habits Art can transport us men- Giant central broadcast The world comes to us pre- Every talent we have is We want to fit in yet stand
around us that, by filling, small actions can have and priorities of our daily tally and expose paradox industries have stripped structured, so we rarely if developed by focus, which out, we want fame and
we might revolutionize giant disproportionate lives and give us new far and wide to us till we performance from the ever act freely to invent means inattention to other daily anonymity, we want
the world. Art reveals effects. By highlighting physical and emotional re-see the daily lives of new social institutions. matters, the lack of the money and love--our goals
chances to become crea-
tive by spotting and filling
such non-linearities in life
art shows us ways to
space in which imagina-
tion can grow toward full
world and
discover how
The all. So we Art reminds us that all
forget what imposing rules and things
developing of which con- contradict. Art forces us
stitutes the cost of our to see the contradictions in
such gaps. revolutionize knowledge creativity. Art can set us
free of enough to unleash
to create it
anew or pop-
Purposes we seek
liberation
around us finally are made talents--neurosis. We what we want and seek.
are unaware of these costs It forces us to measure the
or deed via minimal but by and sustained by men.
well focussed input. forces of creation in us. ulate it with of All Arts 85
from till Art reminds us it is our of our talents till art forces necessary costs of pursuing
creations we art reminds world to remake, anytime. us to see and feel them or getting what we want.
invent. All arts go beyond limits, us. and their powers.
causing reflection that
lets us see self and world
Cross-Abstraction 16 Cross Discipline & 15 Internal Opportunity: External 11 better, so that we our- Our Selves & Solutions That Perpetuate Minimal Recognition: Minimal Reference:27
Metaphoric Combines: Culture Combines: 12 Opportunity: selves become able to World As Our Problems 31 28
create, like the artists Prison: 32 There are edgues to the There are particular ways
Art overcomes the divisions, People tend to call or name
Art stands at very abstract languages, cultures that We can change internally Things may whose works do all this mind’s capabilities, that to refer to something that
viewpoints seeing pattern in ways we are not aware become for us by being creative. our likes, a “solution” only things art explores thoroughly. bring it all back well. Art
forever split us. It binds our fears, guaranteed to perpetuate
and unity missed in our togethew what men split. of or deny. Art shows us possible for Art seeks out what the explores just what these
quotidian busyness of new identities, feelings, us gradually our habits their problems. Art shows
It uses and values diversity slightest sorts of input are ways are, the ideal most
local viewing. Art spots styles, relations, aspira- so we are not this to us, forcing us to that suffice to recall or
that hurts or irritates or compact more suggestive
patterns across widely tions possible now for us aware, or avoid aware- We erect artificial nice see the bias, bigotry, and recreate the largest for-
overwhelms us. It presents powerful representations
separated and and names them ness due to disruption worlds to live our lives in, blindness in our goodness, gotten or denied realities.
of anything and everything
differing realms. a bigger more so we can costs of real denying most morality, tactics,
It makes the Make diverse world respond to Name New chances for of reality. Art Exchange efforts, and Find the in life. Art
world’s diversity Impossible than we person- them and do Terrors & change. Art reveals this Local for institutions. Minimal seeksthe actively
ally choose to Dreams shrinkage of Distant Art humiliates Essential what slightest
more manage-
able this way. Combinations deal with and
them.
67
names such
building world and Frameworks our solution Traits that refer to way to effectively
68 live in. Gradual incipient experience. attempts. Define 71 something is.
possibility. 72
Our world is split by unnamed things Art lets us view our We love impersona-
Cross 13 all sorts of divisions Cross 14 External 9 grow below the edge Internal 10 Novelty as 29 selves & world using Value of Present Minimal 25 tors and mimes for Minimal 26
Size Scale overcome by art Time Scale Threats: of our awareness Threats: Historic unusual distant Practice from they exercise our
Movements: Form:
Combines: that combines what Combines: till art names them Swing from frameworks so we What it Replaced minds’ great powers
in reality is usually and parades them 1 Pole to Other see patterns never 30 of suggestion. Art
never joined. We sense and
before us. seen before. exercises these powers.
peripherally
Art builds bridges between Art stands in timeless see things we are not We threaten ourselves in
The exciting inventions The value in what or how Our minds are highly A photo fragment or long
the tiny and the gigantic, eternal points beyond aware of or can articulate. various ways, make com-
of our time and age seem we do something now may suggestible so that a tiny forgotten news clipping
the eon and the everyday. existence viewing all Art invites us to name promises that erode our
impressively new only lie entirely in what that single gesture can recall can transport us to lost
Art fractally frames and history and possible these incipient feelings. primary images, confidence,
because we forget or practice replaced when an entire person or era eras and places instantly.
spots patterns. It repeats futures. Art plays the New threats may linger and values, waste time or
themes on many size on the margins of con- never learned the past. it was first invented and for us. Art plays with such Art explores the minimal
eternal return of relationships out of fear of popularized. Art shows powers of our brains. It traits, smells, colors, or
scales simultaneously. sciousness till art Often radical novelties
past theme in dying denial, and the like.
are merely swings done us the relativity explores the mini- shapes needed to thusly
future guises. Pierce by naming them
allows us to see
Art lets us name building
over decades from one of values undoing Cause mal gesture needed transport us to large lost
It bridges eons.
Limits and respond to
but subliminal internal
disappointments of our
pole to another of some our absolutizing
polarity, revealed by art. of them in daily
Reflection to recall maximal worlds or persons of
experience.
81 them. selves by ourselves. 82 contents/import.
Art overcomes life. Art is a mirror
the limits in life in which we see
Criteria Divergences: Mood Flaws: and the world self limits: social limits: 7 Anxiety of Existing Gaps: Performance parts of life that Know What You Know What You Know:
tiredness and our selves. 20 Gaps: 19 we normally Do Not Know: 24
virtue, aspiration disagreement, It goes beyond self centeredness, wasted lifespan, 23
4 imagination/mortality, forget or flee.
loneliness, such limits with sin, 8 politicizations, need/supply It reflects us to
Our primary group of 3 plan/side-effects We in daily life conscious-
weakness imagination. loss of love herd conformities reality/possibility ourselves.
family and close friends ness cannot really know
is the primary barrier to We like to feel in control Art lets us vent frustra- Our consciousness of our We pretend to competence, what we know, feel what
self change/improvement. of self and world so much Art lets us imagine a tion with social limits on selves, our deaths, our We think of ourselves as we experienced, think what
better us and life in which all we aspire to and do. control, influence, trying
They hate it if our criteria we lie to ourselves about limited lifespans, spawns always meeting our needs always to appear more we thought, remember
of performance differ love is true, we do what Art lets us name and mock profound anxieties within or working towards that who we are or who they
it; art lets us see and ad- we promis, and we care but in reality we ignore or important and powerful
from theirs. social harms hiding amid us that we flee or deny than we really were in our lives, till art
mit the gap for others block many of
Art lets us be social goods and or fail to admit. are, till art maps journeys
more than we Reveal between what
we really feel
more than
our selves.
Overcome traditions. The Art shows us Admit our most impor-
tant needs. Art brings us face Recall Life’s across our lives
and they now
are.
the and what we Art overcomes Fixed costs of being
social are re-
the true para-
meters of our
Gaps 69
is where we ad- to face with
all we do not
Best & Worst and feelings.
Hidden socially should
feel.
limits from
our selves. Life Limits vealed & refelt lives without
mit the tinyness
The gaps in life be- of our lives,deeds. yet control or Experiences
65 66 via art. flight or denial. tween word and know. 70
Personal and social We get tired of this Our experience of
deed, self and other,
Performance factors cause us to physical Self Gaps: immortal imagina- Social Gaps: Know 21 life is so rich we can- Know
hide from much of
Goal Flaws: time limits: one world and its
limits: 6 not bear it in mind
22
Flaws: greed, one way of doing, 17 tion and mortal 18 Yourself:
for long, losing aware- Others:
1 reality--art brings 2 death, 5
error, lust Art lets us imagine place, word/deed body, are recalled self/other
us back realities we busyness, ness of it till art lets
mistake other worlds and transport, dream/career by art and admitted. love/care
have hidden from. career us recall its moments.
ways. tree height
We disappoint ourselves We each have a love-hate Music can instantly trans- We have so many exper-
Time powerfully limits Thru art we imagine port us back to a specific iences, so many places, so
People avoid seeing and We paint our faces and then forget that we do so. relation to society and
our lives in many ways. beyond the physical wonderful past moment. many other people that
admitting error; only world, always making Art recovers these self others. We need them but
Death makes life short limits of our world, and Other arts can also do the constitute us, our lives,
fiction, art, or history things look better than disappointments, these wish independence of them.
and competitive. Busy- create motivation to same. Art indexes our our memory, yet access is
accurately present error. they are, till we forget gaps between our social We go beyond them but
ness makes us forget & invent actual ways to experiences, allowing us hard or impossible till
Comedy and tragedy how they really are. Our images and our personal fall behind them too. We
hurt those we love. Short get beyond such limits. instant access to our lives art opens doors to people
are based on making real animal nature & realities, our aspirations daily pretend to have no-
lifespan forces focus and Media techhnologies and selves in earlier forms. and places we have forgot.
error visible, felt, pal- drives embarrass us, so and our real accomplish- thing but social adequacy
choice on us that we often contnually get invented Art is a time machine for
pable. we hide them till art ments. but art forces us to see
dread and delay. Art to make us present in all the self.
reminds us of their power. spaces and times. that is mere pretense.
reminds us of this all.
You do not have to start with a bono fide innovation--you can take an ordinary change or modifi-
cation in how things are and by re-doing it to enact all the 64 purposes of all arts in the diagram,
step by step turn it into a whole-field-changing or history-changing innovation. To help you do
that, the prose explanation of each box on the diagram is given below. Imagine each of the
below applied to some idea, gap, opportunity, old system, proposed innovation, design, or
change.
The Model Itself, A Minimal Prose Expression of the 64 Art Purposes in It

All arts, designs, innovations pierce limits of life of several sorts. By imagining us beyond
such limits, arts, designs, and innovations encourage humans to devise later actual means of
transcending the same limits. All arts, designs, and innovations cause reflection--re-pre-
senting to us our own experiences--to overcome things that cause us to forget or flee or
never notice all that is going on, implied, entailed, or latent in what we do. All arts,
designs, and innovations cause us to see better--they open up a wider world, expanding
what we think, feel, see, and do. Seeing connections we would have missed, because arts,
designs, and innovations point out those connections, opens up new objects to see, and, in
turn, each newly seen object exponentially expands possible interesting connections to
notice. All arts, designs, and innovations cause people to become more creative. Art sets
up the conditions for being creative. The creators who are artists turn those who see or oth-
erwise experience their art into creators too.
All arts, designs, and innovations pierce limits in people and the world. They do this four
ways. All arts, designs, and innovations reveal what is hidden. Personal and social pres-
sures imperceptibly cause us to forget, hide from, flee, or deny parts of experience and real-
ity. Art recalls precisely these things we have forgotten, hidden from, fled, or denied. All
arts, designs, and innovations overcome fixed limits. We get tired of the nature of life in
this world, tired of all of it at times, and tired of any one or several particulars in it at other
times. Art lets us, by imagination, live in worlds that are different, lack certain limits or
rules, have different potentials. Art lets us explore how we as humans want to adjust and
relate to every thinkable aspects of the one world we inhabit. All arts, designs, and innova-
tions name new terrors and dreams, bringing them into human thought, discourse, and
action. All the incipient, nascent, intangible, things at the edge of awareness are, by art,
brought into view, named, thought about and acted on. Art civilizes all that is perceptible or
thinkable for us--it brings it into view of everything in civilizations. All arts, designs, and
innovations make impossible combinations. Our world is split by all sorts of divisions that
works of art overcome or imagine away, revealing to us relationships and synergies we never
would have directly encountered otherwise.
All arts, designs, and innovations cause reflection in people, re-presenting the world and
experience. They do this four ways. All arts, designs, and innovations get us to admit gaps
between word and deed, self and other, immortal imagination and mortal body that we deny,
flee from, hide from, minimize, or otherwise distort. Art brings up back into the presence
of holes, spaces, missing things. All arts, designs, and innovations get us to recall life’s best
and worst experiences. Art is a primary vehicle for remembering our past and envisioning
possible futures. Our experience of life is so rich we cannot bear it all in mind at once and
cannot maintain it in mind for long. Art overcomes such limits to awareness by representing
our best experiences and worst to us, so we remember what life is beyond what our present
moments contain. All arts, designs, and innovations free us from the bias of the present.
All arts, designs, and innovations find the minimal essential traits that define or identify
something. This is a game of seeing absolutely how few traits or acts or words we can use to
recall completely for us or others some complex powerful experience or image. We love
impersonators and mimes because they seem to exercise the immensely powerful and satis-
fying pattern recognition facilities of our human minds, pushing these machineries inside us
to the limits of their performance. All arts, designs, and innovations get us to exchange
local for more distant frameworks for viewing familiar things. Art magically turns our boring
repetitious mundane daily life worlds into immense unexplored territories by getting us to
view them from unfamiliar frameworks that, without arts, designs, and innovations , we
would never encounter or use.
All arts, designs, and innovations cause us to see better. They do this four ways. All arts,
designs, and innovations get us to spot what we are missing in terms of public spaces where
we can show our uniqueness via word and deed in front of a democracy of peers. Arts,
designs, and innovations reveal what we are missing in terms of public fora and limelight.
arts, designs, and innovations vicariously provide us with recognition and limelight for inti-
mate parts of our consciousnesses and lives that in reality we have no chance to show our
selves or others. Arts, designs, and innovations reveal the attention we continually crave
but do not get. It reminds us of what we wish liberation from. All arts, designs, and inno-
vations reveal the neuroticism and paradoxic nature of our own goals. Art teaches us
exactly how we are our own worst enemy. It shows the costs of our talents. All arts,
designs, and innovations show how having a culture, our culture, has costs we often do not
admit. It shows the cost of “being us” and “being I”. What we love and are enslaves us, art
shows. Art expenses the costs of growing up local and never accounting for all the localness
inside us. All art finds the incipient edges of consciousness. The new continually erodes all
that we based ourselves on as we grew up, but our frameworks from the past, blind us to the
new and the novelty in new things. Art accounts accurately for what is new and preserves
for us what is new in it, preventing us from assimilating it to the past, protecting it from
being engulfed by the past. Art defends what is new from what is old.
All arts, designs, and innovations spawn creation, establishing in people the conditions
required for being creative, for creating. They do this four ways. All arts, designs, and
innovations help us find new questions to seek answers for. Art reveals entirely new ques-
tions that change us and what we seek in life. All arts, designs, and innovations create cre-
ation capability in people. They establish within us each of the conditions needed for
creation. They draw us into the direction of creating. They reveal to us the inability of lives
that create no meaning after they are gone, to satisfy. They introduce us to the audience of
the unborn. All arts, designs, and innovations lead us to improve the quality of all that we
think and do. Arts, designs, and innovations make us dissatisfied with things as they are
and more importantly, with our current criteria of excellence. Arts, designs, and innova-
tions raise the quality question profoundly in us. All arts, designs, and innovations entice
us to go beyond all that ever was, all that is, and all that we can imagine to be. Arts,
designs, and innovations raise the question of extreme trespass, violation, and extrapola-
tion. Arts, designs, and innovations tell us stars have powers and arts, designs, and innova-
tions entice us to master star powers and invent new stars with newer powers.
In piercing limits, all arts, designs, and innovations reveal the hidden, overcome fixed lim-
its, name new terrors and dreams, and make impossible combinations. All arts, designs,
and innovations reveal the hidden. They do this four ways. All arts, designs, and innova-
tions reveal performance flaws, error, and mistake. Indeed the only place in all of life
where error and mistake are admitted is in fiction, in art. In reality, be it family, friendship,
company, or team, error and mistake are denied, hidden, dangerous, distorted, used as a
weapon against people. Comedy and tragedy both are based on error and mistake, comedy
viewing it from afar and laughing, the tragedy viewing it from nearby and crying. All arts,
designs, and innovations reveal goal flaws of greed and lust. We paint our faces always
making the world and ourselves look better than we are. Our real animal nature embar-
rasses us, so we hide it till arts, designs, and innovations remind us it is there, real, and us.
All arts, designs, and innovations reveal mood flaws of tiredness, disagreement, loneliness,
and weakness that undermine our effort to always look and be “in control”. There is so
much social pressure in humans to look powerful, in control, decisive, and the like that we
constantly distort our actual degree of power, control, and decision. Art reminds us of all
these distortions. All arts, designs, and innovations reveal diverging criteria of different
images of virtue and what to aspire for between us and others. Our primary group of family
and close friends is always there standing in the way preventing any fundamental change or
growth in us, till art reveals how much maintaining such relationships and closenesses is
costs us and them. Art sets us free from social support bought at a cost in what we aspire to
and maintain as our standards of performance and excellence.
In getting us to overcome fixed life limits, all arts, designs, and innovations get us beyond
time limits of death, busyness, and career, beyond physical limits of place, transport, and
mundane things like tree heights, beyond social limits of wasted lifespans, politicizations,
and herd conformities, and beyond self limits of self centeredness, sin, and loss of love. All
arts, designs, and innovations get us to overcome time limits of death, busyness, and career.
Time powerfully limits our lives in many ways. Death shortens things, though people tend to
spend the first decades of their lives ignoring it. If you are not careful death can end up jus-
tifying horrible actions--you get one chance, someone is standing in your way, crush them
because you do not have long to live. Arts, designs, and innovations , all of them, invite us
beyond the anxiety that short lifespans and death tend to impose. Arts, designs, and inno-
vations remind us what is lost when we get too wrapped up in the shortness of life. Busy-
ness and career yearnings similarly become excuses for hurting those we loves and bypassing
essentials for more superficial values. Arts, designs, and innovations call us back, beyond
our wrappedness in work, career, and general activity, to see what is being unseen, remem-
ber what is being forgotten, value what is being de-valued. All arts, designs, and innovations
get us to overcome physical limits of place, transport, and mundane things like the height
limit on trees. Arts, designs, and innovations invite us to imagine worlds with trees many
kilometers high, worlds where people commute to work between planets, worlds where
everyone lives on beaches computing to work from the waves. Arts, designs, and innova-
tions release us from the tiresomeness of having only one world, one type of physics, one
planet to live on and in. Arts, designs, and innovations invent capabilities that technologies
tend, years or decades or centuries later, to actually establish. All arts, designs, and innova-
tions get us to overcome social limits in life like wasted lifespan, politicizations of issues,
herd conformities. Being social automatically gives us lots of poise, courage, encourage-
ment, resources, so much so we sometimes forget the costs in conformity, politics, backbit-
ing, self editing that come with it. Arts, designs, and innovations remind us of what these
costs have cost us. It lets us imagine social support without herd conformity as a cost. All
arts, designs, and innovations invite us beyond self limits like self centeredness, inability to
follow through on our own values, and loss of love, among millions of others. Being a self
means having great vulnerability to isolation, to posturing, to images that others develop of
us through interaction. Being vulnerable is so much a part of being a self that we tire of the
way we emphasize our selves all the time, the way we continue to make promises we fail to
keep, the way we care for others who end up not returning any care to us. Art relieves us of
these disappointments in being a self. Art lets us imagine I’s not overly concerned only with
“me”, promises not turned into mere posturing by failure to keep the promises, and loves
that gets returned in equal measure.
In naming new terrors and dreams, all arts, designs, and innovations direct our attention to
new threats from without, to things inside us that erode us or waste our efforts, to opportu-
nities arising so gradually we may realize them too late, and to changes going on inside us
that have great portents that we may miss entirely. All arts, designs, and innovations put a
name to incipient or latent external threats that we would otherwise perhaps miss till they
become overwhelmingly large. Long before policy discussions or budgets change, arts,
designs, and innovations dramatize and poke fun at, imagine and delve into parts of life too
subtle or new to fit into any existing category. Arts, designs, and innovations are first to
see what threatens whole communities and societies and give it a name. Things and trends
that are just ideas get turned by arts, designs, and innovations into felt, seen, experienced
impacts on real lives. Abstract threats become embodied via arts, designs, and innovations.
All arts, designs, and innovations make visible and name ways we threaten ourselves that
are so gradual, slight, latent, inchoate that we otherwise would never notice them till done
in by them. Compromises, the costs of which we forget, time wasted as fear of dying con-
sumes us, sentimental relations to others that prevent real care and changes in our perspec-
tive are all gradual things that build up unseen in us till one art form or another brings them
powerfully to our attention. Suddenly that experience of those people in that drama over
there gets seen as my experience here inside my mind, realized and made explicit. Sud-
denly I become aware of what has been going on in me for quite some time. Suddenly I see
and feel it, notice its boundaries, parameters, and implications. Suddenly I care about it,
that is, about me. All arts, designs, and innovations name new external opportunities grad-
ually appearing around us, that we have not noticed. Indeed, opportunities that we have
avoided noticing because of unwillingness to contemplate the changes in us they imply, get
named too, by arts, designs, and innovations. Whether we want it or not, arts, designs,
and innovations introduce us to newly opened vistas, now actually possible for us, that we
can been pretending were not there. Hope that was not hoped for now confronts us, due to
intervention by one art or another. All arts, designs, and innovations name new internal
opportunity as well. We can lug around images of our self that get more and more out of
synch with what we actually feel and do. Arts, designs, and innovations break in, and name
new aspects of our selves for us, making us realize new capabilities, fears, chances that are
there latent in who we have unwittingly become.
In making impossible combinations, all arts, designs, and innovations combine things on dif-
ferent size scales, combine things on different times scales, combine things in different cul-
tures and disciplines, and combine things based on different abstractions or metaphors. All
arts, designs, and innovations combine things on different size scales. The small and the
giant are joined in art. Patterns and themes operating on one size scale are noticed to be
operating on smaller and larger scales in works of art. A unity across size scale is brought to
attention and dramatized. Consider great tragedies where the slightest surface flaw in
behavior dooms entire dynasties and families--the great brought low by the slight or insignif-
icant. All arts, designs, and innovations combine things on different time scales. Arts,
designs, and innovations bind times otherwise utterly separate. The eternal return of
themes, incidents, character types itself recurs throughout all arts, designs, and innova-
tions. Art works stand in some eternal unmoving point viewing the swirl of time and history
and story and career around it. It is the stillness of each art work that so emphasizes the
swirl of what we call life around it. All arts, designs, and innovations cross culture and dis-
cipline boundaries. There are so many boundaries erected by people and our organizations.
We live in complex cages within cages. Arts, designs, and innovations pull us beyond the
mental, social, emotional, moral, aspects of these boundaries, joining precisely what, in
reality, is never joined. Boundaries as places to hide from the costs of diversity are
revealed and reviled by arts, designs, and innovations. All arts, designs, and innovations
combine across abstractions and metaphors. Abstractions and metaphors (up is “better”
than down, for example) are within the mind boundaries that, because they often operate
unconsciously, restrict us in ways we are unaware of till works of art show us value that vio-
lates them (downs that are “better” than ups, continuing the example). Arts, designs, and
innovations show where our habitual terminology, grammars, and images of language mis-
lead us and distort reality.
In causing reflection, all arts, designs, and innovations get us to admit gaps of various sorts,
to recall the best and worst experiences of our lives, to recognize complex wonderful things
from extremely partial aspects of them, and to exchange our local comfortable frameworks
for distant ones that change the meaning of everything. They do this four ways. All arts,
designs, and innovations get us to admit gaps of several sorts, self gaps between word and
deed or between dream and career, social gaps between self and others or between love and
care, performance gaps between what is needed and what is supplied, or between what is
possible and what is made real, and finally, anxiety of existing gaps between what we imag-
ine and our very real mortality or between what we plan and the unexpected side-effects of
getting it that often overwhelm what we planned. All arts, designs, and innovations get us
to admit self gaps between word and deed or between dream and career. We disappoint
ourselves but forget we do so. We aspire to more than we achieve and imperceptibly learn
to exaggerate our actual achievements in our own minds till we lose track of reality entirely.
Arts, designs, and innovations remind us that hope is different than achievement, most of
the time. Art deflates bombastic versions of our greatness that we concoct all too easily.
All arts, designs, and innovations get us to admit social gaps between self and others or
between love and care. We need self and others and get sick of too much of self and others,
as well. We go beyond them but also fall behind them. We pretend to be socially adequate
rather than either actually meeting social needs or actually rejecting social criteria and
demands. Arts, designs, and innovations remind us that what self is and wants in all too
often not what others are and want. We are socially pressured into so many actions and
words that we can lose sight of our own real selves and wants. All arts, designs, and innova-
tions expose the gaps in our performance. What is needed is often, perhaps even usually,
not what is supplied. What is possible is nearly always greatly beyond what is really
achieved. Our ambitions are immense, our accomplishments much more modest. We tend
to want to forget that modesty of the actual and live more in the comfortably immensity of
our imagined accomplishments. All arts, designs, and innovations expose the anxieties of
existence that we erect artificial well controlled worlds to deny the existence of. Arts,
designs, and innovations bring us face to face with death, consciousness, limitations of mind
and culture, gender and biology. We have central, neutral, diverse, happy views of our
selves that deny the marginal, biased, uniform, unhappy realities of where we grew up and
who we have unwittingly allowed ourselves to become. Art reminds of us the unbounded,
the unplanned, the unadmitted, the uncontrolled elements in reality that deny our images of
control, rationality, purpose, and accomplishment.
All arts, designs, and innovations recall for us both the best and worst experiences of our
lives. They do this four ways. All arts, designs, and innovations recall for us what we know
about ourselves. Arts, designs, and innovations index our life experiences for us, giving us
immediate access to things that happened to us decades ago, as if they are real, happening
now, once again. Arts, designs, and innovations are time machines for us. All arts, designs,
and innovations recall what we know about others. Our lives are so rich in experience that
we cannot stay aware of it all. Arts, designs, and innovations remind us of the otherness of
others, undoing how we naturally assimilate away what is different as we make things famil-
iar to us. All arts, designs, and innovations recall what we know about what we know.
They point out what we have learned and failed to learn. They highlight the borders of the
known inside us. Arts, designs, and innovations call to mind things we learned and knew but
forgot that we knew. Arts, designs, and innovations make all that we ever knew accessible
again for us. All arts, designs, and innovations recall what we know we do not know. They
remind us “you do not know anything about that” in the face of our constant posturing to
look competent and accomplished in every life situation and circumstance. Arts, designs,
and innovations remind us of all we have not done, not learned, never experienced, falsely
claimed. They keep us honest. They deflate our continual efforts to self exaggerate.
All arts, designs, and innovations find the minimal essential traits of things needed to call
them fully to mind. This is a sort of game. Humans have immensely powerful perceptual
machineries and all arts, designs, and innovations like the game of seeing how slight, tiny,
and insignificant a fragment of something they can present that effectively fully brings into
awareness and experience so complex powerful entity or part of the past. The greater the
imbalance between slight trigger and overwhelmingly huge response the better the art, we
feel. This game of slightnesses suggesting hugenesses is a powerful drive within all arts,
designs, and innovations , from judo to financial instrument design, from lip ends on the
Mona Lisa’s smile to tiling in Frank Lloyd Wright ceilings. All arts, designs, and innovations
seek out minimal gestures or movements that suffice to suggest complex immense things. It
can be the rattling motion of two leaf bare branches in a tree that evokes a lost love, lost
youth, lost innocence, lost era. All arts, designs, and innovations seek out minimal forms,
shapes, bits and pieces of things that suffice to bring back huge wholes. When a fragment of
a song is found evocative, artists shorten it, dropping notes, rhythm beats, tonalities playing
the old game of minimal form needed to evoke. All arts, designs, and innovations seek min-
imal references that suffice to bring back huge wholes. A single word can bring back to full
presence in the mind admiration for the ultimate courage of the human race. “Thermopo-
lae” is one such word, where people knowing the reference recall how 300 Spartans,
defeated, slaughtered to a man, in battle, tilted all of history so that Western civilization as
a whole could emerge. Without that day, and those 300 heroic deaths, the moon might be
now unvisited by man, vaccines might yet be undreamt of, most children dying before age
five. Artists work at it, finding the slightest reference that yet suffices to achieve full recall
of exactly the right experience. All arts, designs, and innovations seek out minimal recogni-
tions as well. Minimal recognitions are minimal recalls, where you recall just enough to get
the main point but not enough to get hardly any detail. This is an intensification of the over-
all game, where both ends are minimized, the input needed to recall, and what is recall min-
imized to include only the essential core.
All arts, designs, and innovations exchange local frameworks with distant ones, throwing
new light on everything. There are four ways this gets done. All arts, designs, and innova-
tions highlight swings in history from over-emphasizing one pole of a polarity to the other
pole (and back again), highlight how the value of present arrangements and institutions
comes from what they fixed and replaced not from what they by themselves are, highlight
how what we are willing to call a “solution” is only something guaranteed to perpetuate our
problems, often, and highlight how our beliefs, habits, and values are a prison we willingly
keep ourselves in to protect ourselves from reality. All arts, designs, and innovations
expose how current inventions, insights, and innovations repeat highly similar ones decades
and centuries ago as civilization swings from one pole of polarities to opposite ones and
back. By debunking claims of unmatched insightfulness by expanding historical context,
arts, designs, and innovations remove the present’s ability to fool us by blotting out past
and future as context. A big part of this is the way arts, designs, and innovations ground
the historic in particular lives, and expand the particulars of lives into historic trends and
forces that generate them--arts, designs, and innovations make the individual historic and
make the historic individual. This comes as absolution to people who suffer from what they
think is private “they alone” situations only via arts, designs, and innovations to discover
exactly the same suffering in millions of others’ lives, relieving them of guilt and shame. All
arts, designs, and innovations expose how present arrangements do not make sense now by
themselves--they made sense when invented to fix some arrangement that was present in
the past. Now, however, they may or may not relate effectively to anything--usually they do
not, hence, are literally senseless. Arts, designs, and innovations expose the senselessness
of institutions when their process-of-creation contexts are removed. All arts, designs, and
innovations expose how individuals, groups, and whole societies are only willing to call “a
solution” things that are guaranteed to maintain their most intractable and important prob-
lems. Americans facing a third of their population without even the pretense of effective
schools propose not elementary decency of the richest one third of their population but
rather more innovation, more experimentation, more new methods of schooling, all things
guaranteed to leave unaddressed the root causes of their lousy schools. Only Americans are
fooled by these displays of “solution”. Arts, designs, and innovations reveal these sorts of
self contradiction in purpose and policy, person and proposal. All arts, designs, and innova-
tions expose how our favorite beliefs, habits, and values imprison us. We yearn for free-
dom but yearn more for safety provided at a cost of non-freedom, it seems. Arts, designs,
and innovations reveal how the world we erect between us and harsh nature also protects us
from responsibility, opportunity, and all of our freedom.
In getting us to see limelight and public space of participation missing from our lives, arts,
designs, and innovations save us from the anonymity and loneliness that threatens to over-
whelm us at times. They do this four ways. All arts, designs, and innovations get us to see
how massive central broadcast entertainment industries have stripped chances to perform
from everyday lives of most people. Each art work itself sets up a small new alternative
public space where people directly experience shared feelings, perceptions, they did not
know were shared by other people. This relieves them of loneliness and to an extent throws
limelight on personal private struggles they thought they alone suffered with. Arts, designs,
and innovations are, in this way, the single most powerful antidote to loneliness that civili-
zations yet offer. Arts, designs, and innovations also remind people of liberations they want
but have been too timid to move on. When people gather in the semi-public spaces of art
works, find their longing or frustrations are not theirs alone, desire for liberation moves from
wish to plan, gathering courage by observed support in others nearby. All arts, designs, and
innovations get us to see wanted collaborations. We usually take social institutions as if
they were embodied laws of physics, unchangeable. Art reminds us that humans made
every last piece of the civilization and civilization’s world, hence, humans can remake any
part of that at any time. Art dissolves solids of society into liquids. Institutions now visible
are the results of past collaborations. When arts, designs, and innovations make us see the
human-built-ness of existing imposing institutions, they also get us to start up those collabo-
rations that result in changed or new institutions. All arts, designs, and innovations get us
to see historic dreams we have failed to try for, embody, or have the courage to create. All
arts, designs, and innovations via establishing mini-public spaces in which people’s intimate
contents become public and vice versa, democratize performing and inject chances to per-
form into daily life. The mini-performance before or inside a work of art, exhibition, con-
cert, or event that arts, designs, and innovations provide also releases the big-performance
of history changing dreams inside people but unreleased till they, finding aspirations they
thought their alone are actually shared by many others, get emboldened to turn into reality
dreams held till now inside. All arts, designs, and innovations expose novelty needing con-
serving and useless conserving of the old going on. Arts, designs, and innovations reveal
the ferocity with which the old defends itself against anything new, however small and triv-
ial. Arts, designs, and innovations warn us that inventing is only half the battle, the real
battle comes after invention when forces of the past gang up to again attack and assimilate
every particle of novelty to what is old, already established, and ungrowing.
In getting us to see the neurotic and paradoxic nature of our goals, arts, designs, and innova-
tions show how we are our own worst enemies. They show how our talents, all of them,
have costs. They do this four ways, by showing the costs of talents and skills, by showing
the contradictions inherent in our goals, by showing how we imbalance our lives by forget-
ting current positions were extremes along polarities whose other poles have been forgot-
ten, and by showing how side-effects tend to overwhelm intended and planned effects. All
arts, designs, and innovations reveal the costs of our talents. Every talent represents focus,
selection, practice, reward, pride, and the like. Each of those narrows people, removing
attention and practice from other parts of life, hence, each represents costs of being greatly
skilled in the talent’s area. All arts, designs, and innovations reveal contradictions in the
goals we have and contradictory other goals we have. For example, our drive to be individ-
uals and our drive to be socially supported and recognized contradict each other daily. Art
forces us to see such contradictions. All arts, designs, and innovations reveal lost and for-
gotten alternatives that explain the way out of current problems caused by our emphasis on
one pole of how to think or act. We, long ago, faced a choice, chose an alternative, justi-
fied that choice for years, gradually forgot there was any other choice available, till arts,
designs, and innovations remind us that we are occupying a tiny narrow space of living,
reduced by forgetting all the alternatives we denied choosing over the years. All arts,
designs, and innovations reveal how the surround of unplanned and unintended side-effects
of our actions may overwhelm in significance and power all the wonderful rationally
intended and accomplished achievements of our lives. We tend to celebrate our victories so
much that we lose sight of side-effects of achieving them that negate their benefits, in not a
few cases. Arts, designs, and innovations remind us of the costs of such victories, the
denied other unintended outcomes around them.
In getting us to see how our identities and cultures are blindnesses, all arts, designs, and
innovations reveal the costs of growing up anywhere at all. The process of growing up,
wherever and whenever it takes place, has associated with it large costs. We think we get
broader and broader as we age but in reality most of us get narrower and narrower. Any
career success at all, tends to greatly narrow our interests, actions, audiences, accolades,
and destinies. The few unnarrowed such people tend to become Nobel Prize winning novel-
ists, starting their writing after age forty, because no other career worked out for them, for
one example. Arts, designs, and innovations do this four ways, by undoing assumed good-
ness of our own nation, family, era, gender, profession, and so forth, by revealing our dis-
taste for otherness in general, other people, other ways, other ideas, other cultures, by
revealing the narrowness and tinyness of our chosen identities and careers, and by showing
our lack of skill at handling diversity of any sort, including our lack of willingness and ability
to learn from most of what we encounter in life. All arts, designs, and innovations reveal
that those things we are most assured of the goodness of, do us and other the most harm.
Our trust in self, family, nation, gender, era, profession all betray us into bigotry, error, par-
adox, and failure. Without undoing the unthinking narrownesses that our family, commu-
nity, friends, schools, gender gave us as we grew up, we never see and fully choose from all
the alternative ways of thinking and acting that are there in the world. Who we are, our
identity, blocks so many choices from us that we live in tiny restricted universes whose
restrictions we fail to unearth, sometimes lifelong. All arts, designs, and innovations reveal
how we take the unnaturalness, unlearnedness, unautomaticness of others ways of doing
things, for inferiority and skill-less-ness. We fail to account for the years of practice in our
own ways that make them seem clearly superior to ways of others that we have no practice
experience with. All arts, designs, and innovations reveal how we have made ourselves
narrower and narrower, in part by simply aging, in part by simply succeeding, in part by sim-
ply being who we are. All that is easy, natural, and unthinking in how we grew up and pro-
gressed comes back to haunt us in work after work of art. Arts, designs, and innovations
show the cost in terms of narrowness achieved, of choosing and becoming any particular
someone or identity. Arts, designs, and innovations reveal the tiny island of a world-let
that we confuse with all of life and the world as we age. All arts, designs, and innovations
show how unprepared we are to handle one after another sort of diversity in the world.
Arts, designs, and innovations reveal our resistance to learning from others, our dislike of
otherness itself, our refusal of the work of practicing the ways of others till we love those
ways as much as our own ways. In part arts, designs, and innovations do this simply by
showing us how wonderful the ways of others are, or how they precisely solve those recru-
descent problems our own ways never seem to solve.
In getting us to see the incipient new things at the very edges of our consciousness, all arts,
designs, and innovations expand the world we are in together and talk about with others.
Such bugging novelties have to be seen and named before people in general can notice and
talk about them. This happens four ways, by inventing new language for new phenomena,
by enlarging slight new emotions till they become visible to all, by monitoring carefully what
changes fast versus what changes little till mismatches become evident to all, by distinguish-
ing automatic unthinking responses from care-filled authentic ones till structural patterns of
distortion or insincerity become apparent to all. All arts, designs, and innovations exagger-
ate slight new interest, feelings, thought, actions, things till they become visible and get
unique names. All arts, designs, and innovations invent new language for new such phe-
nomena to be named. All arts, designs, and innovations update our emotions by naming
new emotional phenomena too slight or unfunded or non-central to be noticed in the harsh
flux and competitions of daily life. All arts, designs, and innovations make such new emo-
tions visible much earlier than harassed daily lives would make them evident. All arts,
designs, and innovations watch which parts of life change a lot and which change hardly at
all and how friction and abrasions arise between these differently flowing layers. Such mis-
matches are named by arts, designs, and innovations far earlier than we would name them
in the daily onrush of life. All arts, designs, and innovations spot automatic unthinking
responses and distinguish them carefully and dramatically from care-filled authentic ones.
Arts, designs, and innovations show how our best efforts and “good” behaviors actually have
become dated relics sustaining the unsustainable, ignoring the rising tides of the future.
All arts, designs, and innovations set up the conditions for creating in people encountering
them. They do this four ways. They expose new questions. They create creation capabil-
ity in people otherwise lacking it. They improve the standards of quality of all we do. They
invite us to go beyond all we know and can handle. All arts, designs, and innovations help
us by exposing new questions for us. They do this four ways. Arts, designs, and innovations
expose gaps between in explanations and practices around us, any one of which might open
up entire huge new opportunities. Arts, designs, and innovations reveal non-linearities to
us, places where small inputs can have entirely disproportionate large outputs. Arts,
designs, and innovations change how we represent and model situations, exposing myriad
new aspects, parameters, and outcomes we never otherwise would have noticed. Arts,
designs, and innovations change the logics by which we link one phenomenon to another,
one fact to others, get myriad implications from one outcome.
All arts, designs, and innovations set up the capabilities for creating in people encountering
them. They do this four ways, by creating interior psychic and exterior social room to cre-
ate in, by exposing paradox and getting us involved in mental travel, by introducing us to
creation machineries we can personally master and apply, and by inspiring us to conquer as
failures to create pile up, till our accumulated failures specify what successes must be like.
All arts, designs, and innovations create interior psychic room in us that allows us to create.
All arts, designs, and innovations create exterior social room around us that allows us to
create. They lead us into what to shut down, what to avoid, what to de-value, till we find
ourselves alone with our imaginations in a fascinating world of imaginative possibility, intro-
duced to us by the same arts, designs, and/or innovations. All arts, designs, and innovations
expose paradox and invite mental travel. They transport us to where our certainties and
values fail to work for us and to where the questions that dog our daily lifes dwindle into
utter insignificance. All arts, designs, and innovations introduce us to particular creation
machineries we can master and apply, inspired to do so by the arts, designs, and/or innova-
tions that introduced them to us. A particular material in one artwork, a particular tech-
nique in another, a particular emotion from another, all combine inside us till we see a way
to combine them into works that would impress ourselves and others. All arts, designs, and
innovations inspire the hardness, the persistence, the doggedness, the will to conquer in us
needed to turn attempts and interests into accomplishments and wonders.
All arts, designs, and innovations inspire us to improve the quality of absolutely every single
part of life. They do this four ways, by revealing audiences and the limitations in standards
that audiences maintain for themselves and others, by revealing new subtrates, technolo-
gies, substances, configurations with which to do new functions never done before and with
which to do old functions differently or better than when they were done by familiar materi-
als of the past, by revealing new ways of working and collaborating not possible before that
themselves constitute creativity and that allow functions to be creatively done that never
were creatively done before, and by enlarging audience hopes and ambitions so audiences
themselves inspire to go beyond their own current criteria of excellence. All arts, designs,
and innovations reveal audiences to us. We observe the audiences drawn by particular arts,
designs, and innovations and learn what those people react to and hope for. All arts,
designs, and innovations reveal new materials and technologies to us, first applying and
using things that general products will shy away from for commercial reasons for years yet.
All arts, designs, and innovations reveal new ways of work that it will take decades for gen-
eral society to must the courage to handle and benefit from. All arts, designs, and innova-
tions inspire audiences to require better things of themselves, to upgrade their own criteria
of living and excellence.
Finally, all arts, designs, and innovations invite us beyond all that is, was, or that we can
imagine ever being. All arts, designs, and innovations invite us beyond all. They do this
four ways, by revealing a sequence of highly abstract dimensions along each of which past
inventors extrapolated new values that constituted past creations, by showing us sequences
of technique progression within and borrowed across fields, by revealing the best expres-
sions and recreations of feeling of every culture and age, and by revealing the trip lines, the
tipping points of past lives, eras, genders, persons, nations, societies. All arts, designs, and
innovations surprise or amaze or touch us via varying the past along highly abstract dimen-
sions invisible to us till some art takes an extreme value along one such dimension. By
exposing such dimensions of difference underneath each creation, they educate us in the
abstract frameworks for doing our own future creating, going beyond all past such values on
all past such dimensions. All arts, designs, and innovations add to a historic sequence of
techniques tried, invented, and applied. By interpolating and extrapolating along that
sequence we become capable of going beyond any past invention, in principle. All arts,
designs, and innovations show us the epitome of every culture and age in terms of great
expression or recreation of feeling and thought. By exposing us to the best of humanity
throughout all history again and again, arts, designs, and innovations, set us up for going
beyond it all. All arts, designs, and innovations expose tipping points where slight inputs
have huge outcomes. By exposing us to one of these after another for years and decades
arts, designs, and innovations, inspire us to search for and equip us to recognize new such
tipping points we discover on our own. Such tipping points become ways that we can go
beyond all past accomplishments.
SOME THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS ON USE OF THIS INNOVATION MODEL. Ask yourself--can you
find a smartphone app in any app store that allows 3 or 5 or 10 people to instantly find each
other and together create and market something on the web in minutes or hours or a few
days of chat-like shared enthusiasm together? These are the “spawn creation” boxes on the
Purposes of All Arts diagram. In reality there are no smartphone apps, at the time of this
writing, for most of those 16 “spawn creation” boxes. A pity. Take a single other box--
exchange local for distant frameworks--it is hard to find any smartphone apps for that func-
tion either. An exercise I give to my students is this--take the iPhone 4 when first intro-
duced by Apple, or the iPhone 6+, and give evidence showing which of the 64 Purposes of All
Arts it supported when released. Identify also thereby which of the 64 Purposes it did not
then support and does not now support? What changes in its design would enact each of the
functions it does not now support? This is core vital practical detailed comprehensive inno-
vation thinking.
USING THE TABLE BELOW. The table below is just a table format version of the same 64
purposes of all arts presented in two other formats above. The table format is used for inno-
vation teams. You fill in each blank with HOW to apply that purpose to some device, pro-
posed innovation, design, old version needing updating, etc. Again there are two ways to
apply--what if this PURPOSE were applied to it would modify this device/design X well? and
what MODIFICATIONS in X would enact this PURPOSE well?
CAN FUNCTIONS MAKING ARTS GREAT MAKE INNOVATIONS GREAT? Students of mine and
virtually all my consulting clients at first were disoriented and doubtful--how can purposes
that arts enact be expected to apply to innovations? A great number of deep emotional
functions are enacted by arts--innovations tend to be male, emotion-less, technical things
instead. However, use of the table below changes student and client attitudes 180 degrees.
They find that the emotional purposes, usually slighted in innovation and by male managers
and systems are eye-opening new doors for precisely what extant innovations miss and
distort. Indeed, Apple had many design features to enact emotive functions ignored by its
competitors--hence, a feel of excellence, of something worked over, cared for, loved.
The 64 Purposes of All Arts, Designs, and Innovations

Reveal performance 1people avoid seeing and admitting error; only fiction, art,
flaws: error, or history accurately present error; comedy and tragedy are
the Hid- mistake based on making error visible, felt, palpable
den goal flaws: 2. we paint our faces and world always making things look
personal and greed, lust better than they are, till we forget how they really are; our
social factors real animal nature and drives embarrass us, so we hide them
cause us to till art reminds us of their power and reality
hide from
much of real- mood flaws: 3. we like to feel in control of self and world so much we lie
ity--art brings tiredness, dis- to ourselves about it; art lets us see and admit the gap
agreement, between what we really feel and what we socially should
us back reali- feel
ties we have loneliness,
hidden from weakness
criteria diver- 4. our primary group of family and close firends is the pri-
gences: vir- mary barrier to self change/improvement; they hate it if our
tue, criteria of performance differ from theirs; art lets us be
aspiration more than we and they now are
Over- time limits: 5. time powerfully limits our lives in many ways; death
death, busy- makes life short and competitive; busyness makes us forget
come ness, career and hurt those we love; short lifespan forces focus and
Fixed Life choice on us that we often dread and delay or do badly; art
reminds us of all this
art overcomes the limits in life and the world and our selves; it goes beyond such limits with imagination
Limits physical lim- 6. thru art we imagine beyond the physical limits of our
we get tired workd, and create motivation to invent actual ways to get
of this one its: place,
transport, beyond such limits; media technologies continually get
world and its invented to make us present in all spaces and times
one way of tree height
doing; art lets social limits: 7. art lets us vent frustration with social limits on all we
us imagine wasted aspire to and do; art lets us name and mock social harms
other worlds lifespan, hiding amid social goods and traditions; the costs of being
and ways social ar revealed and refelt via art
politiciza-
tions, herd
Pierce Limits
conformities
self limits: 8. art lets us imagine a better us and life in which love is
self centered- true, we do what we promise, and we care for others more
ness, sin, loss than our selves; art overcomes limits from our selves
of live
Name external 9. we sense and peripherally see things we are not aware of
threats or can articulate; art invites us to name these incipient feel-
New Ter- ings; new threats may linger on the margins of consciousness
rors & till art by naming them allows us to see and respond to them
Dreams internal 10. we threaten ourselves in various ways, make compro-
mises that erode our primary images, confidence, and val-
gradual incipi- threats ues, waste time or relationships out of fear of dying denial,
ent unnamed and the like; art lets us name building but subliminal inter-
things grow nal disappointments of our selves by ourselves
below the
edge of our external 11. things may become possible for us gradually so we are
awareness till opportunity not aware, or avoid awareness due to disruption costs of real
art names chances for change;; art names such building oossibility
them and internal 12. we can change internally in ways we are not aware of or
parades them opportunity deny; art shows us new identities, feelings, styles, relations,
before us aspiractions possible now for us and names them so we can
respond to them and do them
Make cross size 13. art builds bridges between the tiny and the gigantic,
scale combi- the eon and the everyday; art fractally frames and spots
Impossi- nations patterns; it repeats themes on many size scales simulta-
ble Com- neously
binations cross time 14. art stands in timeless eternal points beyond existence
scale combi- viewing all history and possible futures; art plays the eternal
our world is return of past theme in future guises; it bridges eons
split by all nations
sorts of divi- cross disci- 15. art overcomes the divisions, languages, cultures that
sions over- pline and cul- forever split us; it binds together what men split; it uses
come by art ture and values diversity that hurts or irritates or overwhelms us;;
that com- combinations it presents a bigger more diverse world that we personally
bines what in choose to deal with and live in
reality is usu- crosss 16. art stands at very abstract viewpoints seeing pattern and
ally never abstraction unity missed in our quotidian busyness of local viewing; art
joined spots patterns acrosss widely separated and differing realms;
metaphoric
combinations it makes the world’s diversity more manageable this way
Admit self gaps: 17. we disappoint ourselves then forget that we do so; art
word/deed recovers these self disappointments, these gaps between our
Gaps dream/career social images and our personal realities, our aspirations and
the gaps in our real accomplishments
life between social gaps: 18. we each have a love-hate relation to society and others;
word and we need them but wish independence of them; we go
deed, self and self/other
love/care beyond them but fall behind them too; we daily pretend to
other, immor- have nothing but social adequacy but art forces us to see
tal imagina- that is mere pretense
tion and
mortal body performance 19. we think of ourselves as always meeting our needs or
are recalled gaps: need/ working towards that but in reality we ignore or block many
by art and supply real- of our most important needs; art is where we admit the tiny-
admitted ity/possibility ness of our lives and deeds
anxiety of 20. our consciousness of our selves, our deaths, our limited
existing gaps: lifespans, spawns profound anxieties within us that we flee
imagination/ or deny or fail to admit; art shows us the true parameters of
mortality our lives without flight or denial
plan/side-
effects
Recall know yourself 21. music can instantly transport us back to a specific won-
derful past moment; other arts can also do the same; art
Life’s indexes our experiences, allowing us instant access to our
Best & lives and selves in earlier forms; art is a time machine for
art is a mirror in which we see parts of life that we normally forget or flee; it reflects us to ourselves
the self
Worst know others 22. we have so many experiences, so many places, so many
Experi- other people that constitute us, our lives, our memory, yet
ences access is hard or impossible till art opens doors to people and
our experi- places we have forgot
ence of life is know what 23. we in daily life consciousness cannot really know what
so rich we you know we know, feel what we experienced, think what we thought,
cannot bear it remember who we are or who they were in our lives, till art
in mind for maps journeys across our lives and feelings
Cause Reflection
long, losing know what 24. we pretent to competence, control, influence, trying
awareness of you do not always to appear more important and powerful than we
it till art lets know really are, till art brings us face to face with all we do not
us recall its yet control or know
moments
Find the minimal 25. our minds are highly suggestible so that a tiny single ges-
ture can recall an entire person or era for us; art plays with
movements
Minimal such powers of our brains; it explores the minimal gesture
Essential needed to recall maximal contents/import
Traits minimal form 26. a photo fragment or long forgotten news clipping can
transport us to lost eras and places instantly; art explores
that the minimal traits, smells, colors, or shapes needed to thusly
Define transport us to large lost worlds or persons of experience
we love minimal ref- 27. there are particular ways to refer to something that
imperson- erence bring it all back well; art explores just hat these ways are,
ators and the ideal most compact most suggestive powerful represen-
mimes for tations of anything and everything in life; art seeks actively
they exercise what the slightest way to effectively refer to something is
our minds’ minimal rec- 28. there are edges to the mind’s capabilities that art
great powers ognition explores thoroughly; art seeks out what the slightest sorts of
of suggestion; input are that suffice to recall or recreate the largest fogot-
art exercises ten or denied realities
these powers
Exchange novelty as his- 29. the exciting inventions of our time and age seem impres-
toric swing sively new only because we forget or never learned the past;
Local for from one pole often radical novelties are merely swings done over decades
Distant to the other from one pole to another of some polarity, revealed by art
Frame- value of 30. the value in what or how we do something now may lie
works present prac- entirely in what that practice replaced when it was first
tice from invented and popularized; art shows us the relativity of val-
art lets us ues undoing our absolutizing of them in daily life
view our what it
selves and replaced
world using solutions that
31. people tend to call or name a “solution” only things
unusual dis- perpetuate guaranteed to perpetuate their deepest problems; art shows
tant frame- this to us, forcing us to see the bias, bigotry, and blindness in
works so we our problems
our goodness, morality, tactics, efforts, budgets, and institu-
see patterns tions; art humiliates our solution attempts
never seen
before our selves and 32. we erect artificial nice worlds to live our lives in, deny-
world as ing most of reality; art reveals this shrinkage of world and
prison experience, showing all we tend to leave out
Missing see wanted 33. giant central broadcast industries have stripped perfor-
liberations mance from the daily lives of all; so we forget what we seek
Polis & liberation from till art reminds us
Limelight see wanted 34. the world comes to us prestructured, so we rarely if
art lets us see free collabo- ever, act freely to invent new social institutions; art reminds
what we lack, rations us that all imposing rules and things around us finally are
our desire to made by aand sustained by men; art reminds us it is our
perform, the world to remake, anytime
attention we see wanted 35. for eons in rural villages all people performed roles in
crave; it historic village festivals, getting limelight and attention for growth;
reminds of lib- dreams modern societies have lost this tll art reminds us of this loss
erations and our need for audience
wanted or see wanted 36. art causes us to see true novelty, newly born into this
dreamed of world, as it gets attacked by established old powerss-that-
novelty con-
served be; it reveals the ferocity with which the old fights against
the new
Neurotic the cost of 37. every talent we have is developed by focus which means
talents--neu- inattention to other matters, the lack of the developing of
& Para- rosis which constitutes the cost of our talents--neurosis; we are
doxic unaware of these costs of our talents till art forces us to see
and feel them and their powers
Goals conntradic- 38. we want to fit in yet stand out, we want fame and daily
art helps us to anonymity, we want money and love--our goals contradict;
see how we tory goals
art forces us to see the contradictions in what we want and
are our own seek; it forces use to measure the necessary costs of pursu-
enemhy, how ing or getting what we want
there are
imbalances 39. we often do or repeat things because we are unaware
art helps us to see more and see it more accurately; it gives us more of a world to be in
costs of our
talents and manitained that ther are alternative values or ways to be; art, by show-
how our goals because ing dramatically such alternatives often as lived by others,
are contradic- alternatives reveals our ways as traps, and opens us to possible change
tory unknown
side-effects 40. we build up our selves and plans and deeds so much that
overwhelm we continually are blind to unintended effects of our actions
intended that are much larger than the intended ones; art reveals
effects these costs of doing what we promise
See Better
Culture assumed 41. without examining or experiencing the vast majority of

goodness of places, ways to live, or people we have confidence that the
as Blind- born into: way we were born is best; art attackes this basic bias/error
ness self, gender, in all of us
what we love home, nation,
the most, era, profes-
what we are, sion
enslaves us,
revealed by distaste of or 42. our own ways of doing are automated by lots of practice
art that inves- refusal of and lubricated by unthinking social supports; others’ ways
tigates the other cul- are hard to do, unautomated and unsupported; art shows
certainties of tures/ways how we misinterpret that difficulty as error or weakness or
belief, the inferiority of others’ ways
costs of grow- tiny personal 43. as we grow older and nearer to death, we find we
ing up local repertoires of occupy a tinier and tinier fragment of ways of biieng and
thought or act frameworks for viewing life; art shows us just how tiny our
views, values, and ways are, and other who have larger
selves and lives via culture encounters and blends
lack of skills 44. art reveals our unpreparedness for a world of diverse
of spotting values, views, and ways; it shows how we avoid learning and
and learning change; it shows how hard we work to miss or slight the
other ways ways of others
Incipient pop trends: 45. the basics of the world are continually changing but art
news, music, updates us, by concentrating the slight and incipient changes
Edges of lingo, pop in all domains of life into dramatic or funny or otherwise
Con- memorable events
scious- flight/fight: 46. our emotions are also continually changng, sensing new
fears/dreams fears or possibilities; art updates our emotions by making
ness threats/ large, clear, dramatic, and visible the slight changes in mood
slight contin- chances and emotion in and around us
ual incipient
changes go on mismatches: 47. as we continually change and things around us change,
all the time, lifestyle, fam-so change mismatches appear where what we provide no
not seen or ily, culture longer fits what we or others need, art reveals these
named till art emergilng mismatches
sees and insincerity: 48. responses become habits and new values in us that as
names them issue things change, gradually become ineffective then insincere
responses, responses; art reveals how our best efforts or intents have
ruoles (rever- unwittingly become insincere and ineffective responses
sals)
Find New find new 49. art shows us gaps all around us that, by filling, we might
opportunity revolutionize the world; art reveals chances to become cre-
Questions gaps ative by spotting and fillilng such gaps
art reveals
entirely new find leverage 50. art shows us places where small actions can have giant
questions that disproportionate effects; by highlighting such non-linearities
mystify us and in life art shows us ways to revolutionize knowledge or deed
change what via minimal but well focussed and located input--the door-
we investigate ways to impact
and pursue change repre- 51. art gives us entirely new ways to represent things which
sentations changes of representation can reveal solutions to longstand-
ing problems or new problems worth tackling
change logic 52. art giv es us entirely new logics by which to link one
thought to another, revealing new implications of existing
knowledge never seen before; these new implications can
uncover new problems to tackle or new solutions to well
known problems
Create make interior 53. art can stop the habits and priorities of our daily lives
and exterior and give us new physical and emotional space in which imag-
Creation room ination can grow toward full creativity; art can set us free of
Capability enough to unleash forces of creation in us
art gives us mental travel 54. art can transport us mentally and expose paradox far
step by step and find para- and wide to us till we re-see the world and discover how to
the where- dox create it anew or populate it with creations we invent
withal to cre-
ate our create cre- 55. art can expose us to precisely the creation dynamics or
ation machine devices we have avoided or omitted, thereby pushing us over
art establishes in us all the conditions for becoming creative; it sets up group and individual creativity
selves; it the edge from self doubt and hesitancy to bold atempts and
inspires the and use it to
create brazen innovations
mental room
for imagining conquer 56. we design and plan good things but often there emerges
and changing emergent something better than we planned, which we miss if we love
all else failures, man- or attend to our plans too well; art helps us see and value
age emer- emergent results
gent insights
Improve choosing and 57. art can reveal audiences to us, possible audiences, and
Spawn Creation
understand- particular dynamics in such audiences; by doing so it can

Quality ing your audi- give us the idea of how to create what those audiences
art raises the would value or admire
question of ences
the quality of mastering 58. art can reveal new substrates for doing old functions and
all we see and changing new funtions to do with old and new substrates; by doing so,
do, and technologies art invites use to radically renew what we do and how we do
inspires us to of supply and it, turning everything we attempt into creation
improve quite production
generally the
quality of all improving 59. art can reveal new ways of work that no one has tried
production yet or pioneer lives of people doing things entirely new ways;
about us seeing this can cause us to greatly improve how we work or
process
spur us to attempt better deeds due to new means of getting
things done
inducing 60. art can enlarge your view of what your audience can
higher qual- aspire to and attempt; it can inspire you to lead your audi-
ity require- ence beyond what presently satisfies it; it can inspire you to
ments in your improve what your audience requires
customer-
audience
Beyond dimensions of 61. art can show the sequence of innovations in a field so we
difference notice the abstract ways ne items got envisioned and done;
All analysis by extrapolating or interpolating along those seen dimen-
art invites us sions or inventing new ones of our own, we become creative
to go continu- contributors to those fields
ally beyond all historic lev- 62. art can show the abstract principles by which all tech-
we have seen
and done els of niques in the past were improved; by interpolating and
before; it improvement extrapolating along them or inventing new such dimensions
invites in technique we can become creators ourselves
extreme tres- historic lev- 63. art can review for us the history of how people have
pass and els of percep- seen or expressed parts of experience or the world; by view-
extrapolation/ ing this we can imagine better percepts or expressions of our
tion;l it expression of own that make us creative contributors
shows limits
to overcome emotion/feel-
ing
cognitive 64. art can reveal to us the fault lines in idea territories
fault lines along which major idea quakes may occur; art shows us tip-
found and ping points where small inputs have huge outcomes
tripped into
societal tip-
ping points
INTERACTIONS AMONG PURPOSES, THE CHALLENGE OF SIMULTANEOUSLY INSTALLING

MANY. It has been very interesting to watch student teams add one purpose to a design or
innovation that already achieves several. Just one more added usually requires a completely
different structure, changes of component, and altered interface engaging users/clients.
But those changes jeopardise purposes already in the design/innovation. So trade-offs ensue
that often are unsatisfactory, frustration mounts, till an “insight” of how to satisfy all pur-
poses in the design/innovation. This happens again and again. Adding then one more pur-
pose redoes these dynamics on a larger scale with greater difficulty. So to get 12 to 15
purposes enacted, 12 to 15 arrivals at the Despair Doorway, till a breakthru to insight, must
occur. This means a lot of suffering. Team members drop out--frustrated at all the frustra-
tion faced, and willing to stop at 12 or so purposes “who needs more?” What amazes is
when one or two students on a team have something inside them that carries them, when all
others have dropped out to 20 or more purposes installed. What is that that allows some to
go two and three times the distance of all others? That is what turns changes and improve-
ments into innovations that alter entire fields and history. But the amount of suffering
involved is immense--despair reached again and again and again in different ways, the fail-
ure of so many attempts that finding motivation for one more attempt becomes the issue.
You always at that point imagine some boss or manager, so “leader” seeing a promotion in
hand and letting things stop. That is the way giant corporations fail--10,000 such “manage-
rial” levels of satisfaction, unleashing a quite general unstoppable lowering of standards till
all “innovation” is mere for show stuff, excuse to release a new-ish “version” for further
ordinary sales. New boat in the garage level innovation!!!

THE PURPOSES OF ALL ARTS MODEL OF INNOVATION
the implementation
questions
HOW DO YOU DO THIS? You start with a seed idea---an existing design, a proposed innovation--and add,
one by one, purposes of all arts to it---from two directions: what X can we
change so as to enact that A purpose in this design+ and what modifications of X
will enable it to enact that purpose in its users/clients? As you add new pur-
poses to enact, you have to check: 1) will these changes actually enact Purpose
A in users? and 2) am I trying to keep to much of the existing design (which
enacts well seveal purposes already) in order to enact a new purpose--there-
fore, should I ditch the current structure, processes, interfaces, etc. and re-do
the entire design/innovation so as to enact all my purposes, the already done
ones plus the new one.
WHAT ARE THE MAJOR The purposes of all arts involve a great many deep aspects of emotion, percep-
OBSTACLES YOU ENCOUN- tion, valuing, whole life re-orientation--very social, human, humane, and spiri-
TER? tual changes. Many of these sorts of things are never discussed or aimed for in
product and business. In this way the purposes of all arts counteract the over-
whelming male-ness of assumptions and systems in business. They challenge us
to fulfill full human potential in designs and innovations, not stunted male
ones.
WHY DO MANY NEVER In my experience doing 12 purposes in one design or innovation is reachable my
ATTEMPT IT? most teams but getting to 20 or more almost never is done by such teams--only
hard case subsets of a team can carry the ball beyond 20 purposes enacted. It
takes deep fascination and love of a design/innovation to carry the ball through
so many Despair Doorways, so many hundreds of attempts that fail.
18. The Social Automata (Population

Interaction Tuning) Model of Innovation
What if currency, banking, loans, and interest rates could appear, spread in human societies
in history, without a single human thinking of them, intending them, designing them, or
planning them? What if they merely arose, emerged, without human mental attention, from
myriad interactions among hunter gatherers across millions of years? This, if true, would
prove that the universe itself is in some way “innovative” and an “innovator”. Well, this IS
true. The Moro simulation in Germany 15 years ago, demonstrated the emergence of new
human institutions from interacting software agents lacking all humanity and brains--pat-
terns of interaction among them evolved and became self sustaining and eventually included
the patterns of interlocking behavior we call “currency”, “banking”, “loans”, and “interest
rates”. Innovation can and probably has always occured without human involvement.
That bears repeating:
New social institutions have appeared in

human history without a single human
inventing them, intending them, planning
them, or, when they first appeared, recog-
nizing just what they are and portend.
Humans are not needed for innovations to
occur and spread through societies.
The model of innovating in this chapter takes place on several size scales, discussed immedi-
ately below and illustrated by a series of charts, drawings, and text passages in the remain-
der of this chapter. I list the main points of this chapter, organized by increases in size, in
the list below, before discussing each point.
1. THE MIRACLE the Moro simulation--new social institution

invented without inventors, humans, intents, plans =
emergent universe-generated “innovations”
HUMANS NOT NEEDED
HAPPENS FROM INTERACTINGS WITHOUT INVENTORES INNOVATORS
PEOPLE NOTICE AND TAKE CREDIT FOR EMERGENTS
A KIND OF HUBRIS--HUMAN SELF INFLATION HIDES REAL NATURE OF INNOVA-
TION DYNAMICS
1. THE ORIGINAL IDEA computational sociality in Japan =
TQM = what the web enabled
2. THE IDEA GENERATOR NOW dialog among five types of
known computational system
3. THE DEEPEST THEORY simplest thinkable machines as
ultimate “theory of all” Wolfram
4. THE MOST GENERAL THEORY complexity theory--
emergent not designed results
4. THE MIND LEVEL--MICRO social automata replacing
brainstorms
5. THE MIND LEVEL--MESO monastic innovation
6. THE MIND LEVEL--MACRO five new intellectual interfaces
7. THE GROUP LEVEL--MICRO social automata leading by
tuning interactions in populations

8. THE GROUP LEVEL--MESO creating/inventing/innovating
via the social automaton model of creativity
8. THE GROUP LEVEL--MACRO performances = secular
divine = tuned ego-loss
8. THE ORGANIZATION LEVEL--MICRO managing by events =
large scale social automata
9. THE ORGANIZASTION LEVEL--MESO Silicon Valley--flows
and home model = social plasmas = idea fusions
10. THE ORGANIZATION LEVEL--MACRO social revolution
dynamics = creation power model
11. THE ENTIRE SOCIETY LEVEL--MICRO social processes =
social revolution process 1/4th embedded
THE MIRACLE--Inventor-less Inventions. Almost 20 years ago the Moro simulation of hunter
sofware agents and gatherer software agents, surprised its designers when complex patterns
of interaction emerged that no one who built the software and no “entity” in the software
had deliberately planned, intended, or invented--emerged: currency, banking, loans, and
interest rates. New social institutions had “been invented” without any “inventor”. This
meant that new social institution “innovations” could emerge in history without humans
planning, intending them, or even, at first, recognizing them as they emerged into becoming
widespread patterns of interaction among those around them. The reference for this inven-
tor-less invention phenomonon is: Oevermann, Ulrich (1991): “Genetischer Strukturalismus
und das sozialwissenschaftliche Problem der Erklärung der Entstehung des Neuen.” in: Ste-
fan Müller-Doohm (Hrsg.), Jenseits der Utopie. Theoriekritik der Gegenwart., edition
Suhrkamp. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, Pp. 267-336. Four consequences of the Moro sim-
ulation results endure:
humans not needed for innovations to appear in human

history
interactions among population members can result in
emergent new stable interactions that endure
people notice such emergents and take credit for them, lying
in essence to make themselves look smart and important
such human self inflation and exaggeration hides from us all
a vital route to innovation--by tuning interactions among
populations of actors.
THE ORIGINAL IDEA--Japanese computational sociality. Computational sociality in Japan--

using entire workforces as computer, was a spin-off of Japan’s traditional “connectionist
sociality”--all connected to all, all information shared to all, all initiatives from the “bucho”
mid-level not from executives. This way of self management was invented in the Muroma-
chi era Rinzai Zen monasteries (wall-less offices of everyone snooping on everyone else =
management by bullying, social pressure, and extremes of conformance). These monaster-
ies, though with land inferior to imperial lands, out-produced imperial lands by a significant
margin--changing everyone’s image of how to do agriculture, the primary industry for centu-
ries before and afterwards in Japan.
The terrific loss to more poorly equipped less “warrior in spirit” Americans in World War II,
caused a movement of self examination, and a swtich from copying Europe to copying Amer-
ica. The result was installing a new culture of management in Japan that countered the pri-
mary weaknesses observed in traditional Japanese management--from individual to team,
from point value controls to statistical controls, from management by opinion and rank to
management by fact, from vertical pleasing-bosses to horizontal pleasing-customers, from
own productivity metrics to productivity of processes shared across supplier and customer
firms metrics. This, perfect in Japan, launched itself across the world, wiping out competi-
tors in 11 global industries in the 1970s, under the name Total Quality Control, with the word
“control” softened later to Total Quality Management. In Japan ordinary bluecollar work-
teams did statistics analysis but in the US, “managers” hoarded the right to use brains and
American blue collar teams were never trained in statistical analysis of own work processes.
So TQM as done in the US was highly individualistic, the brain parts hoarded by elites, strip-
ping them from ordinary workers, and otherwise made “American” at a cost of much less
impact than the same sounding tools and methods installed in Japan.
What saved TQM from failure and obscurity in America was timing--TQM, at a crescendo in
late 1980s in the USA, “suddenly” got CEOs understanding what CIOs had been urging for a
decade--using “the web” to empower horizontal supplier-firm-customer processes. TQM
provided a new “defined essence of business” that the web could aim at and empower--
doing technologically the linking of job to job, worker to worker, firm to firm that Japan
had, in the 1960s done socially.
Part of this was whole workforce robot invention campaigns, such as the one I participated in
at Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. Ltd. Every workgroup invented a robot for some part
of their own work and winning designs from across thousands of such workteam inventions
were selected and perfected by engineers into the later successful Panarobot line that
demolished Unimation USA Phd-designed robotics firms.
THE IDEA GENERATOR NOW--Dialog among computational system types. Earlier in this
book I presented a dialog among five known types of computational system, that continue to
spawn new forms of computational system at an increasing rate. Each new computational
mechanism found somewhere, becomes replicated by humans in another substrate, and
results of that, in turn, can lead to spotting new computational mechanisms in other sub-
strates in a continuing ever-widening cycle. The five types of computational system are:
mind (extensions like files or the web), brain, societies, machines, biologies (real and artifi-
cial). Interestingly we have the following dynamics with the last growing ever stronger and
more important: 1) spotting computational systems already going on in the five substrates
(minds, brains, societies, machines, biologies) 2) copying those spotted types in human-
designed ones inserted in the substrates beyond where the types were first spotted 3) fur-
ther computational system types spotted based on the results of step 2 4) invention of new
biologies (not carbon based, software based etc.), new machine types (built of human
designed proteins, built of nano devices, etc.), now society types (more computational
arrangements among people, social automata, management by events systems etc.), new
types of brain (built of semi-conductor and quantum materials, built of interacting info
laden light beams, etc.) new types of mind extensions (brain to brain wireless connections,
within skull on brain interfaces to outside body devices and webs, etc.). Indeed the deepest
parts of physics now burgeon with “ultimate theory of everythings” based on the simplest
thinkable machines--one dimensional cellular automata--as the generators of space and
time, information as the ultimate generator of the big bang, inflation of space and time, and
particle families, and the like. Information is being used to model the deepest essences of
reality in physics, biology, and society.
THE DEEPEST THEORY--Simplest thinkable teams, automata. Stephen Wolfram is the

world’s leading scholar of the simplest thinkable machines--one dimensional cellular autom-
ata. He delayed his master work book for two years, just working on the English, convinced
that much of Einstein’s fame came from the simplicity and idea shock delivered by Einstein’s
great clear writing and language. The result--A New Kind of Science--is the bible of autom-
ata theory for all in the world today and possibly for future generations. Wolfran examines
200+ simplest possible automata types and finds more than 30 of them--generally computa-
tionally equivalent = capable of any computation any brain or machine computer can do.
That means that much of the universe is powered by simplest thinkable machines (zebra
stripes, random number generators in cells directing blood vessle growth, detection of pat-
terns among extremely sparse photons entering eyes, etc.) as computationally powerful as
brains are = there will be no simple theory or equation of variables able to predict the out-
comes in such systems--we have to run the systems to see their emergent futures, we will
never predict what comes out of them. This is equivalent, in a deep way, to the Par Bak
1972 Nobel Prize on sandpiles--that at a critical angle, one more grain of sand, added to the
pile, instead of doing nothing as all similar such addings did, this one extra grain, changes
whole pile shape causing avalanches on all size scales wiping out the pile--we cannot ever
predict which grain of sand will be the tipping point one that changes entire system state,
his Nobel work proved.
THE MOST GENERAL THEORY--Complexity theory. A special cross-every-field grad school

were built by California scholars and University of Michigan ones in Santa Fe--the Santa Fe
Institute. It produced 40 great books in the 1980s and 1990s on something eventually called
“Complexity Theory--how complex adaptive systems behave and evolve and invent the new
without humans being involved”. In field after field, static, correlational models, of the
pre-PC-computing age were dropped in favor of dynamic, evolving, multi-scale, multi-field
models using time series and neural nets to replace correlations. Most colleges are just
beginning to catch up to Santa Fe models and methods as this book is being written.
Parts of this Complexity Theory work at Santa Fe and Princeton and elsewhere, eventually
changed theory and models in all other fields. Brian Arthur introduced “network economics”
how increasing returns to scale dominated them not the decreasing returns to scale of selling
soybreans, emphasized in economics 101 texts. Thinking from the view of increasing returns
to scale explained, two decades later, how Microsoft and Intel dominated the world of indus-
try for a while. The work of Rene Thom in catastrophe theory and work at Santa Fe on sys-
tems switching from one attractor to another in state space, meaning two inputs only
extremely slightly different could lead systems into entirely different result states,
explained limits to human ability to prevent regular finance disasters on Wall Street. Emer-
gent results, that no agent in a simulation thought, planned, intended, wonderfully complex
patterns and behaviors, “emerged” on their own, “designed by no one”. The universe itself
was “creative. Indeed, natural selection probably invented life, and then invented life-
forms, including humans, with, inside the humans a mini-natural-selection system in the
form of our second immune system of anti-body generation.
This was formal elaborated mathematic and social defining of how innovation occurs without
humans and human ideas being involved, needed, or used in any way.
THE MIND LEVEL--MICRO: Social automata replace brainstorms. Humans observe machine
computation types, biologic protein computational systems, and get ideas from those obser-
vations. They begin to see human social interactions as computational and imagine re-
designing how human interact to make the computations those interactions do, more effec-
tive, more creative, more diverse, more powerful. For example, brainstorms for decades
have been researched and known to always have two flaws--too early focus, on any idea that
interests a vocal faction in the meeting; and ideas not interacting, the group elaborating one
idea that captures vocal faction interest rather than combining that and others ideas. By
seeing groups coming up with ideas new to them as a “social version of what the universe
does without humans = automata” people got the idea of arranging people as some of the
“simplest thinkable machines” are arranged, and tuning their interactions to get better,
newer, more diverse, ideas that interact with each other more than brainstorms achieve.
The result is called Social Automata and have been widely used as a replacement for brain-
storming.
Social automata, derived as stated above were turned into a practical method then prac-
ticed by numerous groups over a period of years. They were found to fix the two biggest
flaws in usual brainstorms, that is, they make groups not focus too early on first popular-
with-a-faction ideas by continuously generating multi-step designs (typically 40 or more per
hour) and they make ideas interact by getting people to apply mental operators to ideas
given from others nearby.
Social automata are defined as: 1) An array of roles (done by individual people or groups or
small consultation events on the web). 2) A path of partial results among roles (can change
based on judgments by particular roles or units of time or evaluations of final results). 3) A
protocol of mental/social operations to be successively or in parallel applied to results from
prior protocol steps to produce some final outcome (design, judgment, evaluation, decision,
estimate, prediction, critique, composition, performance, etc.)-- the protocol can change
during execution of an automaton based on the same criteria allowing path changes. 4) An
iteration interval of time in which all or some types of protocol steps must be completed,
with partial results handed to next roles in the path (the iteration interval can change during
execution of an automaton based on the same criteria allowing path changes). 5) Some
whole automaton operators (cross-over of some roles within an automaton to later or ear-
lier slots, cross-over of some roles from one automaton having one protocol to another
automaton having the same or a different protocol, reverse doing of a protocol so the last
role does the first role and vice versa (the person wrapping up final results suddenly has to
generate initial seed ideas and operations etc.). [These roughly correspond to Wolfram's one
dimensional cellular automaton elements: rules, array of elements, states elements can be
in, initial states distributed across initial array elements laid out, iteration interval]
Say ten people, organized as five pairs of two each, are lined up in a straight line (other
arrangements are arranging them as circles or branching Y shapes, etc.) with a 5 step algo-
rithm assigned so pair one does step one of the algorithm, pair two takes their results and
applies their own assigned mental operation to it, handing their results to pair three, who
apply their assigned mental operation, and so on. Each operation applied simultaneously by
all pairs at set time intervals--2 minutes each, or 3, or 5 of 7 minutes each. At the end of
each time interval each pair passes its results to the adjacent pair, with the last pair, putting
its final designs/decisions/etc. on a pile for later whole group review.
These automata, every 2 or 5 minutes, accumulate new designs for something, or new deci-
sion criteria for somethng, or new summaries of web sources for something, or new ideas
from customers phoned. At the end of 2 or 3 hours, the group of 8 to 10 people has 60 to 90
such designs---each combining ideas of five sets of people paired up, each pair acting on par-
tial results from an adjacent pair, each pair applying a mental operations assigned to it (in its
place in a sequence of pairs in the automaton).
So instead of early focus on one exciting to a faction idea, you get 60 different results. So
intead of ideas competing for attention and not interacting, you get 60 results each of which
combines ideas from five pairs of people operating on partial ideas from other pairs. This
fixes definitively the two primary weaknesses observed in research in brainstorms. Though
the Japanese quite generally try to get more diversity into brainstorms by making people
make individual lists before joining the group, social automata above do much more than
merely increase diversity of input ideas. Social automata get tremendous interaction among
a huge assortment of very diverse ideas.
It is common at the end of the social automata for the whole group to examine, and catego-
rize its 60 to 90 designed results, arranging them from left to right by some criteria, and
interpolating and extrapolating entirely new ideas based on orderings of their 60 to 90 first
results. This guarantees, in four hours, far more diversity, far more detali, far more compre-
hensive coverage, far more interaction, far more novelty achieved by any group compared to
any other known way of humans interacting within four hours time.
THE MIND LEVEL--MESO: Monastic innovations. When you take mental media and opera-
tions unchanged for centuries and tinker with them, from today’s biologic, global, computa-
tional perspective, it is still very hard work to find changes in them that improve them and
that ordinary people can be motivated to enact. Things so mundane we do them effortlessly
and unconsciously hundreds of times each day, are hard to bring to conscious awareness,
hard to change, and hard to practice into effortless new performance. Yet if you change
such munane things because ALL people use them HUNDREDS OF TIMES A DAY, slight
improvements can lead to increase in mental performance by factors of 20 to 100 times oth-
ers’ levels of performance.
Brainstorms are one such mundane mental activity, unchanged for a century or more, in
spite of much research about its flaws. Prose text is another deeply flawed interface--it
hides the number of points it contains (so they are visually no evident), the names of its
point contents, and how they are ordered. Indeed prose is such a bad interface that people
who can find points in it, go to Harvard and the world’s top colleges--most people cannot
find points in it. Only geniuses find all its points, their count, levels, names, and orderings.
Indeed, tests I give to Harvard, MIT, Stanford, Ecole Poly, and other top college graduates
and professors, find even our best and brightest miss MOST of the point count, names, lev-
els, and ordering principles. Prose is over 8000 years old and a terrible interface for convey-
ing its point contents.
90% of the meaning of a word phrase is its location in layers of context. That is why people
tell long-winded stories when asked to answer questions--because we all understand that
those layers of context around “your answer” phrase are where 90+% of your meaning lie.
Stupid bosses and insecure little men “demand” “direct” answers to questions--because they
are so uneducated they have, all their lives, missed 90+% of the meaning around them!
Reading, therefore, has to read primarily these layers of context--that is, the geometries of
thought in which any particular word phrase is located. There are about a dozen common
such geometries of thought but tests show less than 1 person in 100,000 actually sees them
and reads them and therefore gets 90+% of the meaning of word phrases in any paragraph.
18 MONASTIC INNOVATIONS
MULTIPLYING MENTAL & SOCIAL PRODUCTIVITY TO 1000 TIMES PRESENT LEVELS
Replace Replace Replace Replace Replace Replace Prose

Meetings Discus- Processes Classes Brainstorms Text with Frac-
with Scien- sions with with Mass with with Social tal Page Forms
tific Rules Stratified Workshop Invent Automata
of Order Respond- Events Events,
ings Research
Events
Replace Replace Replace Replace Replace Goal Replace Plan
Tipping Root Right Mod- Problem Accomplish- Executions with
Point Find- Causes els with Solving ment with Plan as Launch
ing with with Solu- Reper- with Group Orthogonal Pads
10,000 Bee tion Cul- toires of Neurosis New Goal
Stings tures Plural Fixes Projections
Diverse
Models
Replace Replace Replace Replace Replace Replace
Mecha- Personal Success Increases Optimizing Hoarded Info,
nosense Influence Genera- in Connec- Away Prob- Jobs, Techs with
with Bio- with Envi- tion with tion with lems with Plural Weekly
sense ronments Success Pulsed Sys- Optimizing Flows & Homes,
to Adapt Riding tems Ideal Energy Partial Patched
to Flows Commitments
THE MIND LEVEL--MACRO: Six new intellectual interfaces. The mundane foundations of
our intellectual work are many, but six of them have received recent biologic and computa-
tional replacements--how we: meet, discuss, process work, teach/learn, brainstorm, read/
write. The web has forced all of these in certain directions. The emergence of biology as
the principle science of our era has pushed these in other particular directions. Since how
we do all of these now has more computational and biologic replacements, we are witness-
ing a split in society, not between those with elite educations and thuse under-educated, but
between those whose most mundane mental foundations are updated and those who con-
tinue in 8000 year old media, interfaces, and mental habits.
What does it means to re-do mundane ways and media from a modern computational per-
spective? It is pretty simple. People are doing it a lot without effort. They just project
what they learned in college or what they do at work onto things around. The truth is, half
of all jobs will soon be software jobs (and that may already be true is you investigate a lot of
sales, and service, and management, and other job titles for what they actually do--specify
software, update databases, help others do so, write programs, and so on). These people
think software-ly--about their babies (really), about sex (really--ejaculation as dividing by
zero), about diet colas, about everything.
What does this look like in practical beneficial terms? Take anything human does, anything
with bit of complication and importance and interest and view it as:
1. algorithms passed sequentially among a set of processors

2. soft experiential things step by step “compiled” into
faster, less visible, more automatic substrate execution--
software to firmware to hardware
3. objects that send messages to other objects and when
certain messages arrive the object take actions
4. rules about rules, which ones to execute, and rules about
modifying old rules, learning from data and experience
5. applying mental operators to single items, strings of
ordered items, matrices of 2 dimensional arrays of items,
n-dimensional arrays of items, clouds of disorganized
items, fractal multi-layered items of regularized
ordering, item naming, branch factors (how many sub-
items any one item encompasses).
What does it mean to view these mundane functions more biologically? The biggie is, of
course, that means:
1. ecosystems--what products/policies does this product/

policies fit a niche among, increase resilience and
robustness of?
2. evolution--spawing myriad variants of any one variant that
manages to thrive in new circumstances, continual
refinement of adaptations to those circumstances
3. survival--not of the fittest but of the organisms with the
largest repertoire of highly diverse yet now useless
traits, some of which could become key to survival were
environments to shift greatly
3. compilations--encoding responses into permanent
processes into permanent features into organism
structure and genome
4. layered multi-model inter-organism communication
systems--plants warning other plants via airborn scents,
deep ocean conversations via whale low frequency
voices, magnetic field sensors in migrating animals.
What does this look like in practical beneficial terms? Instead of releasing products that
grow, tech ventures release products designed to ride the current fast growth of someone
else’s product--parasites and symbiots. Industries throwing dozens of variants of smart-
phone each season at markets and collectively learning new niches and needs and technical
capabilities, quickly shared/copied among each other. Failure of giant firms like Microsoft
and Intel, Google and Samsung--as too much focus on what they do best now, prevents
enough variety within to pivot to handle fast moving external market changes. Features that
start out as user ad hoc work arounds, compiled into software features, later compiled into
fast hardware supported features. Direct data from within apps gradually grown into mes-
sage traffice, time of day, geographic use distribution schedules, and other indirect forms of
data--learning from entire product ecosystem dynamics, not just own apps and direct feed-
backs.
A diagram of new forms of meeting, discussing, processing work, learning/teaching, brain-

storming, reading/writing is provided below showing some steps of the replacements men-
tioned in the table above--the row on intellectual interfaces and media.
THE GROUP LEVEL--MICRO: social automata forms of leading. The new unit of competi-
tion--copied and modified from the Japanese keiretsu--is a multi-firm multi-industry coali-
tion that fluidly changes and flexes. Leaders there cannot fire people or command as team
come from several diverse nations, cultures, professions, firms, and levels of employ. So
leadership changes to tuning interactions of smart teams and employees on teams. This is
very much like the shift in Star Trek from Captain Kirk to Jean Luc Piccard--the one “leading
by marching into situations ordering everyone to do what they already are doing” and the
other one “leading by damping down everyone’s initial fear and fight responses and slowing
reaction to unknowns till investigative processes have understood what is encountered”.
What social automata leadership consists of is primarily ways to tune 3 parameters of a pop-
ulation of intelligent agents interactions--1) the degree of connectedness in the population,
distributions of isolation and linkage and evolve and pulse 2) the degree of diversity and
kinds of diversity fluidly mapped onto evolving kinds of task in the popluation 3) the kinds of
distribution of kinds of initiative taking throughout the population--expanding spread, con-
centrating it, spot re-spreading of it, forming it into lines or concentric circles or layers.
Few existing leaders have any idea that they already do this, though they do.
My own invention of High Tech Circles, AI Circles, Knowledge System Circles, Robotics Cir-
cles--wedding Japanese computational sociality tactics with US advanced software--resulted
in populations of dozens of circles, interacting in social automata ways and using social
design automata as replacement to brainstorms. These circles also implemented my
replacements for all mundane intellectual media and interfaces listed above: how we meet,
discuss, process work, learn/teach, brainstorm, and read/write. Sets of 2 or 3 circles con-
tinually interacted till some such clumps found common platforms they could all invent and
benefit from or generalizations of the scale and depth of what some individual circle in the
subset was building. This results in social design automata within teams and among teams,
both.
THE GROUP LEVEL--MESO: creating/designing/innovating via population interaction tun-

ing and insight process tuning. Innovating itself changes its form and function. It was
always about emergents and pruning noise from emerging signals from much experimental
and investigative activity, but viewed computationally and biologically, innovation becomes
a hierarchy of social automatons, enacting a hierarchy of product/market automatons,
enacting a hierarchy of idea within-mind automatons. Markets and cultures interact spawn-
ing emergent innovations, products and market niches interact spawning innovative new
products and niches, firms and innovators on teams interact spawning innovative project
outcomes, ideas in mind interact spawing new inventions and innovations. Innovation
becomes a hierarchy of populations of intelligent entities interactions, with tuning of those
interactions done at various levels by various means and actors till better than wanted or
imagined inventions and innovations emerge. Below a diagram and text on the Population
Automaton model of creativity are presented--as a core within all innovation projects.
THE GROUP LEVEL--MACRO: performances as the secular ego-less divine. The word “per-
formance” has a range of things that it refers to---from stage and theatre shows, to sidewalk
Goffman style everyday showing off in big cities, to machine parts that last or break down,
to people who please other monkeys and get tidbit rewards for their “good performance”.
Lately the latter--monkey performing in businesses to please other monkeys, products per-
forming against other products in market performances, are overlapping with theatre and
stage show performance--Apple has introduces additional creativity sciences into industry
competition and design.
Social automata naturally, in their own internal dynamics, turn monkey for monkey perfor-
mances into theatre show performances. A rhythm of isolation with connection, detach-
ment with engagement--found in all innovative processes--so-called Pulsed Systems--
dominate social automata engaged in doing innovation. What is private, disguised, hidden,
developed in privacy, suddenly bursts forth, gaining viral attention waves and recognition by
executives, only to sink into obscurity again. Waves, pulses, rhythms of exposure, visibility,
limelight, attention, budget attention rise and fall and pulse. Social automata pulse and
flow as all living organisms do--quivering with life and change, evolution and adaptation, cri-
sis and thriving.
Moreover ideas themselves perform in social automata--both inside minds and among minds
in meeting, discussion, brainstorm, and budgetting. Intense places like Silicon Valley or
intense shared intellectual spaces like certain web groups--force an intensity of idea interac-
tion, that strips ego and origins from ideas, lubricating further intensifications of combining
and fusing, till social plasmas thusly erected lead to idea fusions, with release of tremendous
“nuclear” levels of energy.
Each level of automaton--ideas in minds, attempts that fail, partial solutions found, projects
competing for funds, innovators competing with other innovators, technologies competing
with other technologies, ventures competing with other ventures, clusters of ventures com-
peting with other clusters--each level is a larger social automaton that the former ones, but
evincing identical dynamcs managed the identical way, vian parameter tunings. As a result
performances emerge--a twin of new features/functions with new excitement/meanings.
Below a model of the secular divine emerging in performance automata is presented.
THE ORGANIZATION LEVEL--MICRO: manage by events (large social automata). Social

design automata as a replacement for brainstorms are a part of a much level version of the
same thing---social automata among 200 or 1000 people meeting for 2 or 3 or 20 days in a
row. In 1970 I designed some of the 400 workshops of a 2000 person social automata event
in Chicago that read 2000 books and wrote one 500 page book in 20 days of 400 in parallel
workshops today, each workshop at times using social design automata to replace brain-
storming. I used my MIT education in algorithms, artificial intelligence rule and object and
neural net systems, and computational biologies and applied those ideas, as listede above to
workshop design, organization design, product design, and regularly daily and weekly perfor-
mances punctuating workshop work by the 400 groups. Some diagrams and text explanations
of this large scale social automaton are presented below. Instead of five pairs of two each
interaction with assigned mental operations in sequence applied to partial results from each
other, in our 2000 person 20 day automaton, 400 teams interacted daily and twice weekly
and weekly to developed partial results that meshed in the final day of the 20 into one over-
all impressive outcome. Since that 1970 meeting, General Electric’s famous Workouts
applied exactly this technique to 3 day problem solving sessions, with executives giving a yes
or now at the end of the 3 days after 20 different parts of the company--all needed approv-
als and skills, designed solutions. This gave rise to a movement--managing by events, not by
processes, and not by bureaus.
This is compilation ways from software--compile events that work into enduring repeated
processes and compiling processes that work into permanent institutional group bureaus.
Conversely compile bureaus into more fluid and innovative processses and compile your best
invented new processes into faster larger more visible events. Programming by events is
now a widespread movement among leading software shops and firmss--a bottom up cascade
of teams interacting in design automata doing software design interactively.
THE ORGANIZATION LEVEL--MESO: Silicon Valley flows and homes. Talk about perfect fit!
J. S. Brown and Duguid’s flows and homes model of Silicon Valley, given below as the Sunrise
Model of Cluster Dynamics, is a perfect “automata”-esque view of what made Silicon Valley
contribute 8 times more to USA GDP that MIT-Harvard did the last 50 years. The flows and
homes model (ideas, persons, technologies, funds, and ventures flowing till they each find a
home that loves them into becoming innovations) starts with a population of small tech ven-
tures--average employee number per venture today about 7 (seven!) = everything possible is
outsourced. This web of tiny ventures--idea plus angel funds plus Silicon Valley ecosystem--
functions as a social automaton. Populations of things in a hierarchy of levels (not author-
ity) interact, with those interactions tuned till better than planned or expected results
emerge--populations of: ideas, persons, technologies, funds, ventures. Norms and infra-
structures with a nesting of anti-cultures prevents East Coast religion of business neuroses--
mathy-ness, analysis uberalles, professorial ideas developed 3 decades late treated as key,
personal wealth building uberalles, personal rank building uberalles, leadership as a set of
aristocratic privileges and isolations--from gumming up flows with status, delaying analyses,
rank games, and other East Coast top university sicknesses. You want to lose key ideas, peo-
ple, technologies, funds, ventures--in Silicon Valley--but in the East Coast you have hordes of
stopping all such flows. As a result of laid back, let it flow, California egalitarian culture,
ideas, people, techs, funds, ventures do flow at speeds dozens of times faster than at
Harvard-MIT. In this automaton single great ideas a month later look like Christmas trees,
with newer better niche ideas sprung up all over aspects of that one initial idea. In other
Religions of Business such elaborations never happen at all--additions are so slow that rele-
vance is lost or motivation lost by the time an idea interacts enough, in lawyer-approved
ways, to form a still newer idea. YUK.
THE ORGANIZATION LEVEL--MACRO: Social revolution via creation power. The fundamen-
tal process inside heads by which people learn, and the fundamental process in societies by
which they overthrow existing power structures and found the utterly new in history--are
both innovation processes (if the newnesses thusly introduced endure and elaborate them-
selves in minds or societies involved). So the American revolution, ushered in a non-monar-
chy form of government that endures with personal liberties far beyond most other societies
and government care of population segments far below other societies. The Russian revolu-
tion and French revolutions, failed to install new forms of government and merely changed
from one form of monarch to another, based on new ideologies, but maintaining the same
catholic church habits of secret police and jailing of alternate ideas.
If we simplify the model, of 64 creation power dynamics presented below, to the list below,
discussion becomes easier:
pent up frustrations
last straw
act of liberation
no man’s land
collaborate with other liberated ones
emergence of utterly new institution
emergence of public forms of happiness
emergence of historic dream attracting disciples,

copy-cats
conserving novelty installed from assimilation by old
established power.
This is how people learn, inside their heads, and how whole societies, overthrown one power
arrangement and replace it with enduring new institution types, newly invented. The dia-
gram below, in Creation Power dynamics, includes the mood at each of 64 steps of social rev-
olution, making it highly useful for management of innovation projects.
Seeing clearly the liberations involved in the start of an innovation project, the free interac-
tion among liberated ones, involved in it, the historic dream effects of visibility, copycats,
and disciplies--improve innovation project management and outcomes. Especially impor-
tant is recognition of the emergence of public forms of happiness (as opposed to usual life-
style forms of happiness). See the model given below for components of that public form of
happiness.
THE ENTIRE SOCIETY LEVEL--MICRO: Social revolution embedded in social processes.

The social process model that ends this chapter is a model of processes that go on in all
social entities from persons to boy scout troops to corporations, to meetings, to global orga-
nizations and movements--all of them have these 64 dynamics, with some of the dynamics
getting formal budgets and staff and others ignored or slighted for cultural or priority rea-
sons from time to time. The innovation point is in the top right 16 social processes. They
are the social revolution process from above, embedded within all parts of all societies all
the time. These permanent omnipresent learning steps, given in the list above from pent up
frustrations to conserving novelty installed, are always going on in all parts of societies of all
sorts--they are the innovation process in all--emerging when no thought of or planned by
humans from things interacting, and emerging when humans liberate themselves from past
forms without any clear alternative binding with other thusly liberated ones to try to come
up with alternative institutions and forms.
This chapter, in the above levels, outlines a general view of innovation as social automata,
going on inside minds, among failed solution tries, among product or attempted creations,
among creators and innovators, among ventures and societies. In all these levels the same
Simple Programs automata dynamics can be found and as Wolfram’s book proved, these are
capable of generating behaviors and structures as complex as any brain or machine computer
will ever create--they are generally computationally equivalent--to repeat Wolfram’s
phrase. We are all individually and in our teams capable of as much innovation as any and all
parts of society and history have done--the model of innovation insists.
THE DRAWINGS, TABLES, FIGURES BELOW. All of the drawing below have 30 to 50 page
articles on them, and detailed treatment of some would require 200 page books. So readers
are not expected to “master” the contents of each drawing. Rather readers can get a com-
prehensive yet detailed view of each main point above, by scanning the figure below that
corresponds to each “LEVEL” above--the fitures are in the same order as the “LEVEL” para-
graphs above are in. Several of the figures give step by step instructions for particular
social automata arrangements for doing innovation--so readers can hit the ground running
using those instructions.
s.
Globalizations of the Globalization Concept: Handling Complexity by Globalizing Bodies of

Knowledge
THE RESULT: A MODEL APPLY-ABLE TO ANY
BODY OF KNOWLEDGE TO HANDLE
COMPLEXITY
Globalization Abstract Function, Way It Handles Complexity
for Application to Any Body of
Type
Knowledge
1. movement of • actor scale expansion expansion of scale of doer to
movements • volunteers elicited per topic match scale of problem/
• standardization of tools
across hugeÅ@scope opportunity
2. stages of belief • time scale of commitment expansion of time scale of
expansion
Fundamentals
doer to match scale of prob-

Management
lem/opportunity
Establish
3. war on varia- • management invented via recurrence of problems type

tion cause focus complexity eliminated by
addressing causes
4. customeriza- • opening to external environ- exterior environment
tion ment addressed rather than left
• career caused narcissism
weakened unseen disrupting chaoti-
cally plans and career ambi-
tions
5. interiorize cri- • frontier for future exterior scale of ambition expanded
teria understanding created
6. self fund • side-effect benefits finan- side-effect benefits quanti-
Cost-Benefits
cially counted & budgeted fied

Establish
7. human scale • re-centering around human ergonomic reduction of sys-

not system scale tem complexity of operation
8. optimize • systems optimized not single inter-actions inter-relations
roles, functions, persons optimized reducing chaos
from non-combining individ-
ual excellences

Knowledge
COMPLEXITY
9. clear waste • self control boundaries and self management to reduce
disciplines established chaos of own self estab-
lished as basis for later sys-
tem management
10.science • data replaces opinion based complexity from impression-
method decision based deciding replaced by
• public space created for
word and deed sharing of valid data basis;
Make Essentials
genba (workforce) complexity of frustrated

need to perform before oth-
Visible
ers reduced by regular oppor-

tunity to perform
11.remove hiding • inventories removed as hid- hidden complexity exposed
places ing places for process slop by removal of traditional hid-
ing places
12.engineer pro- • find inter-process links, complexity of actual inter-
cesses dependencies, enablements process architecture laid
• distinguish work from
enabling processes from bare and reduced
enablement means change
processes
• automate process deploy-
ment
13.social leveling • particularize tactics for dif- complexity of inconsistency
ferent social levels among social levels reduced
by tailored approaches for
each level
14.dissolve bor- • quantify and remove relict- complex of structural
ders ual structure blocks for excuses and traditions for
Organizational
flows
poor process flows laid bare
Inclusion
and removed
15.market • bring market dynamics to use overt measurable com-
introjection interior structure compo- plexity of market bidding sys-
nents and their relations
tems to do things rather than
endure hidden complexity
from bureaucracies
16.horizontal • focus careers on impacting adjust flow of human ambi-
management exterior customers not tions to match systems newly
bosses
redesigned for horizontal
impacts

Knowledge
COMPLEXITY
17.diversity • get all internal units point- reduce variation of direction
aligned ing in common direction among org units
18.basic func- • fractally implement most establish uniformity (non-
tions installed fundamental management complexity) by level of
functions
implementation of funda-
mental management func-
tions
Transparency
19.invisibles made • measure latent, interior, get systems to embrace emo-

visible emotive components of tive, subtle, nascent signals
impact
easily missed by formal,
overt, rational systems--
reduce complexity from
missed non-rational dimen-
sions operating unseen
20.transparency • omni-directional undistorted reduce complexity of incon-
to voices transmission of require- sistent transmission of mes-
ments
sages in upward, downward,
leftward, and rightward
directions
21.diversity lever- • pass diverse parties thru using complexity there in
aging deployed processes, expand diverse parts of organization
scope of doer
as input thru uniformly dis-
tributed processes and
events to produce creative
outcomes
22.invent new • systematic development of match customer require-
competencies capabilities shared across ments laid bare with devel-
the organization
Capability
opment of new capabilities

Invent
to reduce imbalance
between new demands and
ability to supply
23.cognitive • mental productivity using complexity there in
depth expanded to scale of prob- diverse parts of human cogni-
lems faced
tion via deploying uniform
mental processes across var-
ied workforce
24.new basic unit • scale of unit that competes expand scale of doer to
of competing expanded to fit scale of match scale of problem
problems faced

Knowledge
COMPLEXITY
25.re-engineering • means by which functions complexity of newly devel-
are done updated in synch oped capabilities in the
with capabilities the world
develops world input into company
systems systematically as
new substrates
26.liquefaction • distributing functions to reconfigurability of work-
faster, newer, more tempo- force increased so complex-
rary means of delivery
Deployment
ity of doer configuration

Knowledge
matches complexity of form

change of problems faced
27.learning lever- • quality of acquisition and scale of learning increased to
age use of knowledge measured
and improved continuously match scale of problems
faced
28.organization as • everything set up and man- commitments latent in form
theory aged as experimental form and function shortened and
not fixed right answer
lightened so reconfigurabil-
ity (complexity) of doer
matches complexity of prob-
lems faced

Knowledge
COMPLEXITY
29.diversify diver- • mapping of types of diversity precise accounting for
sity there amounts and types and
• measure how well each type
is seen and used degrees of diversity there to
be leveraged, to fully lever-
age complexity latent in own
diversities
30.alternative • social class fixed inventory excess waste complexity of
delivery for of “managers” replaced as unneeded managing reduced
management default means of deliver-
ing managing functions and excess complexity from
functions • exact spec of what are func- phenomena being unman-
tions of managing
aged that need management
Diversification
• exact measures of when and

where what amount of reduced by precise account-
what such function is ing for amounts, types, and
needed
delivery means effectiveness
for management functions
31.software fram- • social and computer soft- new technologies forced to
ing ware linked as what is contribute in entire existing
delivered
• software specified via pro- context instead of adding to
cess fault root causes not complexity by becoming par-
“wanted” functions
allel universe of “special”
rules
32.movement glo- • all above tactics applied to entire tactical system repro-
balization other forms of quality-- duced to produce highly simi-
quality of earth, quality of
conflict, etc. lar aims in very different
contexts--vast expansion of
tool set to match huge prob-
lem situation scope

Knowledge
COMPLEXITY
33. non-linear manage- • linear statistics technique expansion of tool set basis to
ment replaced by complexity match scope of problems
theory technique
faced
34. creativity competi- • creativity dynamics studied expansion of complexity you
tiveness and improved can invent and leverage to
challenge complexity thrown
at you by situations
35. biologic manage- • new commonsense ventures entire context and frame-
ment established work of operation at all func-
Commonsense
tions and levels switched

radically to express new tool
New
set basis above--expansion of

doer complexity in capabil-
ity to match situation com-
plexity
36. social & technical • models evolved into games learning aids gradually
function virtualiza- into simulations into dis- evolved into becoming major
tion tributed net groupware
• social forms of virtuality as tools of doing actual work--
well as internet forms and reducing complexity intro-
virtual workspace forms
• computational sociality and duced by spec-ing and imple-
software socialities ment-ing new systems by
growing aids into principals
BIOLOGICAL
COMPUTATION
Nature
ion s”
ava he e ion sms inat ision
NEURONAL
con
ors
“at zation
h
COMPUTATION SOCIETY OF TOOL
na
sci
l ty an wt
nic cess ani ord dec

act
COMPUTATION
tur
cel lf org l gro
ou
alt
r
“
t
i
sne
al s
Brains
g c ove
er
se acta
Minds
na
nts
n
ss
o
ele
lvi l m
pe
che utio
te b
eve
sis fr
c
y vo hil
suc mecn h
tio
tho iety
lan vol
iol
soc
n
nt
ug of m
ogi
a
hts
e
ls
ele e sw A/DN-wate
gen -RN rbon
ene
es no
ma
no n-ca
cti ap
t
as ind
e
tog
oci
n i
on pin A ge r life
evo
a
on
al s
&
ial
lev g
lut em
lut
ion
im
soc
els
evo syst
ion
an
n
eco
s
SELF EMERGING
itio
/ki ology tal c tion
ogn
POLICIES
nes
ec /frac ojec
N
G HE
IO
AM O
na rogra
T
POLICY AT Y
p
l /ex
tur mm
IN RY
TAMPERING MU OR
G
hu ructuection
SI THE
al
art
e am ion
r
ma ra
ete
ific
enc par uct
n
st troj
chemput
co
ing s
n
ial
erg ity rod
GENERAL
mi ers
in
ranating
lam ifici re e
divurplu ry
li
art ftwa
EMPIRICAL cal
em ers s p
fe “li
o
ter k
o
rit
arc l in osy
m
COMPUTATIONAL
s
ent
elf
SURPRISE
kia tel ste

SYSTEMS
a
elo lf
pm
vin
rep so
DNsolut
THEORY
n a lige ms
s
dev se
EVOLUTIONARY g
r
A “ ions
c
ife
lgo nc
”
ati of
odu ar
al l
ENGINEERING
iliz ce
on
rit e
tra
POLICY
f
cin e
t
civ ergen
trib
hm
w
vel
POLICY ECOLOGIES SPACES

ga
s
ing
u
em
manage by movement
tom
sal
manage by events cellular automata

esm
ata
global quality social blackboard architectures

computational social cellular computation simulating societies
an
VIRTUALIZATION
electronic democracy
”
sociality automata process

planetary open net intelligent agents: robot societies
THEORY
SOCIAL virtual planetary internetting virtual processware: self emerging org.n MACHINE
society planetary real-time net realities cyberspaces COMPUTATION
COMPUTATION
social virtuality one group as 30 groups multimedia
ubiquitous PANs personal area nets
Society simultaneous plural
leadership regimes
computing badging Computers
A Categorical Model of General Empirical

Computational Systems
from Greene, General Empirical Computation, 1998
6 18
Computa Computa- 39 150 Computation What gets computed Representati
- tional tional Computat Approaches from what: ve Hierarchy
System Systems ion Types of Codes:
Types
Machin Social Social blackboards, social decisions preferences,
coalitions,
e Com- compu- interac- democratic elec- from individual votes
puters tation tion tronics, simu- preferences
Mimick- lated societies,
ing electronic
Social democracy
Ones Massive cellular autom- self emergent unit states,
neighbor-
paral- ata, population overall patterns hoods, inter-
lelism computations from local agent actions
conditions
Virtual Socia- robot societies, self emergent cooperations,
relationships,
and ble intelligent agents patterns of work communities
cyber units (softbots) and task accom-
realities plishment from
individual unit
assignments
Intelli- multi-media, self emergent tasks, roles,
processes
gent organizational organization
mes- computing, pro- form from work
sage cessware, self process/capabil-
con- emerging organi- ity agglomeration
tents zations, agile
economies
Per- virtual persons, task accomplish- physics,
geometry,
sonal virtual organiza- ment from per- geology
fictive tions, cyber personal
inter- sons, cyber relationships
faces spaces
Ubiqui- Prefer- badging, per- personal informa- locations,
preferences,
tous ence sonal locales, tion from loca- facilities set-
comput- follow- personal area tions tings
ing ing networks
Prefer- politicized set- group interfaces persons
present, pref-
ence tings, politicized from individual erences
combin- procedures, com- preferences present, facil-
ing puted organiza- ities settings
tions
6 18
Types
Get- Compu- Social manage by move- emergent out- basic unit
states, neigh-
ting tational array ment building, comes from basic borhoods,
social sociality pro- micro institution unit interactions interactions
com- cesses development,
puters manage by
to events, global
mimic quality, social
machin automata leader-
e ones ship
Per- structural reading models from vari- topic names,
topic count,
sonal diagrams, fractal ety topic order-
array model building, ings
pro- fractal filing,
cesses fractal inter-
faces, chatroom
movement build-
ing
Virtual Cellu- all people in one group space from interests,
communities,
plane- larity cellular space, all individual space events
tary places 24 hour
society connected
Inter- democratized decentralized homepages,
gateways,
netting broadcasting, systems from search
broadcasting centralized sys- engines
unique computa- tems
tional resources,
automated social
movement build-
ing routine librar-
ies
Func- just-in-time man- function type, polling, proto-
cols, social
tion aging, participa- amount, and delivery
specifi- tory art, protocol time needed means
cation communities from regular poll-
ing
Social Virtual one group as 30, population of teams, teams
of teams
virtual- groups plural leadership intelligent agents (superteams),
ity regimes, marketi- from single group teams of
zation of func- superteams
tions
Inver- transport locales, the presence of a function,
opportunity
sion vir- outsource virtual- function from the broadcast,
tuality ity absence of the market bids
function
6 18
Types
Artifi- logic, forward/
Get- Natural cial backward reason-
ting pro- intelli- ing, qualitative
machin gram- gence and fuzzy reason-
e com- ming ing, expert sys-
puters tems, constraint
to satisfaction,
mimic machine senses
biologi- Natural- artificial intelli- new thoughts/ nodes states,
cal connected-
ist com- gence, genetic recognitions from ness struc-
computing algorithms, neu- evolving mes- ture,
puters ral nets, evolving sage/interac- interaction
types per con-
neural nets, tion patterns nection type
Lamarckian algo-
rithms, software
ecosystems
Immune damage detecting natural selection recognition
event, vari-
comput- immunity, system from myr- ant genera-
ing invader detect- iad invader/dam- tion, fittest
ing immunity, age encounters competition
antibody pro-
ducer ecosystem
immunity, accel-
erated natural
selection of anti-
bodies immunity,
natural selection
among natural
selection algo-
rithms immunity
De-lin- equilibria to criti- dynamic under- populations of
intelligent
eariza- cal systems, key standing from agents, con-
tion of variables to pop- static under- nectedness/
knowl- ulations of standing diversity/
patchings
edge agents, causal parameters,
models to simula- wanted out-
comes
tions
6 18
Types
Artifi- Repli- self replicating abstract princi- one species
evolving,
cial life cating automata, self ples of life suffi- other evolv-
life organized criti- cient to re- ing species as
cality, percola- create it in new environment
for that one
tion systems, guises from natu- species, adap-
fitness land- ral selection of tation to
evolving envi-
scapes, coupled codes ronment
fitness land-
scapes
Invent- living software, silicon based life- software
genes, natu-
ing soft- self conscious forms from inter- ral selection
ware software acting software among those
life programs genes,
evolved soft-
ware species
Chemi- Data DNA computers, computational code bearing
population of
cal com- popula- polymer informa- processes from chemicals,
puting tions tion string com- chemical pro- chemical
puters, internet cesses reactions rep-
resenting
recruitment com- semantic
puter networks combina-
tions, calcula-
tion outcomes
Scale quantum sub- improved types computa-
tional limits,
change strate computing, of computing scale change
comput- football stadium from changes of of computer
ing computing scale components,
new computa-
tional limits
6 18
Types
Get- Altered Genetic altering variant improvements in generation/
selection/
ting natural engi- generation, alter- nature from reproduction/
biologi- selec- neering ing selecting fit- improvements in inheritance,
cal tion ness tests, natural selection changes in
them compet-
com- altering repro- processes ing, evolved
puters duction, altering forms of natu-
ral selection
to inheritance
mimic Levels altering genes, changes of scale genes, gene-
machin of altering gene- of biologic inno- controller
genes, genes
e ones selec- controller genes, vation from controlling
tion altering gene- changes of scale gene-control-
ler genes
controller gene of genome acted
controller genes on
Engi- ecosystem engi- interventions in interven-
tions, reac-
neering neering, evolu- evolving self con- tions (thinking
ecosys- tionary scious systems and unthink-
tems engineering that work from ing), commu-
nity
changes in design evolutionary
processes process
changes
Con- Recur- society of mind, thoughts from a situation
description,
scious- sive natural selection natural selection potentially
ness modu- of thoughts process among relevant
larity possibly relevant thoughts,
variants gen-
thoughts erated from
potentially
relevant
thoughts
Experi- fractal medita- microcosms of all socially par-
tial roles and
ence tion, hobby proof life’s dynam- places, disci-
seques- fessionalization, ics from func- plined import
tration net personae tional of all of life’s
meanings, re-
components of seen particu-
life lars of the
partial roles
and places
Alter- New Non-DNA/RNA alternate life- code strings,
natural selec-
nate life, gene systems, forms from same tion process,
biologies same Non-protein substrates as metabolism
sub- metabolism sys- present lifeforms process
strates tems
Life on Non-carbon- alternate life- code strings,
natural selec-
new water lifeforms, forms on sub- tion process,
sub- electronic life- strates other metabolism
strates forms (artificial than present life- process
life) forms
6 18
Types
Get- Self Introjec from being to hav- smaller more unconscious
ing, from perceiv- focussed self or production of
ting develop- tion, a self, de-
ing to modeling to model from vari-
social ment ejection acting, from oth- mystification
ety of diffuse of that pro-
comers-produced self experience duction pro-
puters to self-produced cess, self-
self determined
to
self
mimic
biologi- Talent neurotic selves, costs of talents talent, con-
neurotic organiza- from unconsciously
cal costing known side-
tions, neurotic scious unwanted
com- nationalities, neu- effects of
side-effects of them, uncon-
puters rotic lives talents sciously
known side-
effects
Human political ecology, community spe- species inter-
psychic ecology, cies structure actions,
ecology niches, com-
organizational from web flow nd
ecologies munities
niche dependen-
cies
Tribal Commu- Determining rank, ordered commu- taboos, ritual
determining nity from individ- combat, rank/
life nity status/kin/
mates/kin, deter- ual ambitions
ordering mining territories territory
Time traditional commu- time design from sacred time,

nity, crisis commu- source of com- ritual time,
ordering secular time
nity, mission munity confi-
community dence
Civiliza- Tribal transport-commu- immense infra- local commu-
nication infrastruc- structures and nity aggrega-
tion self- tions,
ture production, surpluses from
tran- leisure class pro- infrastruc-
aggregating local tures, surplus
scen- duction, agricul- communities
dence tural surplus
production, tran-
scendent value pro-
duction
Bio- emergence replac- emergence from basic unit
ing design, flexibil- design states, neigh-
sense borhoods,
ity replacing
replac- rigidity, bottom up interactions
ing social automata
mecha- replacing top down
command, horizon-
nosense tal ranking by con-
tribution replacing
vertical ranking by
authority
6 18
Types
Get- Ontoge- Organ- fractal growth, structures from popula-
ting nesis ism self organiza- self organizing tions of
biologi- devel- tion, cell types as processes agents
cal opment attractors interact-
coming, self-
puters organized
to criticality,
mimic avalanche
social events
ones Organ- directing atten- decisions from attention
ism tion, natural natural selection alterna-
behav- selection of processes tives, fit-
ior behaviors, self- ness
ish gene use of contests,
organisms attention
decisions
Animal Social identity mainte- relationships local
societies maintenance activities, from local behav- behaviors,
nance mutual groom- iors interacting interac-
ing, role salience tions, rela-
dependency tionships
activities
Social ant hill move group actions basic unit
deci- decisions, bird from basic unit states,
sions migration deci- interactions neighbor-
sions, commu- hoods,
nity fight/flight interac-
decisions tions
Ecosys- Ecosys- succession, niche community struc- natural
tem evo- tems evolution, ava- ture/function selection
lution adapt- lanche events, changes from processes,
ing symbiosis, para- interacting natu- species
sitism ral selection pro- evolution-
cesses ary
streams,
community
structures
Adapt- affordances, adaptation to an explora-
ing to attunements, environment tion
ecosys- effectivities from exploration actions,
tems attune-
ments to
affor-
dances,
effectivi-
ties
Are You Creative? 60 Models of Creativity and the 960 Ways to Improve Your Creativity that They Suggest
The Simple Programs Explore

ModelSimplest
of Creativity
Universal Systems
Components of Simple Programs
Drop Traditions initial conditions = program
rules of transformation = computer
hardware
Apply New Commonsense’s 96 Intuitions layout options
point-of-action options
discovery--8 intuitions
simple programs--8 intuitions
a new math--8 intuitions
a new randomness--8 intuitions
continuity overthrown--8 intuitions
natural selection overthrown--8
intuitions
physics overthrown--8 intuitions
universe as a simple program--8
Select Appearance of Simple Programs
intuitions
mind overthrown--8 intuitions start with cellular automata model
a new physical law--8 intuitions remove assumptions in turn to get:
a limit on knowing--8 intuitions
free: will, math, & applications--8 intuitions
totalistic cellular automata
mobile automata
turing machines
substitution systems
sequential substitution systems
Imagine a Basic Exploration Procedure tag systems
cyclic tag systems
register machines
model your project as at right symbolic systems
operator systems
define all possible initial conditions
define all possible rule sets
(run your model with all possible
combinations of initial conditions
and rulesets, watching for:
which of 256, IC recurrence,
boundary emergence,
classes 1 to 4, signs of
Apply Simple Programs
look for layers feeding adjacent
layers
look for variety that could be
made emergent from one
Creativity
universality) automaton substrate
look for complicated layouts,
rules of transform, points of
action that add nothing
Choose and Design Substrate remember universal systems can
emulate each other but some are
very cumbersome and slow ways
to do things easy in others
purpose (what intend to invent)
allowed transformations (rulesets)
allowed initial conditions
choose/design automaton substrate Analyze Effects of Simple Programs
build automaton
most existing concepts and relations
(run automaton are emergents from simpler substrate
scan results of automaton runs automatons
spot interesting emergents and most continuity is randomness masking
universalities) underlying discrete automatons
look for randomness assumed from
environment but really inherent
look for repetition and nesting handled
by existing models that ignore
randomness and complex results
The Discipline of Mental Assumption Scouring identify which of 256 elementary
programs your results resemble
The Discipline of Adding Minimal New Ideas

1 Commonsense: humans are more complex than the world and universe we inhabit (humans are special)
Intuition: the universe and everything in it (we, the world) are cellular automatons, hence, the same level of complexity (humans are not special--science has always advanced by dis-
covering new forms of this).
2 Commonsense: phenomena are continuous so models of them should be in continuous maths
Copyright 2002 by Richard Tabor Greene, All Rights Reserved, US Government Registered 585
Table 1: Some Core Concepts of Complexity Theory
Type Core Concept Brief Explanation
Effects Butterfly effect sensitivity to initial conditions so extreme that future of system
cannot be ever predicted
Avalanche non-linearity so extreme that the addition of one value to con-
effect tinuous input function changes whole systems on all size scales
without warning
Fractal effect system effects such as avalanches or growth typically take the
form of fractal geometry
Non- State Space way to represent all possible states that the system can be in in
Linear a geometric continuous form such that the states a system is in
Dynam- trace out a path in the state space diagram having certain geo-
ics metric features
Attractors-Tra- most non-linear systems spend most of their time occupying
jectories tiny fractions of their overall state spaces, attracted by
“attractors” of various types: periodic, “strange” chaotic, and
others. The path of a system’s state around and toward its
attractors is the system “trajectory”.
Catastrophes severe changes of overall system state as the system switches
from one attractor to another are of certain types called
“catastrophes” in this theory.
When a system switches from one attractor to another, catas-
trophes occur. There are only a limited number of different
types of catastrophe.
System Irreducible sys- systems whose simplest description is as complex as the system
types tems itself; the only way to predict their future is to run them till
that future occurs
Supercritical systems that are radically overdetermined so that “seed”
systems events or items suddenly restructure the entire system on all
size scales
Chaotic systems systems that have strange attractors rather than point or peri-
odic attractors; there are two kinds of chaos--deterministic
chaos (showing certain overall regularities of pattern, and non-
deterministic chaos (truly random events without discernible
pattern).
Param- Connectedness how many basic units any one type of basic unit is connected to
eter parameter
types
Diversity how many types of basic unit, types of neighborhoods uniting
parameter basic units, and types of relationships among basic units in any
one type of neighborhood, are in the system
Patchings how many centers of initiative, response, and planning are in
parameter the system
Table 1: Some Core Concepts of Complexity Theory
Type Core Concept Brief Explanation
Event Spontaneous the emergence of unplanned, undesigned order on some size

types self-organiza- scale of the system as one or several systems parameters
tion change (both order recognized only by an unrelated outside
observer and order recognized and acted on when spotted by
the system itself are included here)
Spontaneous spontaneous appearance of information transfer from any
connection of definable systems locale to any other size scale of locale
all size scales
Spontaneous change of the system from messages in local areas rarely influ-
phase changes encing outside areas to some intermediate state to a state in
which all messages in all local areas influence all outside areas
(chaos); early ideas of a particular value of the “order” param-
eter (my connectedness parameter above) that pushed systems
to the “edge of chaos” have been dispoven in recent research
as several “edges of chaos” have been found not just one, and
some of them do not result in spontaneous whole system all size
scales reorganization or spontaneous generation of unplanned
emergent patterns (Yamamoto in Lundh et al, 1997)
Evolu- Basic unit iden- the ability of basic units to relate to past encounters with other
tionary tities and genes basic units via identities that basic units have and the ability of
dynam- basic units to be changed and reconstituted by changing codes
ics within them that specify how they behave
Basic unit com- the need for basic units to accomplish something in order to
petition and reproduce well (propagate their characteristics throughout a
strategies population) and the ability of basic units to respond in a
planned way to past histories of encounter with other basic
units
Basic unit gene the ability to combine genes or parts of genes from different
combination basic units and the ability of successful basic units to expand
and reproduc- their presence in a population via favored reproduction.
tion
Management
Top ic
Computation
Read in gs
social class delivered management
N amdelivered
event ing managementFun ction
Param
root causeeters Read in gs
specification of systems
agile economy of computed
organizationsS tr uctur al
computed business alliances
R eadin g
Information’s computer-lowered coordination
Ccosts
ausal
Social Person al
Social Life
M anage by
M ovem ent re-engineering
Read ings by breaking Imagery
Readi ngsComputations Profess
L
ional
ibrary
Thsoftware
e agents areg not agents
Bu ild in assumptions
Performance
Man age re-engineering Fractal
by applying Arule
ud iebased -
nce social systemsPersonal
documents are not meaningby
A rt & M agic new materialsRead
for functions
ings Cu ltivation
object based social systemsFilin g
ofcyberworlds are not worlds
B alan cin g
distance education is not education
Leadership
neural net based social systems System
S tructuring
managingMStruc
isana tu ral
notgem
sharing
en t info
genetic algorithm based social
M in d
knowledge leaks via practice systems E xtensi ons
Networ k
communities Social processor population based Cogni ti ve
Just-inclusters Au tomata
-T im eallow some company of
social systems
Ente rp ri ses Frien d
M anagi Lea dersh ip
to ng
benefit for any company’s total and
Tooli ng global quality Network
leaks Man age C ogni ti ve:
Software
movements
re-inventing byper practice A rc h itec tu re
allows within Structural
Events
firm learning
workouts Fur ni tu re
religious orders
A pp arel
Femininity of Power
Cognition Processware
C reativity’s
Proxim ity
improvement cycle to
Productivity
T un ing Darw in ian
O perator s
solving cycle S oci al
Cogn itive Br ok erscycle
thadjectives
e that describe function deployment Consulting
Pop ul ati on Cr eativity’s B etw ee n - wi th
re-engineering outcomes
Par am eters Fou r
action cycle
Meetin g Know l ed ge
of also describe femaleLeve dis- ls processware
Routin es components Mavi ns
Creativitycourse
Poputypes
lation processwareStr uctu ral
theory
A utom ata
re-engineering femininizes Powe r
how process management
Th e
S oci al
C reativi ty
processes
re-engineering Cr eativity’s
Japan-izes
Core Skills T heori es
changes
B ui ldi ng
Cognitivesoftware Partn erin g
Con dition s Parad ox learn a programming
of How to how software changes with
Meeti ng
workprocesses Generators Th eor ies C h ange Routin esmanagement N atural
For language process M ess age Sal esm en
social computation
C re ativity The done of Wh at an applicationTh eories event software
program of How to S tick in ess
sociallyIninsight
Japan Outcomes software enabled events
Develop -
computationally
Proces s in US tomanage
Sh oot software develop-
Inn ovate
m ent
ment
For T heory
engineer software products
heori esinfoPow
Tmanage er
system Th eories
of How to of How to
evolution
M an age Man age
re-engineer
H um an Th a process
eories Popu la-
virtualize
Drives aofprocess
How to ti ons
ecommercize a business
M anage
Parad ox
Change what
all others
assume & use
without thinking
The Fate of Civilizations
The Destiny of Entire Cultures
DOMINANCE HISTORIC
OF MARKETS FAME
(iProduct LEVELS OF
Powers) CREATIVITY
PERSONAL GROUP & IDEA &

CAREER COMPANY PRODUCT
POWER POWER INVENTION
POWER
MEETINGS DISCUSSIONS PROCESSES & BRAINSTORMS PROSE

replaced by replaced by CLASSES replaced by replaced by
SCIENTIFIC STRATIFIED replaced by SOCIAL FRACTAL
RULES OF RESPONDINGS MASS DESIGN PAGE
ORDER WORKSHOP AUTOMATA FORMS
EVENTS
The POWER of Changing Basic

Fundamental Interfaces

!" !"&
#$ %
% #$ %&
& )&
'(""!$!$) % $*$ '( "" !$!$ # :! $ -
)+ ,$ + ,$ $-,",;$$ $"5+ -$+ /$+
)$"!!"*$$$$-$$$$ -/+ $0>>> $, # . $
$!+ ) .-$+ # .""#?,$+.#$?,$
/ $$ ,$!,$ . $ $$-$ . $$ @% -/ $ $ :$ ( #$
$!+
. "" $$0 1( .$ *, $A ( #$ *, ." '$+ 1+ 2+
$+ ,! $- * -"$* 2( "$B(#$-$.$=.
"" !" ,! $ $A $A(#$
& $ -$ 3" 4 -5 -$ -$""$-+-*,.A
,( 6( !$7 - $- 8( ( #$ -$ . *, 3#
"+ $ .-$+ $- $0 9( *, $!$ $+ #$ $ . $( (
:,$ $ -$0
;
#$ $ :! /"" -5 *,

-$/<$-". "5"*
"5"* $ $5
-$!=$$-$$0 ."$.,$,A
!")
#$%
)%
) ,$ . !$+ $ -+ # $* 0 -,$
","* !$ 4 $. $$ & $ $$ 4 < 0
$+-*5/%
)%>>>$$#-*!$+$
-+#$*0.,$$+$!"!
#$->!#*.#$4".:,-$3-*,!$
+C:)+ (0
!")= !"
@
#$D) #$

'( !,$ !!" $ 8 9 F !
-$+ -$- !,$ $
'( . 9E -" . $/$*+ 86
-"./$+9E!!$+ -$ $ " $!" 1(
96$,""$*-+96-. -$"!$# =5*!>
"" ,"$,+ $0 $ !! . . $$ !$ $ * "
-* !""" #5! $- , $ *2($,"$-$/""
/$1(/"$-$./" ! = !$" ,"$ $ :$ " .
!$" !,$ $$ #"" - $ -5 !6(.#,1E$'EE,"$
!#.," /"" !,$ ,"$ $ . $ ,-,"$ . 8 $ F !
/$2(--"$$
./"$-!$"!,$$*! -$8(.$,,-,"$+5
6(!,.,.12 $ /" ,! $ !,$ ,"$
*'1>,*/$.'E$1EE!""" !,$ $ &- . &.. $"0
#5! $- -5 !$" !,$ $$ $!"$ :$!"$ - $
/$,""*-8( ,$!$!$ -$/$,$$"*#$0
" $ /$+ !," $ @D+ &+
+@,$$,"$0
The Social Automaton Leadership Process
Establish
Establish Social Automaton Tune Filter Out
Automaton Reflection Automaton Accumulating
System Performance Automaton Noise
1. Basic Units 5. Purpose set- 9. Iterative appli- 13. De-buffering of
ter basic unit cation of rules basic unit behaviors
The manager first selects or
creates basic units--work-
behavior or (behavior rules of or neighborhood
groups, which can be of vari- neighborhood unit or interaction interactions
ous types. In our example this interaction is rules of neighbor-
involves deciding what types The last four steps of the
chosen hoods) social cellular automata pro-
of workgroups and how many
of each type to have in the cess all concern further
The next set of four The third set of four
overall department. improvements of the overall
actions concerns the actions concerns adjust-
system of basic units, states,
overall accomplishing various parameters of
neighborhoods, and interac-
ments of the whole set the system as the rules of
tions to better achieve whole
of workgroups. He sets the system are repeat-
system goals and maximally
an overall purpose for edly applied to it. First,
please customers of the sys-
the workgroups to the rules and methods of
tem’s outputs. First, vestiges
strive for--the pur- the system as outlined
of past central control and
pose setter. above are applied to the
the values and behaviors it
set of 30 workgroups--
generated are removed from
iterative application of
basic units and neighbor-
rules.
hoods--de-buffering.
2. States (behav- 6. Fitness recog- 10. Connected- 14. Deployment of

iors) of basic units nizer basic unit ness parameter goals and methods
behavior or adjusted till from some basic
Next he selects the states
neighborhood desired outcome units to others from
those workgroups can be in
(also called “the behaviors” interaction is emerges. some neighborhood
of each workgroup) by equip- chosen types to others
ping workgroups with various Second, the number of
methods by which to attain He establishes ways to types of connections Second, goals and methods at
certain ends. These range measure and spot the among workgroups--the first used by only the entire
from common ways of read- fittest workgroups at abstract neighborhoods systems are deployed to
ing, researching, determining accomplishing the they have--are adjusted neighborhoods, then, are
goals, measuring customer overall purpose--the so that neither interac- gradually deployed lower in
satisfaction, to manufacturing fitness recognizer. tion with too few work- the system to basic units as
techniques or sales methods. The fitness recognizer groups nor interaction capability growth permits--
spots what configura- with too many, neither goal/method deployment.
tions of the system interaction with work- This allows the overall per-
best achieve some groups too proximate nor formance and goals of the
overall result, for interaction with work- system to be made self-emer-
example, customer group too distant, gent by allowing them to
satisfaction, avoid- results--the connected- emerge from the interac-
ance of war, or low ness parameter. tions of basic units and neigh-
cost. borhoods.
The Social Automaton Leadership Process
Establish
Establish Social Automaton Tune Filter Out
Automaton Reflection Automaton Accumulating
System Performance Automaton Noise
3. Abstract neigh- 7. Replication 11. Diversity 15. Best practice
borhoods uniting mechanism basic parameter behaviors of basic
types of basic units unit behavior or adjusted till units and interac-
neighborhood desired outcome tions of neighbor-
Next, which other workgroups
any particular workgroup
interaction is emerges hoods shared
cooperates with--the abstract chosen
Third, the number of Third, best practice methods
neighborhoods of each work-
He creates a way to types and content of from one basic unit or one
group--are selected or cre-
increase the influence types of basic units, neighborhood are deployed
ated.
or replicate the type of states of units, neighbor- to other units and neighbor-
workgroup (or state, hoods of units, and inter- hoods--best practice shar-
neighborhood, interac- actions among units ing. Best practice sharing of
tion) that is found fit- sharing neighborhoods the horizontal, among
test--the replication are adjusted so that uni- equals, form of the vertical
mechanism. formity and consensus for deployment in the previous
optimally meeting step of goal/method deploy-
present challenges does ment.
not weaken the system’s
ability to respond to
unforeseen future chal-
lenges--the diversity
parameter.
4. Interactions 8. Pattern rec- 12. Patching 16. Basic unit behav-

between basic unit ognizer basic (number and dis- iors and neighbor-
types inside a neigh- unit behavior or tribution of cen- hood interactions
borhood; and Interac- neighborhood ters of certain virtualized or pro-
tions between interaction is types of initiative) cess form replaced
neighborhoods chosen adjusted till by event forms
desired outcomes
Then he equips the work- Fourth, the states of basic
groups in particular types of
Lastly, he creates a emerge units and the interaction
way to recognize pat-
neighborhood with particular among units in neighborhoods
terns of complex inter- Fourth, the number of
methods for interacting with are made into social events
action among basic basic units and number of
the other workgroups in their (management by events
units that move the neighborhoods of basic
neighborhood--interaction below) or virtual events (on
whole system closest units allowed to take on
types. Notice that work- groupware information sys-
towards achieving its certain states is adjusted
groups are equipped with tems)--virtualization and
goal and pleasing its to that neither too few
methods called “states” and eventization.
customers--the pat- nor too many centers of
neighborhoods are equipped
tern recognizer. initiative exist, neither
with methods called “interac-
too little initiative nor
tions”. Some tasks are
too much initiative is
assigned for workgroups to
taken by each unit--the
do, using certain methods,
patching or locus-of-
and other tasks are assigned
self-control parameter.
only for neighborhoods of cer-
tain types to do, using other
methods. Product develop-
ment, for example, would be
assigned to one neighborhood
to do, while competitive anal-
ysis might be assigned to the
entire set of 30 workgroups to
do.
The Population Automaton The Punch-line Effect &

Model of Creativity The Humor Connection
Genera-
tive
Paradox
Genera-
Explosive Applica-
tion
Sample
Applica-
Automa-
ton
tors
Re-interpretation Automa-
tons
tion
Areas
Cogni- Simulta- Flexible [case by Compet- Taking Structural

tive neous bricolage, case] ing points as Cognition
Automa- opposites associa- authorities trends
ton tions Thoughts
thoughts negation
Insight Broken Tolerance [case by Playful- Re-con- Group

Automa- illusions for failure case] ness-- nect to Emo- Dynamics,
ton regres- sponsors/ tional Emotional
Popula- sion in audiences Reactions Intelli-
tion Genetic failed service of gence
Automa- Automa- attempts hubris the ego
ton ton
Social Chicken Marginal [case by Disinter- Canon as Innova-
Automa- and egg ingenues, case] ested self building Moves tion,
ton in but not promotion blocks and Leader-
of, sup- Improvs ship,
voices/ ported in Perfor- High Per-
problems feedback loner mances formance
Domain Fanatic Method/ [case by Personal Domain/ Organiza-

Automa- focus process/ case] productiv- tradition tional
ton approach/ ity invention Organiza- Learning,
similarity tion Knowl-
metaphors Aspects edge Man-
agement,
parallel Network
domains projects Economics
Person Work Field Domain
Insights, Creations, Creators,

and New Domains as
Emergent Phenomenon:
Non-Linear System “Ava-
lanche” Events
HERE IS HOW YOU CREATE USING THE ABOVE MODEL:

1) Gather lots of diverse thoughts into a population then tune their inter-
actions 2) Gather lots of diverse tries of a creative work or solution into a
population then tune their interactions 3) Gather lots of voices/examples
from experts/creators in your field or problems others omit work on and
tune their interactions 4) Gather lots of diverse domains usually not in
contact and tune their interactions TILL the punch line effect occurs,
where amazing unplanned solutions or creations emerge. Adjust connect-
edness, diversity, and centers of initiative that interact in each case. Big-
ger more diverse populations generate more creative outcomes
11 Dimensions of Creativity from The Population Automaton Model of Creativity

POPULATION
AUTOMATON
Automation
Parameters
37. number and types of basic units in the population
38. number and types of states/behaviors per basic unit type
POPULATIONS ORGANIZED AS AUTOMATONS
39. number and types of abstract neighborhoods shared by basic units

types
40. number and types of interactions among units sharing a neighbor-
hood type
41. number and types of interactions between neighborhoods of the
same and different type
Population
Parameters
42. connectedness parameters--how connected (communicativeness
of link and number of links)
43. diversity parameters--how many types
44. patchings parameter--how many centers of initiative (of various
types) in the population
Complexity
Amount Parame-
45. niches created per new niche created
ters (Kauffman’s “adja- 46. subsystems created by combining previous subsystems
cent beyond”)
47. new processes created by combining previous processes

Reflexivity
Parameters
48. distributedness achieved of emergent pattern recognizer function
49. distributedness achieved of purpose setter function
50. distributedness achieved of fittest pattern recognizer function
GENETIC Natural Selection 51. variant generation
AUTOMATON Parameters
52. random mutation
53. heuristic mutation
54. variant combination
55. proximate combination
56. distant combination
57. diffusive combination
58. variant selection
59. levels of selection--selection of trait codes, selection of trait con-
trolling codes, selection of codes that control trait controls
60. variant reproduction
Natural Selection 61. natural selection processes selected for (natural selection process
Selections
type selection)--embedded fractal natural selection processes within
natural selection processes in creation
62. faster/slower mutation selected for (mutation rate selection)
63. invented new forms of sexuality (combination) selected for (sexu-
ality type selection)
64. environment preferences selected for (environment type selec-
tion).
GENERATIVE
AUTOMATON
The Cognition
Automaton, of
65. precision of count of main points
Populations of
Thoughts in Minds
66. precision of naming of main points
67. precision of ordering of main points
68. clarity of ordering of main points
69. recall/retrievability of ordering of main points
70. fractality of branch factor in ordering of main points
The Insight
Automaton, of
71. number and unobviousness of features abstracted
Populations of
Failed Solution
72. number and unobviousness of frames selected
Attempts in Minds 73. number and unobviousness of problem representations selected
74. number and unobviousness of solution attempts tried that failed
75. number and unobviousness of cross-domain analogies seen and
attempted
76. number and unobviousness of reasons identified of why failed
attempts failed
77. thoroughness of indexing of features, frames, representations,
failed attempts, domain analogies, reasons for failure
78. recall/retrievability of indexing of features, frames, representa-
tions, failed attempts, domain analogies, and reasons for failure
The Social
Automaton, of
79. the commitment to marketing of the creator
Populations of
Voices in the Field
80. the inherent visibility of the creative work itself, independently of
or Works in the
Domain
its worth or eventual destiny
81. the hunger of the field for further developments in present incipi-
ent trends
82. the creative explosive re-interpretation in audience minds when
particular creative works in a domain are combined
83. the interplay of person, personae, and work in a field/domain
The Domain
Automaton, of
84. the rigidity and clarity of the status hierarchy among domains
Populations of
Domains Interact-
85. the plurality of sources of judgement and funding within and
ing in a Society among domains
86. the number of domains sharing the same technical symbol systems
87. the hunger of particular domains for new methods
88. the hunger of particular domains for new objects of study
89. the analogy types among domains:
90. number of circumstantial analogies and elaborateness of feature
matches--things facing same environment develop similar responses
91. number of mimicry analogies and elaborateness of feature
matches--things that copy other things end up similar
92. number of recruitment analogies and elaborateness of feature
matches--finding another use of a thing once it is found of use in one
place and way
93. number of building block analogies and elaborateness of feature
matches--finding all the possible uses of a thing once it is found of use
in one place and way.
PARADOX GEN-
ERATORS
Negation 94. simultaneous opposites generated by negation in the mind (so-
called Jansian thinking)
95. degree of oppositeness achieved
96. equality of investment in both ends of various polarities
97. capability of performing both ends of various polarities
Hubris 98. broken illusions, as attempts fail, generated by hubris
99. degree of disappointment at failed attempts tolerated without
stopping the generation of new attempts
100. degree of emotional detachment (skepticalness) maintained
about own solution attempts so that failure does not provoke stopping
the process of solving
101. degree to which the constraints and frustrations of the world are
GENERATORS
embedded in the creator’s model of the world as a trying place without

PARADOX
creating image of the world as impossible or undesirable place

Feedbacks 102. chicken and egg dilemmas, generated by positive feedback loops
103. speed of feedback effects and size of them, provoked by new
features of some creative work in a domain
104. disposition of creator to invest in chicken and egg dilemma type
situations
Parallel Projects 105. fanatical focus, generated by investment in plural simultaneous
projects
106. number of parallel projects
107. number of different domains represented by the parallel
projects
108. intellectual and social distance of the different domains repre-
sented by the parallel projects
109. number of blocked times in one domain where creator switches
to work on problems in other domains
APPLICATION
AUTOMATONS
THOUGHT LEVEL: creativ-
ity dynamics applied to
thoughts in the mind
110. what sort of thoughts are targeted
111. how many thoughts of that type are in the population
EMOTIONAL REACTION
LEVEL: creativity dynamics
applied to emotional reactions
112. what sort of reactions are targeted
to persons and situations
113. how many potential reactions to a situation are in the population
PERFORMANCE LEVEL:
creativity dynamics applied to
moves and improvisations
114. what sort of moves or improvs are targeted
within performances
115. how many such possible moves or improvs are in the population
ORGANIZATION LEVEL:
creativity dynamics applied to
parts of and aspects of organi-
116. what aspects of organizations are targeted
zations of people
117. how many such possible aspects are in the population
APPLICATION
AREAS
Internal Psychic
Social Basics
118. STRUCTURAL COGNITION: regularizing the structure of mental
contents to aid retrieval, generation, comparison, and indexing; cre-
ativity dynamics applied to thoughts in the mind
119. EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE: managing your emotional reactions
to situations; creativity dynamics applied to emotional reactions to
situations
120. GROUP DYNAMICS: managing the emotional life of groups; cre-
ativity dynamics applied to aspects of personal identities that come
APPLICATIONS
AUTOMATON
from group memberships of individuals

External Social
Basics
121. INNOVATION: inserting changes into the world and its organiza-
tions and systems; creativity dynamics applied to gaps in corporate
performance as skunkworks
122. LEADERSHIP: getting a particular set of people to accomplish a
particular accomplishment; creativity dynamics applied to followers
to make them into leaders
123. HIGH PERFORMANCE: getting a particular set of people to per-
form at a certain level or to defeat a particular competitor; creativity
dynamics applied to moves in a team performance
Continuous
Improvement of
124. ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING: getting organizations capable of
Internal/External
Basics
responding differently to similar stimuli/situations; creativity dynam-
ics established among parts of organizations
125. KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT: getting organizations to measure,
increase, and deploy what they know, to know what they know; cre-
ativity dynamics established among types of knowledge in organiza-
tions
126. NETWORK ECONOMICS: getting explosive growth from positive
feedbacks between product/service niches and the new niches they
generate; creativity dynamics established among product/service
niches in an economic ecosystem.
EXPLOSIVE RE-
INTERPRETA-
NON-LINEAR SYSTEM
DYNAMICS PARAMETERS: 127. degree of system supercriticality
TION 128. size of avalanche events
129. fractality of system changes
130. degree of self organized criticality in the system before and after
the avalanche
AVALANCHE EFFECT
PARAMETERS, FOR CRE-
ATIVE WORKS AS AVA-
131. the number of previous works re-interpreted
LANCHES:
132. the unobviousness of the re-interpretations generated
NON-LINEAR AVALANCHE
133. the amount of elapsed time of the re-interpretation of the works

of the domain
“INSIGHTS”
AVALANCHE EFFECT
PARAMETERS, FOR
INSIGHTS AS AVA-
134. the number of previous solution attempts re-interpreted by a
LANCHES:
particular insight
135. the unobviousness of the re-interpretation generated
136. the amount of elapsed time of the re-interpretation of those
solution attempts in a particular insight event
INSIGHTS AS
EMERGENT
OBVIOUSNESS PARAME-
TERS: 137. the unobviousness of when the insight avalanche occurs
PHENOMENA, 138. the unobviousness of the contents of the particular insight
NON-LINEAR
AVALANCHES 139. the unobviousness of the re-interpretation of failed solution
attempts produced by a particular insight
INTERACTION PARAME-
TERS: 140. what parts of the population interacted to produce the insight
141. what degree or type of interaction led to the insight
142. what re-organization of the domain results from the insight
THE SOCIO-
LOGICAL LEV-
PERSON PARAMETERS:
143. life history event types that foster creative dispositional ele-
ELS ments like personal productivity, non-conformism, and so on
144. social support configuration that makes a particular creator iso-
lated enough to break boundaries yet connected enough that those
breakings contribute to others
WORK PARAMETERS:
145. attentional properties of the work, independent of its initial or
final worth and destiny
146. semiotic properties of the work, linking it to trends in the field
LEVELS MATRIX
SOCIO-PSYCHIC
147. opportunistic properties of the work, creating appeal in particu-

lar configurations of people, funders, and critics at particular times
facing particular exigencies
FIELD PARAMETERS:
148. salience of a field among others in competing for best people,
works, methods
149. connectedness, diversity, and patchings parameter settings of a
field relative to others for fostering many variants and many frames for
positively evaluating variants
DOMAIN PARAMETERS:
150. presence of standard symbolic language across the domain, mak-
ing judgements of worth of contribution more easily evaluated
151. recent history of previous struggles in the domain and the dispo-
sition towards radicality or conservative evolution it fosters
THE POPULATION LEVELS 152. thoughts, emotions, social relations, organized domains
THE TWELVE
PARADOXES
FLEXIBLE BRICOLAGE,
ASSOCIATIONS PARAME-
TERS:
153. how rich is the creator’s environment in variety of things oppor-
tunistically usable in different contexts
154. how flexible is the creator’s imagination at putting things to use
in frames other than their standard use ones
155. how unobvious and intellectually/emotionally distant are the
associations the creator makes to any stimulus
TOLERANCE FOR FAIL-
URE PARAMETERS: 156. how disposed to preserver in the face of failure and difficulty is
the creator
157. how many failures of what type does it take to reduce the com-
mitment of the creator to a particular line of attack
158. how does the creator balance need for perserverence with need
for flexibility of approach
MARGINALITY, INGENUE,
IN BUT NOT OF, SUP-
PORTED LONER PARAME-
159. how much commitment to and mastery of existing technique and
TERS:
knowledge of a domain does it take to reduce ability to innovate a cer-
tain amount
160. what single link of what level of quality does it take to remove
just enough of the loner-ness of the creator to make him/her impact a
field
METHOD, PROCESS,
161. how many different domains furnish possible analogies for a situ-
PARADOX GENERATORS
APPROACH, SIMILIARITY
METAPHOR PARAMETERS:
ation in a particular domain
162. how widely read is the creator
163. how diverse are the person’s with whom the creator speaks on a
regular basis
164. how many different domains can the creator easily converse with
someone in, when need arises
165. how specific is the mapping of parts of any one analogy from one
domain to parts of another domain
COMPETING AUTHORITY
PARAMETERS: 166. how many different authorities are funded and respected in the
field at any one time
167. how different are the approaches and values of the different
authorities tolerated in the field at any one time
168. how easy is access to these authorities by newcomers, novices,
and mediocre contributors of the field
PLAYFULNESS, REGRES-
SION IN SERVICE OF THE
EGO PARAMETERS:
169. how much is the childhood mind’s over-connectedness preserved
in the adult mind
170. how essential is such over-connectedness preservation to cre-
ative performance
171. how well does the mind professionally and disinterestedly use its
more emotive, associatively rich, childish capabilities
DISINTERESTED SELF
PROMOTION PARAME-
TERS:
172. how assiduously did the creator learn and link him/herself to the
social substructures of his/her field
173. what minimum amount and quality of links suffices to create
possibility of impacting a field
174. what properties of the person and his/her work make such link-
ages work well in creating impact and work poorly
PERSONAL PRODUCTIV-
ITY PARAMETERS: 175. how much more productive than normal persons not contributing
creatively in a domain is the creative person
176. can creative contribution take place by someone not more pro-
ductive than usual persons in the domain
177. is what makes the creator more productive the same as what
makes him/her more creative or different
TAKING POINTS AS
TRENDS PARAMETERS: 178. what points that others take as points does the creator take as
places within trends
179. how much interpolation does the creator use
180. how much extrapolation does the creator use
RE-CONNECTING TO
SPONSORS/AUDIENCES
PARAMETERS:
181. the degree of frustration of audiences in the field and in society
supporting the field with outputs of the field
182. the degree of satisfaction of audiences/sponsors in the field with
the present outputs of the field
CANON AS BUILDING
BLOCK PARAMETERS: 183. the degree to which particular creations re-configure parts of
the canon/tradition
184. the number and salience of items in the canon that are reconfig-
ured by any one creation
DOMAIN/TRADITION
INVENTION PARAMETERS: 185. the degree of idea-richness and sponsor-richness attained (and
required to cause a single creation or insight to become a new domain)
186. the supercriticality of a domain that causes it to be a likely spon-
sor of spin-off new domains
The Performance Creativity Model of Creativity

The Secular Divine
The Nine Performances of Performing Creativity
Composing, The Creator Imagined Performances
Ideas Performing in Mind Traits Performing in Work Work Performing in Field
wrestle life connect self wrestle life connect self wrestle life connect self
into to into to into to
diamonds audience diamonds audience diamonds audience
Real Time produce Off Line Real Time produce Off Line Real Time produce Off Line
Improv Composition Improv Composition Improv Composition
Composition Composition Composition
make room make room make room
for for for
emergence emergence emergence
design manage design manage design manage

emergence paradox emergence paradox emergence paradox
perfect perfect perfect

Real Time Real Time Real Time
3
The Secular Divine
The Secular Divine

parts
2
parts parts
1
Improv Improv Improv
Performance Performance Performance
distinguish distinguish distinguish
performances performances performances
Performing, The Performer Imagined Performances

Ideas Performing in Mind Traits Performing in Work Work Performing in Field
for for for

Real Time perfect Real Time perfect Real Time perfect
4 5
parts parts parts
6
Attending, The Audience Imagined Performances

Traits Performing in Work Ideas Performing in Mind Work Performing in Field
for for for

perfect perfect perfect

Real Time Real Time Real Time
7 8 9
parts parts parts
The Secular Divine

Pa tching s Tuning Dissonant Set U p, F ou r

Virtua li- B est Neurosis E vent, Deco rative
Pra ctice Initia tive Diver sity Interruptors
za tio n
Replication P a ra m et er Parameter T ypes & Skeptics Follow Up D imen sio ns
System Para meter M od ality F ra ctal
Enleanment Tu ning Go als Themes
G oa ls Iterative Co nn ect- Ra tio na l, Go al E a ch Set, F o ur
D e- b uf fer- \ R ule ed ness
ing D eplo ym ent Em o tio na l, F racta lity Act, V erse Lea der ship
A p p lica ti o n Pa rameter
Relational R o les
E ven t G oa ls E vent
A uto ma ta Prin cip les D aily
Pa ttern Pro toco ls En ab lin g C ross - M or ning
Neig hb or- F ittest as S umma ry
Intera ctions R eco gnizer n ot
ho od s
Replica tor “Lea ders” C om man d W o rksh op
Ass ignments B riefing s
A uto ma to n Reflexivity Stifled Org
S et U p Set U p L ea de rs hip Learn in g D aily
Existing Next layer F aculty
B asic Purp ose Fitness L e a d e rs t o
States B a ck o f Leaders to R o ta tio n Debriefing
Un its Setter Reco gnizer th e Ro o m thru per
F ro nt Wo rk sho p
Management by Types P a r ti cip a n t
Policy V enture Reg ular Events R esult C rea te, Using &
Dep lo y- Develop - A w ard E d it, T es t, D evel op i ng
ment men t Inverse Theme Enfo lding
S how s A wa rd Po lish Talents
Meets C on sults S how s Repetition
C eleb ra t- Follow Up Wo rk shop
Ca sca des Processes
io ns D ai ly Pro cess es
Particip a- Inter-o rg Qu ality S ocial Intermedia te Pro toco l
to ry Process C ab ar ets In dex ers Publishing Promoting Pro du cts Tu ning &
To w n Meets E x ch an ge
M eeting s Evaluation
E ven t
E vent Typ es
C usto mer Pro cesses E nf old ed
Imp lemen- Sta nda rd s Sup p ly Invite Co m m un ity
tatio n C om plex- Simplifi- Participation Gro up
Wo rk da ys As sem b lies C ha in ifica tio n cation Not A g end a
Launching Assemblies Attending
W ork o uts Proto co l Set Up

A ss em b lie s Pro cesses Pro cess es
Selectio n O bserva - Fra ctal Mini-

Prob lem Pro b lem R esear ch S tra teg y
tion Theme Per fo r-
Find ing S olvin g Assemblies Assemb lies
Rep etitio n man ces
Types of Event:
Workouts gather just the right parties or stakeholders to get some particular task done.
They tend to be used for particular solving or analysis steps. Assemblies gather all the mem-
bers of an organization or of several related ones and the like. They tend to be used for
research, invention, creation, or massive contacting of all the stakeholders, customers, sup-
pliers, etc. of a group. Celebrations gather parts of organizations or related parts of differ-
ent organizations. They research some important aspect of a group then develop or put on
products created from that analysis. Cascades are events that cascade across networks of
related organizations. They tend towards small one or two day events repeated by level, by
process step, by profession or the like.
Event Processes
The procedures of the workshops of any event are derived by interviewing, usually by phone,
world best experts at doing some procedure. Several such experts are interviewed and their
steps combined into a new best procedure used by particular event workshops. Each part of
holding an event--design, set up, holding, followup--consists of mini-events all embodying
major themes and transformation procedures. These are embedded fractally in all size
scales of each event and event-let so steps get assigned to entire days (in multi-day long
events), to blocks of hours in each day, to each hour inside such a block of hours, and to each
15 minutes within each hour). People are invited, not to attend, but to offer particular
leadership or personal skills and information to event workshops. Workshop groups
exchange intermediate products of their work at regular intervals and workshops are evalu-
ated daily for how well they use talents of their members, the satisfaction of their members,
and the quality of their outputs. Such evaluation is used to finely tune procedures the next
day. Following up events involves using the outputs of the event as tools to change existing
organizations and their agendas. All participants of the event use particular tools learned in
the event along with outputs of the event to get particular targeted other organizations to
change in certain ways and to together create new organizations and movements between
existing organizations, possibly coordinated by small scale Managing by Events events that
they design, set up, hold, and follow up themselves.
Event Principles:
All events will fail if led by existing leaders of an organization. This not only bores but it
turns events into monkey-like status display events with boring speeches of pompous lordly
bosses and old guys. Therefore, all existing leaders are forbidden any overt leadership roles
in Managing by Events events. Instead they are richly used as consultants that particular
workshop groups consult based on expertise and experience they index and display for all to
see. In this way existing leaders are highly visible and available but not dominating and bor-
ing while a new layer of people, stifled by existing leaders, arise to do the actual leading of
workshops and event components during Managing by Events events. Furthermore, people
are given two (or more) workshop assignments per event--they are allowed to choose a work-
shop they like and they are assigned, randomly, another workshop they may or may not like.
In this way people participating in the same event regularly gradually master more and more
functions new to them and not something they, on their own, would learn about. This, in
addition to reading workshop results from other workshop groups, increases greatly organi-
zational learning, as well as social network building and social indexing across organization
boundaries in each event for each participant. The design of an event, the set up, the hold-
ing of it, and its follow up, as well as each of the four parts of the event itself when it is
held, and each of the four parts of each of those four parts, all repeat the same transforma-
tion steps and themes. Each event is built around one profound overall process of transfor-
mation needed by organizations at the time the event is held. Each part of each event
repeats certain steps in that process, on successively smaller scales of time and space. So
you find each wall of each workshop room repeating the same thematic part of such a trans-
formation process for the event, and each hour within a four hour block of time repeating
such a thematic part. Each person and nation and profession distorts reality in ways they
are unconscious of (gender, era, organization, profession, nationality “neuroses” these can
be called). Managing by Events events include specific processes and sub-events to detect
and correct such neurotic distortions. For example, many organizations and cultures are
blindly male and rational, particularly global businesses, so they, by omitting emotional anal-
ysis and work, undermine their rational goals with surprising morale, elan, ethics, trust, and
other violations and collapses. Particular processes and sub-events to keep rational goals
and steps matched one to one with emotive goals and steps must be included in each Manag-
ing by Event event.
Event Automaton:
Each event is managed as a social automaton. The automaton is set up, a reflexivity system
within it is set up. Parameters are tuned during design, set up, holding, and following up
the event to guide its performance. Finally, results of the event are pruned of noise so that
creative emergents from interactions in the event are spotted and freed from junk around
them. Managing hundreds of people interacting complexly in one of these events has a feel
of “tuning” rather than commanding or designing or carrying out plans. You invite depar-
ture from plans where that departure responds creatively to limits discovered in workshop
procedures and takes advantages of unexpected opportunities from other workshop interme-
diate results, for example. This is a more biologic style of managing that replaces older
mechanic styles.
Problem Solving Event Types:

Problem Cause Solution Implementation Result
Finding Finding Finding Launching Finding

Workout Workout Workout Workout Workout
These 5 events represent 5 steps in a structure problem solving process quite common in industry. The first event
examines many problems a group faces and produces a selection of the correct one or two to work on now. The second
event examines many supposed causes of the chosen problem or missed opportunity and applies various techniques to
produce a selection of the root cause that generates other causes. The third event type examines many possible solu-
tions and chooses one. The fourth examines many ways to do and organize implementation of the chosen solutions and
both chooses and launches one. The final type here examines many possible results and ways to measure results and
applies them to determine the actual impact of an implemented solution to a problem .
set up 4 weeks; hold- set up 4 weeks; hold- set up 4 weeks; set up 4 weeks; set up 4 weeks; hold-
ing 1 or 2 days ing 1 or 2 days holding 1 or 2 days holding 1 or 2 days ing 1 or 2 days
many problems, chal- many supposed many possible solu- a root solution is implementations
lenges, and opportu- causes and factors tions examined to examined, imple- examined for actual
nities examined to examined to pro- produce THE root mentation planned, results and error anal-
produce THE root duce THE root cause solution of a current and implemented ysis done where
problem to tackle of a current problem cause and problem implementation results are unex-
now or missed opportu- begun pected
nity
each of 20 suggested each of 20 supposed each of 20 possible each of 20 ways to each of 20 possible
problems handled by causes handled by solutions handled by implement handled results handled by
separate workshop separate workshop separate workshop by separate work- separate workshop
group group group shop group group
each of 4 different each of 4 different each of 4 different each of 4 different each of 4 different
ways to determine ways to determine ways to determine ways to determine ways to evaluate
root problem handled root causes handled root solution han- root implementa- results handled by 5
by 5 workshops each by 5 workshop groups dled by 5 workshop tion handled by 5 workshop groups each
each groups each workshop groups
each
cascade process cascade process cascade process cascade process cascade process
between problem between cause between solution between implemen- between results
groups and ways groups and ways groups and ways tation groups and groups and ways
groups groups groups ways groups groups
Social Automata Event Types:
Quality Research Work Problem Solving Process Improvement
Cabaret Assembly Event Workout Workout
These five events allow any group to manage themselves. It is also a good sequence of event types for forming new
groups or institutions from scratch. The first event type involves 8 weeks of analyzing the challenges of a group, espe-
cially subjective style and value problems, and figuring out needed changes in style, value and role. Then people are
chosen and trained in dance, comedy, drama, and music of various sorts, Acts are designed in an overall cabaret show,
lasting about 2 hours. Each act demonstrates one past style that dysfunctions in the future or one future style that
must be struggled with in the future. After 8 weeks of preparation, the overall cabaret of many acts is performed for
all the employees of a company, all its customers and suppliers, in a series of weekly or nightly shows. The second
event type, the Research Assembly, involves a set up process of hundreds of people each reading a book or two and
extracting certain types of information, which is then combined and analyzed during the event itself. The third event
type, the work event, takes some mundane, repetitious, or boring work that oppresses a few over long time periods
and gets many people to do it in a short entertaining event format. The fourth event type above performs the entire
problem solving process of the earlier 5 event types, as one event. The fifth event type studies, models, and mea-
sures processes then improves them by applying 40 or so process improvement methods.
ing 1 week nightly or ing 3 to 7 days holding 1 or 2 days holding 2 to 5 days ing 2 to 5 days [many
4 weeks at one night [many of these held] [many of these of these held]
per week held]
many mood, spirit, many sources and boring, dull, repeti- many problems, many processes and
style, value, habit analysis methods on tive, mundane types causes, solutions, process improvement
challenges faced the a topic combined to of work that other- implementations, methods combined to
next year examined produce practical wise would oppress a and results exam- produce lean updated
to create proper models to apply few people all year, ined to produce an process architecture,
roles and attitudes shared by hundreds implemented solu- models, assignments,
for the next year in a day of enter- tion in one or two and measures
tainment structured days
work
20 challenges each 20 subtopics of the 20 subtasks of the 20 problems, 20 20 processes each
handled by a differ- topic each handled overall task each causes, 20 solu- handled by a different
ent workshop group by a different work- handled by a differ- tions, 20 implemen- workshop group
shop group ent workshop group tation ways, 20
possible results
each handled by a
different workshop
group
20 acts of a show 20 kinds of analysis 20 types of enter- 4 different ways of 20 ways to improve
each handled by dif- and synthesis each tainment to form determining root processes each han-
ferent workshop handled by a differ- interludes in the problems, causes, dled by a different
group; 20 functions ent workshop group work each handled solutions, imple- workshop group
of a cabaret each by a different work mentations, and
handled by a differ- group results each han-
ent workshop group dled by a different
workshop group
between challenge between subtopic between subtask between problem, between process
groups and act groups groups and analysis groups and enter- cause, solution, groups and ways to
type groups tainment type implementation, improve groups
groups results groups and
ways of determining
groups
Re-engineering Event Types:
Customer Alliancing Finance Assumption New Materials
Requirements Workout Assessment Breaking Substitution
Workout Event Event Event
The first event type above involves large numbers of people interviewing, giving questionnaires to, and interacting
with the customers of an organization, in order to determine their needs and what determines how those needs are
changing. The second event type takes different organizations, companies, ethnic groups, workers from different cul-
tures and combines then into one project or team. The third event type does for financial needs what customer
requirements events do for customer needs. The fourth event type examines processes and spots old assumptions
about how to do work effectively that need changing. The fifth event type examines processes for old materials for
doing work functions that can be replaced by newer materials.
ing 2 or 3 days ing 2 or 3 days holding 2 or 3 days holding 2 days ing 2 days [many of
[many of these these held]
held]
many types of cus- many companies, many financial chal- many theories of many new social and
tomers and customer nations, ethnic lenges, data, and effective function- technical ways to exe-
needs combined into groups, markets, cus- goals of the firm ing combined into cute work functions
overall model of how tomers and suppliers, combined into tac- assumptions to combined into
to improve customer etc. to work in an tics for achieving break in how cur- improvements in work
retention and satis- alliance combined financial objectives rent processes are process steps
faction into common con- done
text of work method,
content, and shared
meaning of “excel-
lent” “productive”
and “effective”
20 customers types 20 alliance chal- 20 financial chal- 20 theories of 20 new social and 20
each handled by dif- lenges each handled lenges of the firm effective function- new technical materi-
ferent workshop by different (multi each handled by dif- ing in the near als for doing work
group company) workshop ferent workshop future each handled functions each han-
group group by different work- dled by different
shop group workshop group
20 types of needs 20 companies (coop- 20 key financial 20 key processes 20 key processes (and
customers have han- erative supports measures each han- (and steps) each steps) each handled
dled by different needed) each handled by different handled by differ- by different workshop
workshop group dled by different workshop group ent workshop group group
workshop group
between types of between challenge between challenges between theories between new materi-
customer group and groups and company and measures groups and processes als groups and pro-
types of need groups groups groups cess groups
A Rough Sketch Process for

Designing, Setting Up, Holding, and Following Up
an Annual Research Assembly Event
Step Description
each person list 10 workshops they want to lead this year sometime somewhere for someone,
each workshop listed as: topic, who for (who should attend), method used, type of output
produced
all read the lists of all, marking the 1/3 they like, the 1/3 they do not think will work, and
the 1/3 they are unsure about
each person lists 3 workshops they want to lead and 3 workshops other than those that they
Workshops
think will be very relevant, powerful, and/or popular now for others to lead
Generate
all read the lists of all, marking the 5 they most want to lead, the 5 they most want to par-
ticipate in, the 5 they least want to lead and why, the 5 they least want to participate in and
why, the 5 they judge most likely to appeal to others, the 5 they judge least likely to appeal
to others
each person lists ten workshop steps for each of the 3 workshops they now want most to lead
and for each of the 3 workshops they now think will have most appeal and value for others
all read the lists of all, marking all boring steps, all ineffective steps, all exciting steps, all
highly effective steps, all too easy steps, all too difficult steps, all ambiguous/vague/unclear
steps, all unneeded steps, all essential steps
Generate
all collect markings of all, for their own six workshops (3 to lead and 3 likely to appeal to/
Methods
have value for others)

each person revises the ten steps for their six workshops, incorporating advice and markings
from others as done above
all read the lists of all, grouping workshops by similar method, similar topic, similar audi-
ence, similar output produced--all workshops should be categorized in all four of these ways
the group splits into three or more teams, each team designs a complete brochure describing
the overall Research Assembly event that contains all the six workshops from each person,
two-sides of A3 paper, making all decisions, leaving nothing vague or undecided (choose best
place, time, budget, advertising, theme, decor, workshop leader source, and so on)
Conceptual Design of the Event
the three or more groups each present the brochure that they designed, all read all bro-
chures marking unclear parts, unappealing parts, non-valuable parts, parts with a great
image, very appealing parts, and very valuable parts
the group selects best parts from each brochure to compose one winner brochure having two
versions of it, where disagreements exist about what contents ore methods are best for the
event; copies of these two versions of the brochure are printed, each member of the group
presents one or the other version of the brochure to 10 more more groups and 10 or more
Brochures
individuals during the next day or week, getting them to read it and answer ten simple ques-
Generate
tions about such things as whether the event appeals to them, would they want to attend it,
would they want to participate in leading it, would their friends be interested in it, which
friends, what changes in the event/brochure would make it more appealing, what items in
the event/brochure reduce their interest or worry them. and so on.
all questionnaire results are compiled into a spreadsheet table and simple statistical analy-
ses done, descriptive and basic regressions
Analyze
results of the questionnaire data analysis are used to design the final event themes and form
Data
and a final brochure for the event is made, visiting key authorities to get budget, facility,
and other permissions needed for making what the brochure promises possible and valid
A Rough Sketch Process for

Designing, Setting Up, Holding, and Following Up
an Annual Research Assembly Event
Step Description
list all the things other than workshops that the event needs, including care processes during
the event for workshop leaders, workshop participants, coordinators of food and facility,
coordinators of communications and transport, workshop consultants (any existing leaders
attending), equipment provision for workshops, travel and interviews done by workshops,
exchange of intermediate workshop results, tuning of daily procedures and leadership and
participation, maintaining quality and schedule/morale tightness throughout latter parts of
the event, punctuating rational workshop work with art, surprise, emotion, comedy: form a
Fractality Functions
team for each and each such team designs the people, money, facilities, equipment, meth-
Enabling
ods, data, tools, times it needs to get people to do well its assigned functions.
all read the lists of all marking items too big/expensive, items too small/cheap, items omit-
ted, items omittable, great items, vague items, and poor or doubtful items
all read the key transformation process steps and key themes of the conceptual design com-
pleted above and revise their enablement team functions to reflect and fully embody, cre-
Theme
atively these steps and themes from the conceptual design

all read the lists of all marking great items, poor or doubtful items, missing items, and omit-
table items
collect repertoires of educatedness, effectiveness, creativity, culture, leadership, career,
art, and other orthogonal discipline methods, review these repertoires relative to enable-
ment tasks/functions and transformation process steps and their needs; select helpful meth-
Method-
ization
ods for every workshop step, every enablement step, of the event design
all read all method alternatives suggested for each workshop and enable function and the
overall groups selects the best methods for each
all divide themselves into four teams: the event detailed design group, the set up design
group, the holding of the event group, and the following up the event group; each team lists
Implementation Design of the Event
Process
creative possible event-let approaches to doing its assigned part of the event then all steps/
Teams
work/tools/times/monies/facilities/persons/equipment needed for that

all read the designs/lists of all marking items appropriately
break the entire group into three or more subgroups each of which designs an “implemen-
tors’ brochure” showing exactly how the event will be designed, set up, held, and followed
up, with all ambiguities removed, so individual person’s names for leading and doing and
participating in each function should be lists, along with particular times and places involved
Brochures
Generate
and all equipment and money used.

all read the brochures of all and mark items appropriately, coming up with one best version
and an alternative version where there are disagreements that cannot be resolved by mere
discussion
two versions of an implementors’ brochure are created and presented by each person to 10
outside persons along with a questionnaire asking such things as: what looks practical and
fun to do, which of these functions you would like doing, which would you hate doing and
why, what looks impractical, what is missing that is needed, and others.
Analysis
analyze data from questionnaires and use it to design a final implementors brochure that
Data
specifies in detail how the event is to be designed, set up, held, and followed up, by whom,
at what cost, when and where
The Sunrise Model of Cluster Creation Spaces

Com bin atorium E ngine: Comp etition Pres sure
Organizations Domains/Fields
Combined Combined
(&supportive tax/investment laws) (& supportive patent/standards
norms and law inventions)
Field/firm weave
Nationalities People/Ideas
Combined Combined
Tu nin g
Community
M ech an ism s:
E vent Combinatorics
Press ure (& supportive immigration laws) Tuning (& supportive tax/investment laws)
Events Interfaces Persons/Ideasbetween Firms

Lu brican ts : Databases Product Alliances (Ideasseeking homes till they find one)
I nformation I ndex: Standard: Modularity
Flows: Firms between Firms
Publications Scalings
Pres su re Organizations Inventions Newdomains between Firms
Persons Equity Markets Ideas between Fields/Practices
“Ware” Cores (Re-invention Supports)
Tu nin g
to the Norms for Non-exploitive
M ech anis ms : Norms for People
Stealing Edge of Chaos Complements to Founder
E vent
Pr ess ure Team Weaknesses
Ange l & V enture
Capital
Norms for University Norms for Funding

Idea Invention Funding Employee Venture Ideas
(Industry university
collaboration)
N orm s: S oci al Pres su re
Normalization of Self Editing of Inviting Liberation New Orthodoxy I Write History Emergent Divinity Inspiring Training the World
New Liberation Strained Analogies from Your Just Establishment Emulations
Seeking Created Novelty institutionalizing writing history
institutionalizing overweening monitoring of living archet yp es replicated immigration
analogous wanted continual moni- liberat ion &
continual search effectiveness of toring & counter- ou rse lves volunteer army
for fu rther ch anges found & i n sti t u tio n ali z in g olympian destiny f reedom
debun ked of continual ing of erosion forces I guess people like
similar revisions me w rite it baby revolutions
of past editing own ideas monitoring & ossificat ion
coun tering spawned everywhere
liquef ying self criticism 59 48 44
society 64 acting to revise 63 60 acting to INSTI- WRITING fame MY
h aven
SEEKING the old in light SPOTTING MONITOR protect the TUTION- HISTORY “the audience 47 S TORY “send me your 43
ANALOGOUS of the new OVER- INSTITU- new from the old ALIZE WITH of the unborn AVATAR COPIOUSLY huddled masses” NEW
LIBERATIONS WEENING TIONALIZING Socializing COUNTERING DEEDS and ancestors” EXISTENC E COPIED Replicating R ECRUITS
Back to Zero Humanity’s
Perusing Surveying Erosion Transformation Erosions Status from Drama Pioneering Demonstra- Your Selves Novelty’s
Other Possible Watches Blocked Transform HISTORICI- Normalcy ting Generosity
Possible OLD PARADIGM Liberations set u p NEW PARADIGM Contribution ZATION PossibilityA WORLD OF
Liberations REPLACED findin g monitor- ESTABLISHED LIBERATIONS
seeing the analogous beyond OF PERSONS completely
entire past differ- parts of the past ing of
spe cific erosion counter particular past hierarch y relevant daily lives exp orted hope limitless sympathy
ently from n ew needing analogous types erosion actions pe ople everywhere seeing all those
viewpoint liberations ne w monkeys, new my privac y publicized
see ing possibility others trapped in their
keeping watch on blocking and t ackling bananas where there was none selve s and lives
poking society look- investigating each the past the past
ing for soft spots possible such libera-
tion spot 46 Global & 41
61 62 Defending 58 45 DAILY
57
S EEING WITH ANALOGOUS the Fut ure MONITOR COUNTER POWERLES S TOTAL Historical POSSIBILITY
FOR
42
Dreams INVITING
NEW EYES LIBERATIONS EROSIONS EROSIONS PAST RELEVAN CE OTHERS ALL OTHERS
Conserving Local
Novelty as Door Agreement Liberality Breaking Breaking Loyality Switch Resistence Globality Instructionless Global Last Straw
Not Content Disrupted Immortality Mindlessness Misinterpretations by Bystander Becomes
Masses Conquest Plurality Instructing Generation
the new as it first th e n ew is the passage the past assimilates th e miracle MIRACLE
un it y of mankind
appears may only not well CARE of time causes the new into plural hints of entire my lif e e xp erienced in
diverse past frame- of victories
be tip of iceberg defined enough to forgetting of “last wor ks of interpretation systems crumbling becomes teaching shared vision of
of further novelty be consensed on straw” violations “oh we used to do one pillar pulled and the slamme d door new future
the entire ediface becomes archway the garbageman eyes lighting up with
suddenly people must “what was I revolting that all the time” professor
pull the st ring and stay awake during tumbles into a new world hope worldwide
a new sun appears about” 55
meetings
measuring
56 count ering COUNTER drama
35
representativeness
fragility of 51 INTER- 36 “see what is “show the way” 39
the new COUNTER eroding powers PRETIVE ENTIRE happening there” SURPRISED 40 I LEAD
52 COOPERATION OFFENSE of the past ASSIMI- OLD WAY BY I AM THE
UNFATHOMED MISFIT FORGETTING LATION UNDERMINED Whistle Points VICTORY THEWAY Most Individual WORLD
Baby Care Distinguishing becomes
Ecosystems Emotions Breaking Breaking David vs. Found All Responses Transform- Most
Disrupted Disrupted Inter- Interpersonal Inventions ational Social Glob alization
of Local Acts
RISKS OF Organization ASSIMILATIONDependencies Goliath GLOBAL Identity GLOBAL
Dependencies THREATS the past the unfair possibilities
the new BIRTH the new th e past VISIBILITY the POSSIBILITY for everyone
coun ters assimilates fight
counters all assimilates t he the newprocedurally unimaginedt actics new p ersonal, now ch anged by
all institu tional personal habits new institutionally old things are auto- root for the underdog group, man kind what we do here
arrangements unhead of acts, identities discovered an d now
old things ar e e asy matic applie d at unheard
the old church beside powers that be c ontinually re making c hanging the defini-
to do
the c ell phone store besides themselves 54
COUNTER
CREATION of place s
“I” not inheriting it tion of humanness
49
53 PERSONAL POWER 33
50 COUNTER PROCESS Steps of Self & AGAINST 34 37 38
INSTITUTIONAL RELATIONSHIPS INSTITUTIONAL ASSIMILA- ALL RADICAL I AM THIS I LIBERATE
MIS FIT MISFIT ASSIMILATION TION Social Change ODDS IMPROVISATION FUTURE EVERYONE
Invention
Plural Uniqueness Confirmationlessness Meeting the Forcing Beyond Victory Realized Power from Honor Lauch Initiatives
Onslaught Death of All Handle
the Old Dreams realization t hat emergence of Consequences
d iscovery of the whole world start of war of Ways sudden colleague interactions new power beyond risk-f illed action
other liber ate d as en emy liberation emergence already are your planne d or to realize novelty
ones the y just don’t get
refused of a new new en visioned envisioned powers pullingbottom cards
with f riends like you compro- public world
utte rly alone together, who needs e nemies the point mises & th reats
simultaneous discovery
form of happiness t he hut is r eally a
the story r etelling from a house of cards
game done wit h
the r at re jects it s if I we re to live for c astle
16 che ese 1000 years... emergence of 31 inve ntions
FINDING ent ry to n o act of 28 emergence of 27
32 THES E
ANOTHER man’ s land 15 12 re bellion 11 SUPRISED p ublic forms BEGINNINGS SURPRISED power f rom ENACTING
nothing
LIBERATED FIGHTING WANTING WANTING BY of happiness ARE BY THE NEW
ONE Impossible ALL VICTORY Inventing CHALLENGE HAPPINESS Completely ENDINGS POWER The Promise NOVELTY
Practically Task The Standing Your Self Forcing Settling for Expended Life Happily Investing Land Projecting
Optimism of Against Response Unsettledness “flow” Unhappy All Self, New Designs
Impractical Hopelessness PIONEEER
t he act of THE BREAK abandon- immolation Time, Past PROMISE work to
U NCER TAINTY courage ment of HAPPINESS of daily POWER
lab or to f ashion
u tter loneliness hopeless odds of saying “no” b urned bridges personal happinesses createreally new act s andspeec h to
choosing my destiny, a bull’ s eye on my lifestyle goals w ork as one long
vision and realize realize n ew vision
the r oad ne ver the outrageous is it
before t aken my normalcy so this is my battle- forehead a cityscape made of party fashioning hole s in
sweating invent ions
ground tightrope s being
30 25
Discovering 9 RELEASED Obeying CA PTIVATED BY 26
13 14 Liberty HAVING 10 29 FROM FASHIONING
NECESSITY UNSEEABLE SHEER DEFINING ESCAPE FROM PRIVATE Freedom POF OSSIBILITY
NEW THE NEW
FOR ME VICTORY Stopping EXISTENCE MYSELF LIFESTYLES HAPPINESS Spawning NOVELTY NOVELTY
Letting Go of All Letting Go Existence Nothingness Anihilation of All Living in Visions Rethinking Surprise Perceiving Insights as Doors
Provisos & Excuses of Self & M orta lity Embraced as Partial Responses All Emergents Not Contents
World Better making & keeping ref usal of N ata lity struggle to
u tter despair at tipping poin t emergence of
something CONSCIOUSNESS ab solute promises to each past inside PEACE see and pre- solutions better
continuing, having fundamental end of road release s system- other selves in serve what
a life, as at present in who you are or of existing system/you wide avalanches emerges than imagined
building houses
own operations or plann ed ones
what the world is, Alice falls thru the the but terfly flaps one in this haystack there
caught in the headlights is at fault rabbit hole into wing
with wor ds reflective garbage my ideas ar e bir th
disposal is a nee dle, I believe
house of mirror s another wor ld le avings of the real
24 ide as
death 8 last st raw 7 20 emergence emergence 23
4 sen tence 3 SEPARATING of novelty
THIS COMMIT COLLAPSE POSSESSING of colleagues 19 NOVELTY S URPR ISED
LIFE IS I AM MY TO OF THE ONLY BEYOND FROM BY
OVER Limitless ENEMY UNKNOWN Absurd OLD SELF HONOR EXCUSES CHAFF From Trying NOVELTY
Wealth of the
Mind as Inadequacy Inevitability Forced to Turning Point Forced to Saved by Not Yet Unemcumbered Unemcumbered to Trying Handling
Repeated of Despair Change Radical Dire Thought Actions Essentials
Labor Totalizing Threat MICRO with
repeated DESPAIR exh austion saturation HOMELESS Change fighting SURVIVAL novel
INSTITUTION Innovations
of all you do for COMMUNITY imagining DEVELOPMENT f ocus f rom
blocking su per saturation su rvival together alternative worlds & intents &
or failure and know end of the road means at tempte d survivalstruggles
quicksand, ever y not eve n c lose, miss eleven fingers in the
institutions together
draw ing five jacks bricolage a boat made of
move sinks me deeper by a mile dike living fantasy balloons
18 21 22
1 2 5 6 17 VISION BEYOND LIVING SHEER
STUBBORN FAILURE OF AT LIMIT OF BEYOND TOUGH TOUGHNESS & SURVIVING
REALITY ENTIRE SELF TOLERANCE TOLERANCE TOGETHERNESS THE PAST EXPERIMENT EXPERIMENTALLY
Copyright 2003 b y Ric hard Tabor Green e, All Rights Reserved, US Govern ment Registered
64 Dynamics of Creation Power

death sentence STUBBORN 1Mind as Repeated Labor; repeated blocking or failure; drawing
Limitless Inad- REALITY
equacy five jacks
DESPAIR FAILURE OF 2. Inevitability of Despair; exhaustion of all you do and know; quick-
ENTIRE SELF
sand, every move sinks me deeper
I AM MY ENEMY 3. Letting Go of Self and World; something fundamental in who you
are or what the world is, is at fault; house of mirrors
THIS LIFE IS 4. Letting Go of All Provisos and Excuses; utter despair at continuing,
OVER
having a life, as at present; caught in the headlights
last straw AT LIMIT OF 5. Forced to Change; saturation; end of the road
Absurd Turning TOLERANCE;
Stopping Existence Mortality MYSTERY
Point BEYOND TOLER- 6. Forced to Radical Totalizing Change; super saturation; not even
HOMELESS ANCE;
close, miss by a mile
COLLAPSE OF 7. Anihilation of All Partial Responses; tipping point releases system-
Discovering Liberty
THE OLD SELF;

wide avalanches in me; the butterfly flaps one wing
COMMIT TO 8. Nothingness Embraced as Better; absolute end of road of existing
UNKNOWN;
system and you; Alice alls through the rabbit hole into another world
act of rebellion HAVING SHEER 9. Standing Against; the act of courage of saying “no”; choos-
Inventing Your EXISTENCE
Self ingmy destiny, so this is my battleground
THE BREAK DEFINING 10. Forcing Response, burned bridges, a bulls eye on my fore-
MYSELF
head
WANTING CHAL- 11. Forcing Death of Old Ways; refused compromises and
LENGE
threats; the rat rejects its cheese
WANTING VIC- 12. Meeting the Onslaught; start of war of liberation; they just
TORY
don’t get the point
entry to no NECESSITHY 13. Practically Impractical; utter loneliness; the road never
man’s land FOR ME
Impossible Task before taken
UNCERTAINTY UNSEEABLE VIC- 14. The Optimism of Hopelessness; hopeless odds; the outra-
TORY
geous is my normalcy
FIGHTING ALL 15. Confirmationlessness; the whole world is my enemy; with
friends like you who needs enemies
FINDING 16. Plural Uniqueness; discovery of other liberated ones;
ANOTHER LIBER-
ATED ONE utterly alone together, simultaneous discovery
emergence of TOUGH 17. Saved by Dire Threat; fighting for survival together; eleven
colleagues TOGETHERNESS
Wealth of the fingers in the dike
Not Yet VISION BEYOND 18. Unencumbered Actions; imagining alternative worlds and
SURVIVAL COM- TOUGHNESS
MUNITY AND THE PAST institutions together; living fantasy
BEYOND 19. Rethinking All; refusal of past inside selves in own opera-
EXCUSES
tons; reflective garbage disposal
POSESSING ONLY 20. Living in Visions; making and keeping promises to each oth-
HONOR
ers; building houses with words
emergence of LIVING SHEER 21. Unencumbered Actions; novel intents and means
novelty EXPERIMENT
From Trying to attempted; bricolage
Trying SURVIVING 22. Handling Essentials with Innovations; focus from survival
MICRO INSTITU- EXPERIMEN-
TION DEVELOP- TALLY struggles; a boat made of balloons
MENT SURPRISED BY 23. Insights as Doors Not Contents; emergence of solutions
NOVELTY
better than imagined or planned ones; my ideas are birth leav-
Spawing Surprise Natality CONSCIOUSNESS
ings of the real ideas

SEPARATING 24. Perceiving Emergents; struggle to see and preserve what
NOVELTY FROM
CHAFF emerges; in this haystack there is a needle somewhere I
believe
Obeying Freedom
emegence of CAPTIVATED BY 25. Investing All Self, Time, Past; labor to create really new
power from POSSIBILITY OF
nothing NEW NOVELTY vision and realize it; sweating inventions
The Promise FASHIONING THE 26. Projecting New Designs; one new niche deserves/requires
Land NEW NOVELTY
PROMISE ECOLOGICALLY another; forced into more innovation than planned; this inno-
POWER vation has a hole there requiring that innovation; fashioning
and plugging holes in being
ENACTING THE 27. Launch Initiatives Handle Consequences; risk-filled action
NEW NOVELTY
to realize novelty; pulling bottom cards form a house of cards
SURPRISED BY 28. Power from Honor; emergence of new power beyond
POWER
planned or envisioned powers; the story retelling game done
with inventions--our process is better than our intended result
so let’s institutionalize that
emergence of ESCAPE FROM 29. Settling for Unsettledness; abandonment of personal life-
public forms of LIFESTYLES
happiness style goals; a cityscape made of tightropes
Completely RELEASED FROM 30. Happily Unhappy; immolation of daily happinesses; work
Expended Life PRIVATE HAPPI-
“flow” NESS as one long party; my old self and life and happinesses were
PIONEER HAP- but hobbies, these new ones are real
PINESS THESE BEGIN- 31. Victory Realized; realization that colleague interactions
NINGS ARE END-
INGS already are your new envirioned world; the hut is really a cas-
tle
SURPRISED BY 32. Beyond All Dreams; sudden emergence of a new public
HAPPINESS
form of happiness; if I were to live for a 1000 years....; I am
doing daily what others only dream about or read about in
books
drama “see AGAINST ALL 33. David versus Goliath; the unfair fight; root for the under-
what is hap- ODDS dog
pening here”
Whistle Points RADICAL 34. All Responses Inventions; the unimagined tactics; unheard
Found IMPROVISA- of acts applied at unheard of places
GLOBAL VISI- TION
BILITY SURPRISED BY 35. Resistance Becomes Conquest; the miracle of victories; the
VICTORY slammed door becomes archway into a new world
ENTIRE OLD 36. Loyality Switchby Bystander Masses; hints of entire systems
WAY UNDER- crumbling; one pillar pulled and the entire ediface tumbles
MINED
representative- I AM THIS 37. Transformational Identity; new personal, group, mankind
ness “show the FUTURE
way” identities discovered; continually remaking “I” not inheriting
The Most Indi- it
vidual Becomes I LIBERATE 38. Globalization of Local Acts; possibility for everyone now
the Most Social EVERYONE
changed by what we do here and now; changing the definition
Global and Historical Dreams
GLOBAL POSSI-
Local Globality Plurality CARE
BILITY of humanness
I LEAD THE 39. Global last Straw Generation; unity of mankind experi-
WORLD enced in shared vision of new future; eyes lighting up with
hope worldwide
I AM THE WAY 40. Instructionless Instructing; my life becomes teaching; the
garbageman professor
haven “send POSSIBILITY 41. Demonstrating Possibility; exported hope; people every-
me your hud- FOR OTHERS where seeing possibility where before there was none
dled masses”
Replication INVITING ALL 42. Novelty’s Generosity; limitless sympathy; seeing all those
Your Selves OTHERS others trapped in their selves and lives
A WORLD OF
LIBERATIONS NEW RECRUITS 43. Training the World; immigration; volunteer army
MY STORY 44. Inspiring Emulation; replicated liberation and freedom;
COPIOUSLY baby revolutions spawned everywhere
COPIED
fame “the POWERLESS 45. Status from Transformation Contribution; beyond the past;
audience of the PAST
unborn and beyond past status hierarchies; new monkeys, new bananas
ancestors” DAILY TOTAL 46. Pioneering Normalcy; completely relevant daily lives; my
Humanity’s RELEVANCE privacy published
Drama
HISTORICIZA- AVATAR EXIST- 47. Emergent Divinity; living archetypes; olympion destiny;
TION OF PER- ENCE the purpose of my life was this all along though I was probably
SONS
never going to discover it in my old way of living
WRITING HIS- 48. I Write History; writing history ourselves, writing with
TORY WITH deeds not words; living ideas
DEEDS, SPEAK-
ING WITH
ACTS
measuring fra- INSTITU- 49. Ecosystems Disrupted; the new encounters all institutinal
gility of the TIONAL MISFIT arrangements; the old church beside the cell phone store
new
Baby Care RELATION- 50. Emotions Disrupted; the new counters all personal habits;
RISKS OF BIRTH SHIPS MISFIT powers that be besides themselves
COOPERATION 51. Agreement Disrupted; the new is not well defined enough
MISFIT to be consensed on; suddenly people must stay awake during
meetings
UNFATHOMED 52. Novelty as Door Not Content; the new as it first appears
may only be the tip of an iceberg of further novelty; pull the
string and a new sun appears
countering COUNTER 53. Breaking Inter-Organization Dependencies; the past assim-
eroding pow- INSTITU- ilate the new institutionally; old things are easy to do
ers of the past TIONAL ASSIM-
Distinguishing ILATION
ASSIMILATION
THREAT
COUNTER PER- 54. Breaking Inter-Personal Dependencies; the past assimilates
SONAL PRO- the new procedurally; old things are automatic
CESS
ASSIMILATION
COUNTER 55. Breaking Misinterpretations; the past assimilates the new
Conserving Novelty Immortality PEACE
INTERPRETIVE into plural diverse past frameworks of interpretation; “oh we

ASSIMILATION
used to that all the time”
Defending the Future
COUNTER 56. Breaking Mindlessness; the passage of time causes forget-

OFFENSE FOR- ting of “last straw” violations, the arrogance of past systems
GETTING
now overthrown, the harm they did gets forgotten; “what was I
revolting about”
acting to pro- MONITOR ERO- 57. Erosion Watches; set up monitoring of specific erosion
tect the new SIONS types; keeping watch on the sneaky past
from the old
Socializing COUNTER 58. Erosions Blocked; counter particular erosion actions;
Transformation EROSIONS blocking and tackling the past
NEW PARA-
DIGM ESTAB- INSTITUTION- 59. New orthodoxy Establishment; institutionalizing cntinual
LISHED ALIZING monitoring and countering of erosion forces; ossification vac-
COUNTERING
cines
MONITORING 60. Inviting Liberation from Your Just Created Novelty; moni-
INSTITUTION- toring of effectiveness of institutionalizing of continual moni-
ALIZING
toring and countering; self criticism of self ossifications
acting to revise SEEING WITH 61. Persuing Other Possible Liberations; seeing the entire past
the old in light NEW EYES differently from new viewpoints; poking society lookking for
of the new
Back to Zero soft spots
OLD PARADIGM ANALOGOUS 62. Surveying Possible Liberations; finding analogous parts of
REPLACED LIBERATIONS the past needing analogous liberations; investigating each pos-
sible such liberation spot; detecting revolution
SPOTTING 63. Self Editing of Strained Analogies; overweening analogous
OVERWEENING wanted changed found and debunked; editing own ideas, find-
ing borders of validity of own recently installed innovations,
subtracting enthusiams out to see novelties naked for what
they are, good and bad mixed
SEEKING 64. Normalization of New Liberation Seeking; institutionaliz-
ANALOGOUS ing continual search for further similar revisions of past; lique-
LIBERATIONS
fying society; from solid to gas, from gas to plasma
create create from failed undo cognitive

problem attempts to from process surface
method influence algorithm research
institution- finding partial step to failed unconscious cascade
collaboration solutions attempts of past
alization values event assemblies
markets markets indexing indexing victories sequences
Manage Elaborate Manage
Organization Unlearn
Mind Indexes by Events
create create from name from role/task revise
solving update work workouts
perception to role/task to process automated
bid/offer collaboration indexing assumed events and
markets step/event processes
markets facts solving
indexing
Organization Content events
Research graft
Evolution escalating
institution- plurify exploration counter-
purpose by structure by hidden
alize values and learning learning productivity
experiment experiment plurification viewpoints feedbacks
effects
Organization Expanded Balance Surface
Experiments Repertoires Learning Feedbacks
plurify
policy by process by plurify process vicarious
exploitation tragedy of delayed
experiment experiment knowledge capability learning learning
sources the commons feedbacks
64 Ways
that
Organizations
organization SWAT
gossip Learn counter discipline legitimate
cognition organization corporate intensification peripheral
counter life national
management forms compilation cabaret exercises participation
neuroses neuroses
events
Organization Narration Counter Counter
Reflection Events Neuroses Roles
capture deploy incidental counter counter crossing under-
functions encounter cellular
crises personal organization boundaries studying
as continually spaces workspaces neuroses leaders
neuroses
learning elsewhere
Experience Border
causal
Formation computation
Violation propagate
possible JIT self campaign business invent
maps futures configuring deployments solution standards
search management hobbies
conference structures cultures
Simulate Social Counter Counter
Experience Computation Rules Norms
devil’s standard vertical interest fit fit
coalition espoused
advocate role play cognitive horizontal technical
red cascade building groupings to to
tool sets
teams processes enacted social
New Re- Non-linear Social

Innovative- interpre- Fame Haven System Cellular Secularity Religion
ness tation Dynamics Automata
Process
Conserved Historic
Dream Diversity Symbol
Newness
Utterly Preserva- Drama Showing Fatal Tampering Language Art
New tion the Way Succeeding
Founda- Culture
tion
Initiative No man’s Action Happiness Exercises Meanings BenevolenceStructures
Land
Liberty Freedom Wisdom Style
Miracle Promise Novelty Covenant Skills Knowledge Generations Families
Social
Processes
Innovation Measure- Incentives Consump- Inputs Purposes Opportunity Checks
ment tion
Productivity
Productivity Distribution
Distribution Anticipation Welfare
Resource Variation Property Markets Interests Plans Spaces Rights
Economy Polity
Time Technology Quality Systems Norms Laws Mediation Execution
Natural Human Tools Forces Defense Police Legislation Juridication
Social Design Automata--for Beginner--

General Instructions:
1) Arrange people in groups of six.
2) Choose one or more formal procedures/algorithms for doing a task/design
3) Break that into six steps, one for each person in each group to do, in sequence or
at the same time
4) Define carefully the form of output that each person receives, and generates
after applying their assigned mental operation to that input, handing
results to the next person
5) Choose a time interval--everyone applies their assigned operation to their inputs
during that time, and hands results to the next person at the end of that
time interval
6) START the automaton, knowing at first only the first person, of the six works, the
other five rest, by time interval 2, the first 2 people work and 4 rest, till
by time interval six, all six people work and no one rests.
7) OBSERVE quality of each role’s operation applied and results and quality of over-
all accumulated final results.
8) REVERSE the automaton, by switch roles so the last person become the first, the
next to last becomes the second, etc.
9) CHANGE one or two assigned mental operations to be applied midway through,
to adjust quality of final results being accumulted.
10) MUTATE invite one person in each group of six to change their assigned mental
operation so as to improve their results, in any way they themselves
choose
11) CROSSOVER take the last 3 people from one group of six and shift them to
another group of six and vice versa.
12) DIMENSIONS OF DIFFERENCE on the TOTAL RESULTS ACCUMULATED Stop the
automaton and as a whole group post each final result on the wall, group-
ing similar results and putting groups in careful order, then interpolate
new dimensions of difference and extrapolate new dimensions before the
first and after the last group, then invent a new item using values along
those 3 newly developed dimensions of difference.
YOUR INSTRUCTIONS TODAY: 1) form groups of six (from each team if enough
people exist per team or by combining two team to form groups of six)
2) give each of the six people in each group, randomly, a number from
1 to 6 3) each group of six chooses WHAT they will design today in this
automaton 4) Role 1 lists the 2 biggest flaws in best current versions
of what is being designed, Role 2 Designs a version of the item that
fixes both of those flaws--a drawing showing what aspects of the design
fixes each of the flaws Role 3 finds weaknesses in those proposed
fixes and suggests better fixes for both Role 4 goes beyond fixing past
flaws and re-imagines the entire design to be something that changes
the whole ecosystem of other items the item depends on (as the iPod
includes software iTunes that made putting music into iPods super
easy). Role 5 makes a good final drawing of the design, fixing anything
weak about the design, and lists 4 key points that makes the design
good. Role 6 adds one new feature to the design that makes it beauti-
ful, easy to use, easy to explain and sell, or otherwise expands the
value of the design. 5) START the automaton, handing partial results
to next roles every 2 minutes (or longer as instructed by Prof. Greene)
6) As directed by Prof. Greene reverse the automaton etc. 7) When
the automaton ends form two overall groups--each group groups ALL
the designs by similarity, names those groups, puts those groups in
order, interpolates and extrapolates 3 new dimensions of difference,
and invent one new design of values along those 3 new dimensions.

THE SOCIAL AUTOMATA MODEL OF INNOVATION
the implementation
questions
HOW DO YOU DO THIS? It helps to start small, with social design automata replacing brainstorms a few
dozen times till everyone automates it and gets used to it in style and sub-
stance. This gives intuitions and sustaining habits that allow expansion in scale
to work well rather than overwhelm or assimilate away automata styles to older
bureaucratic styles.
Then a march up all 15 levels presented in this chapter, summarized as follows:

1) STUDY inventions without inventors--the Moro Simulations
2) IMPLEMENT computational sociality via Japan's TQM
3) STUDY dialog among 5 types of computational systems spawning hundreds of
exponentially increasing kinds of innovations
4) READ in that dialog the dynamics of the simplest thinkable machines--a la
Wolfram
5) READ Cohen-Kaufmann-Arthur-Gell-Mann at Santa Fe--complexity theory of
non-linear system dynamics--outcomes emergent from tuned interactions in
populations
6) DO DOZENS OF TIMES TILL AUTOMATIC social design automata replacing
brainstorms in the world's best firms (top universities will get there in about 30
years! as usual)
7) STUDY monastic innovations in how we meet/discuss/process-work/learn-
teach/read-write/brainstorm/present
8) DO DOZENS OF TIMES TILL AUTOMATIC 5 new interfaces/media for doing
intellectual work
9) APPLY IN GROUPS OF EXECS leading by tuning social automata interaction
types
10) APPLY IN R&D AND PRODUCT MANGEMENT population automaton models of
creativity and innovation
11) APPLY A LA JOBS-APPLE union of performance (pleasing top monkeys) and
performance (theatre shows) as emergents
12) DO DOZENS OF TIME IN INCREASING SCALE managing by events not pro-
cesses as large scale automata
13) INVEST 2 YEARS SETTING THIS UP BOTH WITHIN AND AROUND YOUR FIRM
the flows and homes model of Silicon Valley as automaton
14) ENABLE WAVES OF SUCH REVOLUTIONS IN WAYS/TECH-SUBSTRATES EVERY 6
YEARS IN YOUR FIRM’S UNIT OF COMPETITION Arendt's prescient social automa-
ton model of social revolution
15) MEASURE AND REWARD THIS EMBEDDING AT ALL LEVELS OF MANAGEMENT
social processes in all societies having embedded within social revolution algo-
rithms in automata form.
WHAT ARE THE MAJOR The style of this is leading by--setting populations of diverse entities in motion,
OBSTACLES YOU ENCOUN- tuning their interactions, till better than wanted or planned results emerge,
TER? pruning signal from noise and replicating globally and in other industries and
product lines. This is entirely more INDIRECT than usual hormone driven male
posturing, preening, strutting, bombast, self inflation, hidden greeds, theft,
random acts of cruelty to underlings, status manias and all the rest of “between
legs management regimes”. As said earlier the difference betwen Captain Kirk
and Jean Luc Piccard. It will be a measure of how hormonal your leadership
actually is whether they have a hard time with this approach to innovation. It
requires an order or two of magnitude more mental capability than is usual in
executives brought up with large obedient stable sullen bureaucracies.
WHY DO MANY NEVER Americans of course cannot do this--if publically held firms. They have East
ATTEMPT IT? Coast Religion of Business, like a disease, demanding “returns” to shareholders
every quarter--impatient, self extinguishing, stupid people educated at Harvard
and the ilk. However, the West Coast Religion of Business is not American and
they already are moving in this direction, here and there, in part as immune
reaction to invading diseased ideas and ways from Harvard-MIT.
19. The Biosense Model of Innovation

In many of the models of innovation that came before in this book, there were biologic ele-
ments--evolution, ecosystem dynamics, levels of organization, percept-concept-motor
cycles, among others. However, something deeper is going on. MIT, Harvard, and Stanford
Universities all now have three biology departments each, and only two physics departments
(counting nuclear engineering or materials engineering as one). In our lifetimes, or just
before (if you are young), the computer program inside each cell of our bodies was found
and decyphered, now including the epigenetic code methyl-group “wrappings” around DNA
strands that make segments available for protein transcription. The computer that “runs”
such programs is only partially understood--an immense protein to protein, fold to unfold to
fold, communication system within and among cells.
Is it not fortuitous and strange that just when digital technologies “computerize” everything
(“internet of things” for example), biology itself discovered a computer code and computer
to run that code in all living cells. Even brain functions are now being found distributed in
organisms with no central “brain-like” mass--certain jellyfish for example.
Readers will realize I just got us into the dialog among five known types of computational
system--brains, minds, machines, biologies, societies--of an earlier model of innovation in
this book. One of those five--biologies--natural selection made and man made--is more
equal than the rest, however. For one thing, the population of industrial nations is aging
just as stem cells promise returning organs and body parts into youthful vigor (along with
transfusions of youthful blood plasma from youth to aged bodies--2017 will see first results
of that done in humans, in mice it restored youthful vigor everywhere in mouse bodies). For
another thing, biologic versions of functions often are smarter, more flexible, more adap-
tive, more enduring than mechanical ones. In the media you can sense a fundamental shift
in commonsense.
FROM MECHANO-SENSE TO BIO-SENSE: A NEW COMMONSENSE

steel is no longer our image of strength but bone is--bone
grows more exactly where most stressed and senses and
fixes its own breaks, unlike steel. Our image of strength
has become biologic not mechanic.
We are at the very beginning of this because the big frontier is not tinkering with the biologic
computer and biologic program inside each cell, but inventing entirely new lifeforms and life
features using that machinery and inventing entirely new lifeforms on entirely new non-car-
bon substrates, including software programs that live, evolve, and are conscious.
SILICON VALLEY, APPLE, GOOGLE, FACEBOOK--ARE MORE AND MORE BIOLOGIC. When,
some decades ago, I interviewed personallty the 150 most famous founders of Silicon Valley
firms, one of the surprises I got was how they objected to all sorts of viewpoints and atti-
tudes in me that no one before had bothered about. But a bigger surprise was how biologic
this hotbed of digital tech was in method, goal, attitude, viewpoint, means and ends.
Growth, symbiosis, niche generation and finding, mutation, genetic algorithms, cross-over--
and dozens of other biology dynamics appeared in what people produced, how they pro-
duced it, and what collectively all their various products did together. They were biologi-
cally making a more biologic economy and ways of using/interacting-with technologies. Like
the burgeoning of lifeforms after the great mass extinction events--the Cambrian explosion
for example--Silicon Valley is a Cambrian explosion of product ecosystem lifeforms.
SO HOW DOES THIS CHANGE IN COMMONSENSE RESULT, ITSELF, IN INNOVATION? Well most
of us do not know all that much about biology. In fact, the image of natural selection, the
most biologic of all known biologic processes, the only thing that distinguishes biology from
chemistry Nobel laureates say, our image of it is entirely wrong--it is not “survival of the fit-
test” for example (rather, according to neutral drift data, it is survival of the organisms that
have the largest repertoires of useless-now traits--Kimura’s Nobel Prize). So we know little
and the little we know is all wrong, completely wrong.
When, therefore, you study details of ecosystem dynamics, applying them to product ecosys-
tems, and feature ecosystems, and when you study details of natural selection processes
among organisms, among products, among product ecosystem niches--you find hundreds of
concepts and opportunities, each of which become an avenue to innovations you never
would have imagined or been able to notice before delving deeply into how biologics
differs from mechanistic logics.
Exactly this route to innovation is already widespread in entire societies as of this writing.
Nearly everyone, for example, recognizes “riding the growth of another burgeoning product”
as a safer, smarter, better route to growth than trying to launch a totally new organism/
product into a non-comprehending world. Apple is almost never first, but tenth or later, yet
wins by turning a marginal market of partial versions of ideas into a revolutionary replace-
ment of entire industries via an entire ecosystem around a key device--that makes doing
everything in an industry faster, more comprehensive, cheaper, higher in diversity and qual-
ity.
This chapter therefore has a somewhat hard job. I have to introduce readers to a huge map
of diverse new concepts, without taking too many pages or confusing readers with concepts
too difficult. Then readers can, somewhat expanded by exposure to biologics thusly, can
view everything from these new biologics frameworks, replacing mechanistic old views
and ways and assumptions and goals.
You innovate by taking everything

and re-seeing it biologically,
replacing things in it now done
mechanistically.
I could generate a lot of my workshop protocols here, used with students and consulting cli-
ents but they are really unneeded details. The sentence above is 99% of how this model of
innovation works--it really is as simple as that, just look at something, anything at all, and
every aspect of it done mechanistically, imagine doing more biologically (steel redone as
bone). This change in view and imagination is already progressing through all areas of soci-
ety on its own, without me and this book--but you can accelerate and expand scope of
that, especially by more quickly and thoroughly educating your mind in how biologics actu-
ally work in nature, and technology evolving ecosystems of niches.
“We had heard all this “The way you moved from
complex adaptive systems abstract idea, to illustrative
stuff, and even hired species domains, to possible
the famous names, weave applications, to actual
Holland, Kauffman, stabilities suggested applications
co- symbiotic
and others, but all partnering for us was the
evolution-
that we learned ary parasite point that made
did not fit our dynamics competing this course so
strategies till Population much better
Ecologies than our
Greene’s
course made groupware niche Santa Fe
the fit for & food webs population butterfly Institute
virtual evolution order effect
us.” work- experiences”
ubiquitous places social & manage diversity
by patchings catastrophes
cellular system avalanches
workspaces simulations balancing parameters
Game Non-linear
Simulation System
Work Dynamics
Continuum social
cyberwork: games edge of chaos attractors
process & The New connected- trajectories
events
physical
social
gaming Commonsense ness
self-
organizing
games
parallel co-evolu-
SWAT
work
events
Emergence tionary
landscapes
authority quality Replacing biological

simulated
fuzzy
logics
JIT
manage-
ment Social Event
cabarets
Design annealing
Biological
Computation Parallelism
Types Types
problem finite
agile finding & social Lamarkian neural
alliancing solving element evolution nets
analysis
workouts simulated social genetic
research social automata competition
assemblies annealing leadership
Social
Parallelism
Types
coordi-
nation manage
market- by
ization events
connection-
ist
sociality
CURRENT CONTENTS OF BIOSENSE. The hexagon diagram is somewhat surprising. It is half

biologies and half technologies done biologically, rather than being all biologies. Also the
biologies in it are half “from nature” as natural selection developed things, and half human
invented artificial biologics, biologies, artificial lifeforms.
MATHS NON-LINEAR SYSTEM DYNAMICS--this is a more abstract viewpoint on all complex

adaptive systems, including biologics like evolution and ecosystems. It explains where
Zebras get their stripes from, why animals tune up and down their own mutation rates, how
animal experiences turn into inherited wrappings around DNA, and other biologic dynamics.
EVOLVING ECOSYSTEMS POPULATION ECOLOGIES--which used to pertain to species of ani-

mals and plants now are extended to product ecologies even feature ecologies within single
products. They dynamics from biology can now be found and used in product populations
and in feature populations within single products.
BIOLOGIC PARALLELISMS PARALLELISMS IN BIOLOGIES--one of the primary ways biologics

and biologies differ from mechanistic human built systems is they do lots of things in paral-
lel, not sequentially. This includes doing things in parallel which reacting in real time to
what others, in that parallelism of doing are doing now--co-evolutionary dynamics this is
called. The internet of things will spread precisely these dynamics all over products and
consumers, production and innovation processes.
SOCIETIES SOCIAL PARALLELISM IN BIOLOGIES--it is not just parallelism of perception, con-

ception, motor activation, ecosystem co-evolution, but it is also the societies that emerge
from biologics operating for eons. Plants are social, recent research has found, and animals,
of course, are faster acting forms of sociality. Societies also are filled with parallelisms of
diverse types, only a very few enacted in human socities at present but with the web and
smartphones new ones are ready to emerge to the first pioneers to notice these niches.
EVENTS SOCIAL EVENTS AS MORE SOCIAL FORMS OF SOCIALITY--within the parallelisms of

any animate society are more intensely social times and places--events--with more intense
forms of parallelism. More and more work is being compiled from bureau to process to
faster more diverse event form, and conversely new achievements emergent in events get
turned into repeated processes and eventually those processes get supported by permanent
bureau form.
SOFTWARE GAME SIMULATION WORK CONTINUUM--this is software worlds within events

within societies within biologies. Not only that--this is games that become simulations by
adding a bit of reality to gaming, that become work systems by adding still more increments
of reality.
Notice the hierarchy from maths to biologies to parallelisms to societies to events to sof-
ware. Biosense is biologics and biologic dynamics invading all these levels one by one. You
end up with events where people interact computationally (for example in automaton ways
of the previous model of innovation in the prior chapter of this book) and where people
interact biologically (via ecosystem and evolution dynamics, not covered in that prior chap-
ter).
TWO DETAILED TOOLS FOR VIEWING MECHANO-SENSE THINGS IN BIO-SENSE WAYS. Below
first is a list of levels of organization that emerge in biologies, natural and artificial. Second
below is a list of natural selection “creativity operators”, a tiny fraction of ones found in
research. Both lists are tools for readers as they can be applied to any device, consumer
need, market, dreamed of revolutionary new product world--to see it more biologically and
less mechanistically.
The issue really is SEEING. We are all steeped in eons, centuries of Newtonian views, steel
are strong not bone as strong. We have been duped by primitive religions into holding man
above nature and abusing nature to the point of self annihilation. It therefore takes much
practice to respect nature, learn from nature, investigate the supreme performances
attained in nature.
The first list ranges from ecosystem, society, self, brain, organism, tissue, cell, gene, to nat-
ural selection, the process that generates these levels of organization. As lifeforms evolve
upward toward more organization on larger more flexible scales, the individual unit accepts
some sub-optimal-for-it constraints in order to benefit, in survival terms, from traits of the
large size scale emergent level of organization it is inside. Consider the alliance of two
products or tech ventures, or a marraige--exactly this trade-off occurs.
The second list ranges from ways to avoid selection pressures by moving or erecting artificial
worlds, survival of the biggest library of useless traits not the fittest, tunable mutation
rates, gene exchanges, lamarkian inheritance of experiences, bricolage, exaptation, grow
solutions, recursize natural selection systems, incorporate symbiots as interior structures of
self. These are some of the most obvious creativity operators found in the results of natural
selection--what natural selection “invented”, actually, how it invented myriad adaptive
traits.
INNOVATION ALGORITHM--
You merely take any project, opportunity, ecosystem niche, prod-
uct idea, and throw first the first list then the second at it--seeing,
for each item in each list--what in the design can be made more
biologic in that particular way.
A THIRD TOOL--THE TABLE OF 83 BIO-LOGICS. This is a table of 83 combinations of info-

systems, social systems, biologics, and the results of their combination as “innnovations”.
Many such “innovations” are new entire sciences, not simply single products. Many such
invented new sciences, by themselves, spawn myriad new products and software ideas today
in Silicon Valley and university research labs. The sourcebooks for each section are included
as a “beginner’s library on seeing the world biologically” for readers to get started on. Many
of these books are challenging, graduate Harvard, Oxford, Stanford, MIT texts. Biologics are
new, newly honed by what we have done computationally, and therefore there are no easy
versions of them. If you want to be first, to pioneer, to lead not follow, you are going to
have to be smart, to read things not easy, and do intellectual change work to refurbish your
mind, replacing mechanosense views with lots of detailed exposure to the best minds in biol-
ogy. Lazy people need not apply.
WHEN COMMONSENSE IN GENERAL CHANGES--YOU CAN ACCELERATE YOUR CHANGE USING

MODELS
Changes in commonsense are few in history--the waterwheel technology ushered in motors

for agriculture. The railroads, steel, and telephone ushered in national scale enterprise.
Electric lights and autos ushered in rural automation and population transition to cities--
urban enterprise. The airplane, web, and email ushered in global scale enterprise. All of
these were mechanical.
The move to global scale involved relativizing values--encountering others made one’s cer-
tainties about own ways, no longer so certain. Meeting lots of diverse peoples each of
whom thought their own ways best--proved all of them wrong. The moves to city living
forced lives to become self directing, and that was very hard on people formerly rural for
centuries. Learning how to self direct and build a self amid urban alternatives, tempta-
tions, and noise--overwhelmed most and only generations of working at it seemed to pro-
duce patterns that work without violence, drugs, despair. Some shifts in tools and
techniques, technologies and tolerance expose us to things completely unexpected and
change us in ways we never imagined.
Today--replacement parts for humans, routines to undo health costs-harms from industry
products and practices, nano-tech info-tech micro-scale biologic factories--have 3 depart-
ments each at Harvard and MIT. We are working at a tiny size scale on self combining, grow-
ing, technologies.
HOW BIOLOGIC THINKING DIFFERS FROM MECHANICAL:

from rigidity strength to flexibility strength, from planned designs to emergents, from
static material to water-flowing materials, from ignoring surrounds to sense sys-
tems, etc.
HOW BIOLOGIC DESIGN DIFFERS FROM MECHANICAL,
from single parts doing functions to populations interacting doing many functions,
from exact doing of a function to adaptive flexing till sufficient functioning is
achieved, from one time builds to continual adaptation and growth
HOW BIOLOGIC LEADING DIFFERS FROM MECHANICAL
from commanding morons to tuning interactions of populations of intelligent agents,
from male hormone power displays to powerful images from sensing systems, from
correct ideas and plans to correct procedures of sensing-adapting.
After interviewing 20 or so of the world’s best biologists about who the world’s top
150 biologists were, I and my MBAs interviewed literally the 150 best biol-
ogists in the world (nominated by the world’s 20 best). Then we read 200
best books on biologic systems nominated by our interviewees, coming up
with 80+ computational machineries in all sorts of biologic systems.
Books on biologic design, biology-inspired designs, growing fabrics, self
assembling organizations and event, emerged, biologically from publish-
ers and markets. Below is a 9 level model of biologic thinking levels.
Each level has its own operators. None of them literally applies to
fabric or furniture, events or computer apps--but by analogy they all
do. Biologic systems operate via interacting populations, by emer-
gent results not designed and executed plans, by pruning signal from
noise, by using entities by re-directed them to apply to entire differ-

ent substracts, by collecting libraries of useless traits that become
useful only when environments shift terribly--and the like.
YOUR INSTRUCTIONS TODAY: 1) choose five of the 50 biologic functions below,
make sure your choices cover 3 of the 9 levels below 2) replace a
mechanical style or part of your design with the more biologic way
from your 5 functions from below 3) state what is hard about switching
from mechanic to biologic way and what is costly about it.
Biologic Levels of Emergent Organization

Natural Selection creates levels of organization not “fitness”
ECOSYSTEM LEVEL DYNAMICS: parasite (borrow functions of others at

cost), symbiot (combines functions with others plus profits given),
wrappers (eases use of others’ functions), fusers (merges entities
so functions combine), growth riders (feeds off growth of others),
niches from niches (finds nutrients between others and their envi-
rons)
SOCIAL LEVEL DYNAMICS: swarms (mass whole population searches),
flocking (mass whole populations movements), predator dynamics
(invisible following of others), prey dynamics (disappearing from view
of others), disguise (being environs), mating (attracting partner), gene
level surface displays (functional code-quality demos), nesting (artifi-
cial environs building), identification, repute (reactions specific to self
elicited), game dynamics (strategic calculation in response-by-others
landscape), social processes--economics, polity, culture, social
change; friendship (subgroups by shared anything), kinship (sub-
groups by shared origins), enemies (interactors without interest or
learning); mind types (populated by non-normals, normalcy is disease
and illusion), care types (all entities need care to continue/survive)
SELF LEVEL DYNAMICS change being X to having X (stop based pride

on accidental traits), represent self’s state to non-self (conscious-
ness), self sensing (own boundary, predicting feelings of doing
next actions), population insertion-desertion (when and where to
enter/leave group dynamics)
BRAIN LEVEL DYNAMICS: representing self contents to social others

(forebrain consciousness fusing concept-percept-emote), crowd
following modules (drive to copy-match-show-off), degrees of self-
ness (30+ modules, some sometimes off line), mirror neurons (pre-
dicting aims/feelings of other from observed situation-actions)
ORGANISM LEVEL DYNAMICS: marginality-centrality in population

(degree of commitment to others), directingness-diredtedness in
population (shaping others), locomotion (motion scope), reproduc-
tion (replicating self ability), making a living (thriving on what envi-
ronment offers, or changing environment, or building artificial one),
being social (identification), pain-pleasure systems (keeping info

contents of each while maximizing pleasures)
TISSUE LEVEL DYNAMICS: self aware materials (pain, pleasure, sight,

sound, etc.), self repairing materials (wound healing, growing new
tails), self strengtheneing where stressed materials (sensing strain
& building there), form-structure switching materials (state changes
at stress levels), appearance changing materials (social-self func-
tional balance),
CELLULAR LEVEL DYNAMICS: boundary (skin), energy (mitochrondria),

movement (reticulum), inside cell movement (slingshot proteins),
circulations (intra-cell “bloods”), information detection-delivery
(inter-cellular chemical gradient environs),
GENE LEVEL DYAMICS: inheritance, mutation, methylation (computer con-

trol statements if...then, when...do,), Lamarkian inheritance (inherit
learned experience), protein folding-unfolding (proteins as mes-
sages), waste delivery (signal/noise separators), nutrient delivery,
instructions of how to make animal x inside EVERY cell of animal x
(self replicating program).
NATURAL SELETION DYNAMICS: move to environments, modify environ-

ments, build own environments, aggregating neutral traits (collect
traits neutral to present that may help survival when environment
shifts dramatically), survival of fittest-any-first by density of types
in a popuation, generate levels of organization (example: bacteria
incorporated in eucharytic cell = mitochrondria)
Natural Selection Operators:

1. Avoiding Selection Pressure--survive by moving to other environments(locomo-
tion), survive by modifying parts of your environment (mehrcat multiple nest
holes), survive by erecting your own artificial environment (beavers), survive
by avoiding exposure in environments (hibernating animals), survive by modi-
fying yourself (octopus disguises)
2. Not Survival of Fittest LIBRARY--collect neutral traits useless till environment
change, more and more variety = great chance of survival
3. Tunable Mutation Rates--randomly change gene-code units, increasing that rate
when environments stress, decreasing when environments stay benign
4. Gene Exchanges--exchange genes with very different others (viruses between
animals)
5. Lamarkian Inheritance--give to offspring adaptations learned via methylation
patterns, DNA wrappings, built in life of an organism and partly inherited
6. Bricolage--take a mechanism from one context or area of life and use it in a very
different area of life for a different but possibly analogous purpose
7. Exaptation--take a mechanism working well for one function in one area of life
and powerfully direct it to handle analogous needs in an extremely different
area of life
8. Grow Solutions--when one solution works somewhat well, plurify it into dozens
of variants in that approach and see which of them works better, repeat will
near physics optima results emerge
9. Recursive Natural Selection Systems--for flexing challenging situations do not
evolve a single optimal solution but rather a natural selection system within
your self-system that continually evolves new possible solutions for the chal-
lenge as it flexes (human immune system two, inventing anti-bodies against
viruses)
10. Incorporate symbiots--things outside you that you have come to depend on ser-
vices of, incorporate within your protective boundary till they are parts of
your self, inherited as if they are organs of your own (mitochrondria--bacteria
that became parts of cells as energy generators for cells).
Above are ten common operators that natural selection uses to design and invent new forms
of life and features of life. These can be examined for any design and leadership
regime system for analogous inventions, biologically inspired.
EXAMPLE: Men’s dress shirts

1. AVOID SELECTION selection pressure is collar dirty causing shirt to become waste--
avoid it via modifying yourself = multiple collar covers, changeable when one
becomes dirty so rest of shirt NOT thrown away
2. BEST LIBRARY SURVIVES shirt designs with multiple snap on styles of collar, cuff, and
button covers so can be modified to be more showy, more modest, more formal,
more informal, more trendy more classic
3. TUNABLE MUTATION RATE shirts used in new jobs or environments can try out wilder
and newer collar, cuff, button cover styles till some combinations that work well
can be found and multiplied
4. GENE EXCHANGES borrow shirt materials from furniture, from drapes, make shirt
materials from neckties, from ribbons, from belts
5. LAMARKIAN INHERITANCE make next shirts with snap on snap off sleeves, front
pieces, collar borders, expanding initial snap on types
6. BRICOLAGE Use curtain laces from furniture stores instead of cheap-looking (but
expensive) shirt shop materials
7. EXAPTATION Tiny LED lights intended for lighting up computer indicators can be
strung together and made into lit up lines of light around collars, cuffs, or as ver-
tical stipes on shirt fronts or backs
8. GROW SOLUTIONS Snap on collars, suggest snap on cuffs (which also get dirty and
cause us to throw away shirts), snap on button covers, snap on decorative collar
lines, snap on vertical fabric decorative stipes etc.
9. RECURSIVE NATURAL SELECTION SYSTEMS Run random design experiments monthly
with particular shirts you wear, to judge comfort, reactions of self, reactions of
others
10. INCORPORATE SYMBIOTS Put a thin, tiny, metal collar holder around the neck to
support neckties, instead of thick necktie material making necks dirty and sweaty
or make snap on neckties that snap onto holders sewn into shirts
11. FIX A WIDESPREAD DEEP FRUSTRATION--find something that immensely frustrates
everyone doing X and fix it--your design is aimed at something perhaps not visi-
ble and showy but something thousands do daily that really deeply irritates them-
-your design makes their days MUCH happier.
83 BIO-LOGIC INFO-LOGIC SOCIO-LOGIC EMERGENT TECHNOLOGIES

78 Operators Applied
New Form of Engineering Primary Source Books
on 20 Levels
1 development of life alternate biologic lifetypes 1) Smith: the Major Transitions in Evolution; 2) Baum: What is
invention Thought; 3) Smith: Origins of Life;
autocatalysis
2 the gene computer human programmed genetic 4) Landweber: Evolution as Computation; Hull: the Philosophy of
biologic systems Biology; Sterelny and Griffiths: Sex and Death;
3 ontogenesis, morpho- bio-molecular self assembly; 5) Mittenthal: Principles of Organization in Organisms; 6) Goodwin:
genesis, self repair, stem embryonic hardware; self
repairing systems How the Leopard Got its Spots; 7) Segel: Design Principles for
celluarity Immune ...; 8) Stein: Thinking about Biology; Schlosser: Modularity
in Development & Evolution; Kumar & Bentley: On Growth, Form,
& Computers;
4 metabolism: phenotype biologic behavior hijacking; West-Eberhard: Developmental Plasticity in Evolution; Stein:
self scaffolding
self regulation circuits supa-molecular self assembly;

biologic computation
synthetic biology; parts shops Thinking about Biology; Mittenthal: Principles of Organization in
for humans Organisms;
5 behavior: development experience capture systems; Smith&Thelen: Dynamic Systems Approach to Development; Daw-
& regulation memory compilation systems; son: Minds & Machines; Belew: Adaptive Individuals in Evolving
environment sensing systems;
reflex evolution systems Populations; Kelso: Dynamic Patterns; Clark: Natural-Born Cyborgs;
6 ecology non-biologic ecosystems Gurney: Ecological Dynamics; Gunderson: Panarchy; Pimm: Bal-
ance of Nature; Patten: Complex Ecology; West-Eberhard: Dev.
Plas. in Evoln.;
7 niche evolution ecology linkage; rich Odling-Smee: Niche Construction; Chase: Ecological Niches: West-
get richer exponential growth Eberhard: DPinEvoln.;
take-offs of technologies,
ideas
8 evolution natural selection evolving of Rice: Evolutionary Theory; Michod: Darwinian Dynamics; Keller: Levels
wanted human designs; evo- of Selection in Evolution; West-Eberhard: Developmental Plasticity and
art, evo-music Evolution; Crutchfield: Evolutionary Dynamics; Aldrich: Organizations
evolution
Evolving; Belew: Adaptive Indls. in Evolvg Poplns.; West-Eberhard:

DPinEvln.; Schlosser: Modularity in Development & Evolution; Rose:
Adaptation;
Hull: the Philosophy of Biology; Sterelny and Griffiths: Sex and Death;
Schlosser and Wagner: Modularity in Development and Evolution;
9 synthetic biology (engi- humans invent/design new Landweber: Evolution as Computation; Michod: Darwinian Dynam-
neered new parts of bio- evolution systems; evolvable ics; Belew: Adaptive Individuals in Evolving Populations; Rose:
electronic hardware
logic systems) & directed Adaptation;
evolution (evolution
engineering)
1 biologic, social, mental, biology programmed by Mittenthal: Principles of Organization in Organisms; Crutchfield:
biologic technologies directed biologies
creativity phenomena as humans; tissue engineering;

0 replaceable human body parts Evolutionary Dynamics; Foddy: Resolving Social Dilemmas; Calvin:
computations How Brains Think; Ballard: Intro to Natural Computation;
1 alife and alternate: biol- reverse bio-engineering; non- Langton: Alife; Langton: Santa Fe Alife; Adachi: Alife; Proceedings:
ogies, societies, minds, carbon life; silicon life; alter- Alife 8 & 9; Schlosser and Wagner: Modularity in Development and
1 creativities nate chemistries Evolution;
1 computations done: bio- biocomputing: DNA, mem- Forbes: Imitation of Life: Landweber: Evolution as Computation;
logically, socially, men- brane, protein, etc. comput-
ing regimes; social cellular Calude: Computing with Cells and Atoms; Sipper: Evolution of Par-
2 tally, creatively allel Cellular Machines; Paun: DNA Computing;
automata
1 basic machine computa- biomolecular electronics; self Bergeron: Bioinformatics Computing; Floridi: Blackwell Guide to
machine computation
tion regimes reconfiguring and program- Philosophy of Computing & Info; Copeland: Essential Turing; Jones
3 ming hardware
et al: Bioinformatics Algorithms;
1 natural natural hardwares; natural Ballard: an Intro to Natural Computation; Back: Evolutionary Computation 2;
computing software; natural netware; Forbes: Imitation of Life; Landweber: Evolution as Computation; Segel:
4 digital immune systems Design Principles for Immune Systems...; Dasgupta: Artificial Immune Sys-
tems...; de Castro: Artificial Immune Systems; Sipper: Machine Nature; Bent-
ley: Digital Biology
1 robotics: sensor, motor, distributed sensor-actor nets; Brooks: Flesh & Machines; Brooks: Natural Robotics--Subsumption
reflex, planning systems distributed experience Architecture; Rose: Adaptation; Langton, Alife III; Steels in Lang-
5 embedding; engineered
ton’s ALife;
cybords; lifeform biobots
1 biologic aspects of com- computational evolving eco- Koza: Genetic Programming I & II; Huberman: Ecology of Computa-
6 puter/software systems: systems of niches; self evolv- tion; Schlosser and Wagner: Modularity in Development and Evolution;
ing software invention
evolutionary development systems Langdon & Poli: Foundations of Genetic Programming;
of computer programs; pro-
emergenetics
gram ecosystems
1 evolutionary algorithms new evolutionary regime Landweber: Evolution as Computation;
inventions Belew: Adaptive Individuals in Evolving Populations; Fogel: Evolu-
7 tionary Computation; Mitchell: Intro to Genetic Algorithms; Corne:
Creative Evolutionary Systems; 2nd Int. Confce: Evolvable Sys-
tems: from Bio to H/W;
1 complex adaptive sys- self emerging design; whistle Cowan: Complexity; Bak: How Nature Works; Schelling: Micromo-
tems dynamics and tipping point finding tives and Macrobehaviors; Epstein: Growing Artificial Societies;
8 morowitz&Singer: Mind, Brain,& CAS; Belew et al: Adaptive Indi-
viduals in Evolving Populations;

on 20 Levels
1 culture, economy, tech- directed evolution of cultures, Richerson: Not by Genes Alone; Arthur: Increasing Returns; Ander-
invented social computations computational societies

nology evolution technologies, economies son: Economy as Complex Adaptive System; Rose: Adaptation;
9 Sterelny: Thought in a Hostile World, the Evolution of Human Cog-
nition; Powel: God in the Equation; Odling-Smee et al: Niche Con-
struction; Chase & Liebold: Ecological Niches; Seebright: Company
of Strangers;
2 rise & fall of civiliza- error science; founding robust Roehner: Pattern&Repertoire in History; Foddy: Resolving Social
tions/organizations venture clusters Dilemmas; Brown: Social Life of Info; Swedberg: Entrepreneurship
0 the Social Science View; Bernstein: the Birth of Plenty; Seabright:
the Company of Strangers;
2 social computation organizational computing; Huberman: Organizational Computing; Dorigo: Ant Colony Optimi-
1 (social style computing) social simulation;
eties
robot soci- zation; Bonabeau: Swarm Intelligence;
2 computational sociality social cellular automatons; Yunnus: Grameen Bank homepage; Greene: Are You Creative? 60
viral growth regimes; micro Models; Arthur et al: Economy as an Evolving Complex System II;
social computation
2 (using social forms to institution development

compute)
2 game & gaming theory game programmed social and Sigmund: Games of Life; Eigen: Laws of the Game; Smith: Evolution
computer networks and the Theory of Games; Rasmusen: Readings in Games&Info;
3 Camerer: Behavior Game Theory; Hofbauer and Sigmund: Evolu-
tionary Games & Population Dynamics;
2 system effects surprise/disaster option pric- Jervis: System Effects; Thompson: Culture Theory; Belew: Adap-
ing; robust systems theory tive Individuals in Evolving Populations;
4 and practices
2 system globalizations practice transplants; attention Greene: 21st Century Human Capabilities; Nisbet: Geography of
maintenance; message sticky- Thought; Diener & Suh: Culture & Subjective Well Being Bernstein:
5 ness design; education sys-
globalizations
tems; diversity science the Birth of Plenty;

2 policy ecologies & evolu- social simulations; niche net- Epstein: Growing Artificial Societies; Gunderson: Panarchy; Mitsch:
tionary engineering works re-engineering; robust Ecological Engineering;
6 (design of self con-
computing; bio-architectures
sciously evolving enti-
ties)
2 virtuality, ubiquity, agil- amorphous computing coat- Greene: Are You Creative? 60 Models; Greene: Managing Complex
ity (social & technical) ings/lawns; self founding net Systems;
7 ventures; socially virtual
groups
2 influence & social cogni- self directedness recovery Kunda: Social Cognition; Kahneman:
tion systems; designed social Well Being; Knowles&Lynn: Resistance & Persuasion; Dillard: the
8 micro-environments; trend
Persuasion Handbook; Cialdini: Influence;
design; self implementing pol-
icy designs
social mind
2 memory, language, & cognitive: architecture, fur- Hawkins: Evolution of Human Languages; Jackendoff: Foundations
other mind extensions niture, apparel, friend nets, of Language, brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution; Belew: Adap-
9 files, libraries
tive Individuals and Evolving Populations; Rowe: Machine Musician-
ship; Rogers & McClelland: Semantic Cognition;
3 consciousness sentient materials science; Morowitz: Mind, Brain, & Complex Adaptive Systems; edelman:
organizational consciousness Universe of Consciousness; Marcus: Birth of the Mind; Baars et al:
0 systems
Essential Sources in the Scientific Study of Consciousness; Koch:
the Quest for Consciousness; Edelman: Wider than the Sky
3 neural hardware neuro-morphic engineering; Dawson: Minds & Machines; Pinker: Blank Slate; Ramachandran:
mind computation
silicon neuroscience; Phantoms in the Brain; Nadel: 1992-3 Lectures in Complex Sys-
1
unconscious mind
tems; Bechtel & Abrahamsen: Connectionism &the Mind; Arbib,

Handbook of Brain Theory & Neural Nets; Galaburda et al: Lan-
guages of the Brain;
3 emotion, affective computing; system Booker: the 7 Basic Plots; Lewis: Emotion, Development, & Self
percept, impression personalization learning sys- Organization; Ramachandran: Phantoms in the Brain; Manstead:
2 tems; reality specialized
Feelings & Emotions;
social module assemblies
3 concepts, reasoning, & computational learning the- Ballard: Intro to Natural Computation; Rogers: Semantic Cognition;
learning ory; learn-by-experience; Thornton: Truth from Trash; Wolpert: Math of Generalization;
3 commonsense self develop-
margolis; Concepts Core Readings; Murphy: the Big Book of Con-
ment systems; hemispheric
flaw correctives cepts; Sterelny: Thought in a Hostile World, the Evolution of
Human Cognition;
3 meaning & judgement robust interfaces; emotion Rappaport: Ritual and Religion in the Making of Humanity; Arkes &
mind regularizations
and concept flaw correctives; Hammond: Judgement and Decision Making; Hogan: the Mind and
4 science as the new global,
its Stories; Arendt: the Human Condition; Arendt: On Revolution;
ecumenic, ecologic religion of
all; Hacking: Scientific Revolutions;
3 structures & indexing structural cognition; macro Kintsch&Dijk: Macrostructures; Kintsch: Comprehension; Svenon-
diagrams; regularized fractal ius: The Intellectual Foundation of Info Organization; Rijsbergen:
5 concept targets of mental
the Geometry of Info Retrieval;
operations; biologic info
retrieval; Bowker & Star: Sorting Things Out;
quantum retrieval;
3 thoughts as natural productivity routes to creativ- Baum: What is Thought; Calvin: How Brains Think; Simonton: Ori-
selection processes in ity; insight automation gins of Genius;
6 minds

on 20 Levels
3 diagnosing: diagnostic event assembly McGee: Evidence Based Physical Diagnosis; Tierney et al: CMDT; Jen-
finding & fixing fault consequences & symptoms

over inter-networks; stan- ick: Foundations of Evidence-Based Medicine; Spece et al: Conflicts of
7 presentation-history-symp- dard evolving solving pro- Interest in Clinical Practice and Research; Keagy and Thomas: Essen-
cesses;
tom-hypothesis-test cycle disease maps; manage by bal- tials of Physician Practice Management; Cummings & Wilson: Images of
ancing; whistle point finding; Strategy; Mintzberg et al: Strategy Safari; Coyle: Practical Strategy,
= Strategy and Focus Structured Tools & Techniques: Volberda & Elfring: Rethinking Strategy;
3 treating & prescribing: evidence based policy & treat- Berwick: Escape Fire, Designs for the Future of Health Care; Spece et
ment; theory optimal prac- al: Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Practice & Research; Berwick et al:
8 tices; practice optimal styles;
(invention, standard leading function rep- Curing Health Care; Atkinson et al: Prnciples of Clinical Pharmacology;
trials, tools, ertoires; alternate leadership the Arbinger Institute: Leadership & Self Deception; Christensen et al:
compliance) delivery modes; JIT leading Seeing what’s next;
Whetten & Cameron: Developing Management Skills, 5th; Van de Ven:
= Solution, Product, and Innovation; Greene: Global Quality
Implementation
3 practice client self resource mobiliza- Albert: A Physician’s Guide to Health Care Management; Spece et al:
development: tion routines; biologic/behav- Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Practice and Research; Keagy and Tho-
9 ior tipping points “tippers”;
attention engineering; institu- mas: Essentials of Physician Practice Management; Longest: Managng
(own career & profession’s tional interface theory; Health Programs and Projects; March: A Primer on Decision Making;
standards/basis) Kotler: Kotler on Marketing; Citrin & Smith: The Five Patterns of
Extraordinary Careers; Bardwick: The Plateauing Trap & how to avoid it
= Career & Market in your career; Super & Sverko: Life roles, values, & careers; Feldman:
Development work careers, a developmental perspective; Collin & Young: the future
of career; Arthur et al: handbook of career theory;
medical (fitness management) computation
4 personal health mainte- optimize ideal energy flow; Phaedke: Robust Engineering; Greene: Global Quality; Spece et al:
nance optimize signal to noise ratio; Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Practice and Research; Kegan: In Over
0 optimize to tunable line of Our Heads; Arthur & Rousseau: The Boundaryless Career; Cannon: Sar-
values not single optima; qual-
finding & fixing causes of fault
(lifestyle/psychic/social/ ity totalization & globaliza- tre and Psychoanalysis; Klar et al: Self Change; Gladwell: the Tipping
financial) tion; whistle point finding Point; Brown & Lent: Career Development & Counseling;
= Person to Self Leader-

ship
4 public health mainte- flaw Chapman & Sonnenberg: Decision Making in Health Care; Spece et al:
nance surveillance: cognitive/organi- Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Practice & Research; Hammar et al:
1 zational/political flaws; error
transmission mode monitor- Uncertain Times, Kenneth Arrow & the Changing Economics of Health
(organization) ing/intercepting; Care; Grint, The Arts of Leadership; Chemers: An Integrative Theory of
Leadership; van Maurik, Writers on Leadership; Vaill: Managing as a
= Person to Person Performing Art;
Leadership
4 ecosystem health non-linearity of effects flag- Lee et al: Health Policy in a Globalizing World; Gurney: Ecological
maintenance ging; visual self management; Dynamics; Gunderson: Panarchy; Pimm: Balance of Nature; Patten:
2 manage by events; Complex Ecology; West-Eberhard: Dev. Plas. in Evoln.; Jervis: System
(economy, nation, trade- Effects; Thompson: Culture Theory; Belew: Adaptive Individuals in
block, globe) Evolving Populations; Ulrich et al: the GE work-out;
= Person to System Lead-

ership
4 preventative personal ecology of self maintenance Gerteis et al: Through the Patient’s Eyes;
health: and self change; stages of psy- Berwick et al: Curing Health Care; Klar et al: Self Change; Palombo:
3 chic development; bridge The Emergent Ego; Kegan & Lahey: How the Way We Talk Can Change
community dynamics
personal fitness the Way We Work; Bruch, Learning Psychotherapy; Brandtstadter &
(self change to robust Lerner: Action & Development, Theory & Research thru Life Span; Tho-
routines) mas: Recent Theories of Human Development; Sternberg: Love is a
Story; Arthur & Rousseau, The Boundaryless Career;
4 preventative public emulation disciplines: genera- DiClemente et al: Emerging theories in Health Promotion Practice &
preventing fault
health: tionality & educativity of Research; Glanz et al: Health Behavior & Health Education;
4 change; ecology of public Dewar: the Second Tree: Stem Cells, Clones, etc.; Cialdini Influence;
change;
public & policy fitness Cialdini: Influence, the Psychology of Persuasion; Levine: the power of
(societal change to persuasion, how we’re bought & sold; Knowles & Linn: resistance &
robust routines) persuasion;
Dillard & Pfau; the persuasion handbook; Hatfield et al: Emotional Con-
tagion; Keller & Berry: The Influentials;
4 preventative medical continual compilation of Albert: A Physician’s Guide to Health Care Management; Berwick et al:
5 system & organization inventions to layers of semi-
profession hierarchy; clien t
Curing Health Care; Lee et al: Health Policy in a Globalizing World;
health: fitness measures; manage by Hammer et al: Uncertain Times, Kenneth Arrow & the Changing Eco-
balancing; automatic knowl- nomics of Health Care; Keagy & Thomas: Essentials of Physician Prac-
profession edge deployment cascade pro- tice Management; Illych: Medical Nemesis; Beldstein: Culture of
fitness (knowledge cesses; Professionalism; Myers: Intuition, Its Powers & Perils; Sternberg: Why
change & demystifica- Smart People Can Be So Stupid; Easterby-Smith: Blackwell Handbook on
tions for robust routines) Org Learning & Knowdge Mngt; Kidd: Knowledge Acquisition for Expert
Systems; Dierkes, et al; Handbook of Organizational Learning & Knowl-
edge Management

on 20 Levels
4 catalog, blend, social idea/person/resource island- Becker: Art Worlds; Green: Mountain of Truth; John-Steiner: Cre-
universal creativity algorithms human creativity algorithms

6 and group models of cre- ing; dimensions of difference
analysis ative Collaboration; Miller: Einstein & Picallo; Florida: the Rise of
ativity: combinatorial the Creative Class; Shrage: Serious Play; Segel: Turn of the Century
creating across bound- Cabaret; Farrell: Collaborative Circles;
aries/norms
4 knowledge evolution, idea schaffolding Brown: Social Life of Info; Brown: Seeing Differently; Christiensen:
7 experiment, and system Seeing What’s Next; Bazerman: Predictable Surprises; Schon:
models of creativity; Frame Reflection; Kauffman: Investigations; Johnson: Fire in the
knowledge operators Mind; Wolfram: New Kind of Science;
that create
4 purity, self, and mind individuation engineering; self Sternberg: Handbook of Creativity; Amabile: Creativity in Context:
models of creativity; inventions Runco: Encyclopedia of Creativity vol I & II; Simonton: Origins of
8 personal operators that Genius; Root-Bernstein: Sparks of Genius; [accelerated learning &
create culture penetration models]
4 what X created; for biol- reducing actions to codes; Cowan: Complexity; Wolfram: New Kind of Science; Mandelbrot:
9 ogy, machine computers, reducing codes to more com- the Misbehavior of Markets; Rose: Adaptation; Crutchfield: Evolu-
pact codes; stochastic tionary Dynamics; Epstein: Growing Artificial Societies; Hull: the
creativity computation
society, and mind: what requireements extensions;

& how--biology, comput- syntax/semantics/pragmatics Philosophy of Biology; Sterelny and Griffiths: Sex and Death;
ers, societies, minds-- inter-compilations
create
5 what X we create: for substrate translation: Casti: Art and Complexity; Kelly: Out of Order; Brown: Social Life
biology, machine com- from abstract operators/results of Info; Burt: Structural Holes; Arthur: Increasing Returns; Nonaka:
0 puters, society, and
substrates then try new
Managing Industrial Knowledge; Florida: the Rise of the Creative
substrates
mind: how we create Class; Christensen: Seeing What’s Next; Van de Ven: Managing
new--biologies, comput- Innovation; Rowe: Machine Musicianship;
ers, societies, mentali-
ties
5 what created X for biol- science as the new ecumenic Arendt: On Revolution; Davis: Genetic Algorithms&Simulated
ogy, machine computers, global ecologic relition: what Annealing; Bonabeau: Swarm Intelligence; Holland: Hidden Order;
1 society, and mind: bio-
to safely believe, where
authority to live is found, Watts: Small Worlds; Cambell: Hero with 1000 Faces; Keith: Arts of
logic, computer, soci- Leadership; Martindale: the Clockwork Muse; Barrow: the Artful
etal, mental creativity Universe;
operators
5 all fields of knowledge creativity engineering: 60 cre- Root-Bernstein: Sparks of Genius; Simonton: Origins of Genius;
and practice as standard ativity operators appliable to Sternberg: Intuition; Dumont: Essays on Individualism; Palombo:
self organizing creativities
2 creativity operators
all parts of the world
Emergent Ego; Kegan: In Over Our Heads; Brockman: Curious
applied to different Minds; Goldstein: Incompleteness, Godel
parts of the world
5 all creativity as the same measurement and observa- Clark: Paradoxes from A to Z; Fletcher: Paradoxical Thinking; Far-
paradox generators tional revolutions: of means, son: Management of the Absurd; Eisenstadt: Paradoxes of Democ-
3 applied to different
of scale, of relevance, of
racy; Smith: Paradoxes of Group Life; Thaler: the Winner’s Curse;
intent
parts of the world, so Lewis: Exploring Paradox; Poundstone: Lambrynths of Reason;
paradox doorways to Skousen: Puzzles&Paradoxes of Economics; Foddy: Resolving Social
creation appear every- Dilemmas;
where
5 all creativity as boot- complex adaptive systems Gladwell: the Tipping Point; Cilliers: Complexity & Postmodernism;
strapping of further pat- engineering Scfhelling: Micromotives & Macrobehaviors; Strevens: Understand-
4 tern and complexity ing Complexity thru Probability; Zureck: Complexity, Entropy, &
from prior pattern and the Physics of Info; Kauffman: Investigations; Cowan: Complexity;
complexity Corne: Creative Evolutionary Systems;

on 20 Levels
5 finite element analysis, cellular telecommunications; Laughlin: A Different Universe, Reinventing Physics from the Bot-
global results from local interactions

simulated annealing, cellular computing; cellular tom Up; Wolfram: A New Kind of Science; Barrow et al: Science and
5 renormalization groups
ubiquity;
Ultimate Reality; Penrose: the Road to Reality; Bruce: Schrod-
inger’s Rabbits; Yougrau: a World Without Time;
5 cellular automata social Wolfram: A New Kind of Science; Pollack et al: Artificial Life 9;
automata; Standish et al: Artificial Life 8;
6
5 ant algorithms terrain/internet/interface Dorigo: Ant Colony Optimization; Pollack et al: Artificial Life 9;
marking systems; Standish et al: Artificial Life 8;
7
nature-inspired computation
5 swarms local optima emergenetics; Kennedy: Swarm Intelligence; Bonabeau: Swarm Intelligence; Pol-
lack et al: Artificial Life 9; Standish et al: Artificial Life 8;
recursive experience embedding inventor-less ilnvention
8
5 populations of intelli- learned coordination mecha- Sipper: Machine Nature; Bentley: Digital Biology; Pollack et al:
gent agents nisms; learned democracies; Artificial Life 9; Standish et al: Artificial Life 8;
9 JIT organization form;
socially virtual organizations;
6 simulated societies inventor-less inventions; soci- Ilgen&Hulin, Computational Modeling of Behavior in Organizatns; Prietula et
etal repertoires; al: Simulating Organizations; Gilbert & Troitzsch: Simulation for the Social
0 Scientist; Carley & Prietula: Computational Organization Theory; Gilbert
&Conte: Artificial Societies, computer simulation of social life;
Epstein&Axtell, Growing Artificial Societies, social science from the bottom
up; Durlauf and Young, Social Dynamics; Lomi &Larsen, Dynamics of Organi-
zations:Computational Modeling&Organizatn Theories;Casti, Complexifica-
tion, Explaining a Paradoxical World Through the Science of Surprise;Casti,
Would-BeWorlds, How Simulation is Changing the Frontiers of Science;Carley
& Prietula, Computational Organization Theory; Foddy, et al, Resolving
Social Dilemmas;
6 neural nets non-representational memo- Eliasmith and Anderson: Neural Engineering; Ballard: an Intro to
ries; social neural nets; Natural Computation; Forbes: Imitation of Life; Sipper: Machine
1 Nature; Bentley: Digital Biology; Arbib: Handbook of Brain Theory
& Neural Nets
6 evolutionary & genetic alternate biologies; recapitu- Langdon & Poli: Foundations of Genetic Programming; Tanaka et al:
algorithms lated bioforms; Evolvable Systems, from Biology to Hardware, 4th Internl. Confce.;
2 Fogel & Corne: Evolutionary Computation in Bioinformatics; Sipper
et al: Evolvable Systems, from Biology to Hardware, 2nd Internt.
Conferece;
Tyrrell et al: Evolvable Sysgtems, from Biology to Hardware, 5th
Internl. Confc.; Back et al: Evolutionary Computation 1; Back: Evo-
lutionary Computation 2; Landweber: Evolution as Computation;
6 immune identity engineering: self/non- deCastro: Artificial Immune Systems; Dasgupta: Artificial Immune
algorithms self marking systems; dynamic Systems; Segel: Design Principles for Immune Systems...;
3 identity marking systems;

on 20 Levels
6 machine learning theory automation; alternate Thornton: Truth from Trash; Weiss et al: Computer Systems that Learn;
sciences; Fisher et al: Concept Formation; Ballard, An Intro to Natural Computa-
4
unlearning as learning
tion; Klosgen & Zytkow: Handbook of Data Mining and Knowledge Dis-
covery; Weiss: Distributed AI Meets Machine Learning;
6 human structural cognition; mental Granott & Parziale: Microdevelopment; Arendt: the Life of the Mind;
learning operator repertoires; cogni- Cilliers: Complexity & Postmodernism; Baum: What is Thought?; Elman
5 tive furniture, cognitive archi- et al: Rethinking Innateness; Vallacher&Nowak, Dynamical Systems in
tecture, cognitive apparel;
Social Psych; Brown &Gaertner: Blackwell Handbk of Inter-group Social
Psychology; Tesser&Schwarz: Blackwell Handbk of Intra-indvl Social
Psychology; Fletcher & Clark: Blackwell Handbk of Interpersonal Social
Psych,; Hogg & Tindale: Blackwell Handbk of Group Process Social
Psych; Kunda: Social Cognition;
6 organization learning idea rooms; phone research Jacoby: FreeThinkers, a History of American Secularism; Brown
events; research assemblies;
6 cognitive process deployment and Duguid: The Social Life of Info; Cohen & Sproul: Organizational
cascades; Learning; Damasio: Unity of Knowledge; Mokyr: the Gifts of Ath-
ena;
6 natural idea-niche-environment tri- Mayr: What Makes Biology Unique; Dawkins: the Ancestor’s Tale; Land-
selection as learning partite exploration engineer- weber: Evolution as Computation;
7 ing; Lamarcian evolution engi- Belew: Adaptive Individuals in Evolving Populations; Schlosser and
neering;
learning computation
genetic organization forms; Wagner: Modularity in Development and Evolution; Rice: Evolutionary
niche learning
genetic markets; Theory; Michod: Darwinian Dynamics; Keller: Levels of Selection in

Evolution; West-Eberhard: Developmental Plasticity and Evolution;
Crutchfield: Evolutionary Dynamics; Aldrich: Organizations Evolving;
6 lifeform learning behav- experience indexing; strati- Dawkins: the Ancestor’s Tale; Smith&Thelen: Dynamic Systems
ior fied responding; Approach to Development; Dawson: Minds & Machines; Belew:
8 Adaptive Individuals in Evolving Populations; Kelso: Dynamic Pat-
terns;
6 culture as learning unlearning learning; culture Nisbett: Geography of Thought; Tannen: You Just Don’t Under-
as high performances & vice stand; Kahneman et al: Well-Being; Diener & Suh: Culture & Sub-
9 versa; “culturing” wanted
jective Well-Being; Vinken et al: Comparing cultures; Greene:
capabilities;
Defining 21st Century Human Capabilities
7 automation of research discovery automation; idea Rosenberg et al: Technology&the Wealth of Nations; Janszen, The
& invention farms; venture incubation; Age of Innovation; Mayes, Sources of Productivity Growth; Hessel-
0 bein et al: Leading for Innovation; Rogers: Diffusion of Innovations;
Scherer: Innovation & Growth, Schumpeterian Perspectives; Nel-
son: National Innovation Systems, a comparative analysis; Chris-
tensen et al: Seeing what’s next; Wind et al: the Power of
creation learning
Impossible Thinking; Shekerjian: Uncommon Genius, how great

ideas are born; Brown: Seeing Differently, insights on innovation;
Iansiti & Levien: the keystone advantage, business ecosystem
dynamics;
7 knowledge factories idea combinatorics; dimen- Brown & Duguid: The Social Life of Info; Mokyr: the Gifts of Athena;
(venture clusters) sions of difference designing; Swedberg: Entrepreneurship, the Social Science Perspective; Lee: the
1 Silicon Valley Edge; Illych: Medical Nemesis; Beldstein: Culture of Pro-
fessionalism; Myers: Intuition, Its Powers & Perils; Sternberg: Why
Smart People Can Be So Stupid; Easterby-Smith: Blackwell Handbook on
Org Learning & Knowdge Mngt; Kidd: Knowledge Acquisition for Expert
Systems; Dierkes, et al; Handbook of Organizational Learning & Knowl-
edge Management
7 orthogonal disciplines auxiliary universities; orthog- Greene: Defining 21st Century Human Capabilities; Damasio: Unity
onal universities; colleges of of Knowledge; Mokyr: the Gifts of Athena;
2 orthogonals;

on 20 Levels
7 stochastics diachronic: reality degrees horizontal: hybrids vertical: fractal apply self applying recur- immuno-tronics Forbes: Imitation of Life; Landweber: Evolution as Computation;
3 sion and embedding: Charnow: LifeHistory Invariants;
example--evolving of natu-
ral selection algorithms, or
natural selection subsystems
within organisms
Spatial
7 mixed applying, biologic device invention agri- Forbes: Imitation of Life; Landweber: Evolution as Computation;
mixed iteration
culture
4 recursion, embed-
ding:
example--evolving morpho-
genesis systems
7 continuua: learning as culture/world pen- Bower: Computational Modeling of Genetic & Biochemical Net-
etration and contributing works; Casti: Would-be Worlds; Prietula: Social Simulation;
5 Epstein: Growing Artificial Societies;
game-simulation-work, soft-
ware-firmware-hardware-
wetware, gene-genecontrol-
ler-geneswitch
7 error, noise, event robustness engineering: opti- Rappaport: Ritual and religion in the Making of Humanity;
Temporal
signal to noise ratio control
mizing for reliability and sur- Phaedke: Robust Engineering; Greene: Global Quality; Jen: Robust
6 tolerant robustness vival
Design
7 modeling regimes for representation engineering: Mittenthal: Principles of Organization in Organisms;

abstracting across implemen- Nadel: 1991 Lectures in Complex Systems; Auyand: Foundations of
modeling
7 complex biologic, tation substrates

computer, societal, Complex System Theories; Mandelbrot: the Misbehavior of Mar-
mind, creativity sys- kets;
tems
7 elimination of death de-aging treatments; aging Dewar: the Second Tree, Stem Cells, Clones, etc.; Hall: Merchants
immortality
cessation; life extension of Immortality; Kirkwood: Time of Our Lives, sciende of human
8 treatments; genetic/cyto-
aging; Kurzweil & Grossman: Fantastic Voyage:
blends
plasm/metabolism level death

cause eliminations;
7 evolution Mayr: What Makes Biology Unique; Dawkins: the Ancestor’s Tale; Land-
weber: Evolution as Computation;
through time
9 Belew: Adaptive Individuals in Evolving Populations; Schlosser and

boundarylessness
Wagner: Modularity in Development and Evolution; Rice: Evolutionary

Theory; Michod: Darwinian Dynamics; Keller: Levels of Selection in
Complexity
Evolution; West-Eberhard: Developmental Plasticity and Evolution;

Crutchfield: Evolutionary Dynamics; Aldrich: Organizations Evolving;
8 interfaces 3801. Fogg, Persuasive Technology, using computer to change
whatwe think and do, Morgan
across realms
0 Kaufmann, 2003@ 3802. Norman, Things that Make Us Smart, Per-

seus, 1993@ 3803. Norman,The Psychology of Everyday Things,
Basic, 1988@ 3804. Dertouzos, The Unfinished Revolution,
Harper Collins, 2001 3805. Frascara, edr, Design and the Social
Sciences, Taylor&Francis02%%%@
8 self modules 3806. Schlosser and Wagner, eds, Modularity, in development and
1 scaf- evolution, Chicago, 2004@ 3807. Callebaut, and Raskin-Gutman,
Modularity, understanding the development and evolution of natu-
folding ral complex systems, MIT, 2005@ 3808. Baldwin & Clark, Design
rou- Rules, vol. 1, The Power of Modularity@ 3809. Fodor, Modularity
of Mind, MIT Press, 2000 3810. Riel, Object-Oriented Heuristics,
tines Addison-Wesley, 1996
8 selves Greene, RT: Your Door to Culture Power; 3814. Taylor, sources of the self, the making of the
modern identity, Harvard, 1989 3815. Neisser, the perceived self, ecological and inerpersonal
2 sources of self knowledge, cambridge, 1993 3816. Pervin, personality theory and research,
6th edition, Wiley, 1970 3817. Deci and Ryan, handbook of self determination research, U of
Rochester, 2002 3818. Cervone and Mischel, eds., Advances in Personality Science, Guilford,
2002@ 3819. Sternberg and Kolligian, Competence Considered, Yale, 1990 (plus nearly all
other Sternberg edited books) 3820. Boekaerts, Pintrich, Zeidner, Handbook of Self Regula-
tion, Academic00@ 3821. Higgins, Kruglanski, eds., Motivational Science, Psychology Press,
2000 3822. Gollwitzer and Bargh, eds., The Psychology of Action, Guilford, 1996 3823.
Lerner edr, Handbook of Child Psych, Theoretical Models of Human Development, vol1,
Wiley98 3824. Seigel, the idea of the self, thought and experience in western europe since
the 17th century, cambridge, 200
8 science as the new CONGREGATIONAL FORMS OF SCIENCE--COMMUNAL EMOTION MANAGEMENT
religion Greene, RT: Managing Self; Greene, RT: Saving Saviors; 717. Weber, the Protestant Ethic and
3 the Spirit of Capitalism, Prentice Hall, 1976 718. Mele and Rawling, eds, Oxford handbook of
Rationality, 04%%% 719. Kearns, Ideas in Seventeenth Century France, St. Martins, 1979%%%
720. Tannen, You Just Don?t Understand, Morrow, 1990@ 721. Simon de Beauvoir, The Sec-
ond Sex, Vintage, 1997 722. Campbell, Thou art That, Transforming Religious Metaphor, New
World Lib,01@ 723. Campbell, The Hero with a Thousand Faces, Princeton, 1949 724. Freud,
Civilization and Its Discontents, Norton, 1961 725. Freud, The Future of An Illusion, Norton,
1961726. Neu, editor; The Cambridge Companion to Freud, Cambridge, 1991 727. Freud,
Beyond the Pleasure Principle, Norton, 1961@ 728. Jacoby: FreeThinkers, a History of Amer-
ican Secularism; Metropolitan, 2004

THE BIOSENSE MODEL OF INNOVATION
the implementation
questions
HOW DO YOU DO THIS? THE BIOSENSE INNOVATION ALGORITHM---take any device, niche, opportunity,
emerging market, unmet dream or need---X---and THROW AT IT--the levels of
organization in biologies from gene to ecosystems of societies interacting--and
THROW AT IT--the creativity operators inside natural selection processes and
THROW AT IT--the 83 biologic computative interactions in this chapter. For
each item on those three HOW CAN WE DO MORE BIOLOGICALLY WHAT IS NOW IN
THE X MECHANISTICALLY? As I advised in this chapter---this works best after
some serious dong of two things: one, read the best hardest biology books
available, provided in the 83 item list above in this chapter; two, watch how
your mind constantly sees and tilts things mechanistically, and learn to catch
yourself doing that, stop your mechanistic reactions, and substitute more bio-
logic reactions. What you have to do is ACCELERATE a change of COMMONSENE
from MECHANO-SENE to BIO-SENSE.
WHAT ARE THE MAJOR Our world is filled with religions that denigrated animals and nature and
OBSTACLES YOU ENCOUN- encouraged humans to beat and control, conquer and abuse “lower” forms of
TER? life to the point that human survival is now at risk. These religions inject into
young minds extremely harmful modes of thought. Those survival reality TV
shows often have religious guys with women naked on an island for 20+ days--in
several, the especially religious men, again and again ruined their only protein
meal in weeks by a mania for “right” cooking or preparing of meat. What made
them, starving with a vulnerable partner, seek “rightness” of cooking? It is one
thing put in their minds by religions. These invisible evils are everywhere in
each team you work on. You have to learn to spot “rightness” manias and ruth-
lessly undercut and counter them--they are extremely harmful and anti-bio-
logic.
WHY DO MANY NEVER Most people do not like re-equipping their minds at such deep levels of com-
ATTEMPT IT? monsense, unconscious framing, seeing, interpreting, elaborating of everything
encountered every minute of each day. Most people, especially the dummies
who buy business books, want some simple one two thre method for personal
wealth and status enhancement--pure monkey-isms. In a world filleld with
overly male venal monkeys--trying to get any deep and sincere thought to take
place is often futile. Telling a hormone drenched monkey to drop his steel
image of strength and switch to a bending willow branch image of strength is
like to shrink the length of something and reduce the radius of two other things.
20. The Mindscapes Model of Innovation

Nearly all innovation comes from a dislocation of perception--seeing things differently (the
title of a book by J. S. Brown for that reason). But it also involves seeing more things--going
beyond one invention to whole ecosystems of related mutually supporting further inventions-
-the 200 patents Edison had to develop in order to deliver electricity to his light bulb inven-
tion. Seeing differently, seeing more, and seeing through--the latter a highly political,
social, and hence, motivational element. That is because innovations are born anywhere so
most of the time they are motherless-unloved by where they were born. Companies making
big piles of money one way, do not really prioritize baby ideas that in a decade overthrow
them and their piles. We all have witnessed this again and again--Kodak, Xerox, IBM, GM,
Palm, Myspace, Yahoo, Twitter. It takes some sort of nut to see through a baby idea no one
else likes or understands or funds or wastes time on. It takes powerful motivation to keep
alive an idea via continual disguises, scarfings of resources from other projects, skunkworks
hidden away, switches of boss and company and colleague. Van de Ven in one of the few lon-
gitudinal studies of real innovations found no such thing as “champions” in upper manage-
ment (they were always merely big monkeys taking credit after all the hard work was done),
and instead found the tandem--person with idea he loved--popping up and down and across
and under, around and over--all sorts of boundaries, limits, supports, isolations--like cock-
roaches, un-eliminatable.
Several of the models of innovation earlier in this book, have this flavor of countering estab-
lished cultures, norms, ways, structures, approaches, traditions. A flavor of quite general
anti-ness is found wherever innovation appears. The things anti-ied, the more they are
each anti-ied, the bigger the innovation. Silicon Valley itself, in an earlier model, was mod-
elled as “nested anti-cultures” anti-culture 1 inside of anti-culture 2, insides of anti-culture
3, and so on. You know this by visiting such places and finding all sorts of normal-for-you
attitudes, statements, reactions STOPPED rather harshly by natives there who view things
quite differently and do not tolerate diseased ideas from other Religions of Business entering
their domain.
INNOVATION FROM SPOTTING AND CHANGING MINDSCAPE IMBALANCES. One such dis-loca-
tion of perception, is all such dis-locations. It turns out whenever we counter some norm,
tradition, accept way, bent, propensity, approach there is something more abstract and gen-
eral (and powerful) underneath generating it that we also counter. Aiming at this more
invisible general abstract underpinning of any way, approach, norm expands the scale and
power of the innovation achieved. You can clearly see this in competing innovators aiming at
similar areas of the world--one of them will have aimed more abstractly and achieved out-
flanking the other. What is this more abstract general generator of rutted specific ways,
norms, approaches?
In this book they are called mindscapes--kind of mind inside our brains that occur in pairs.
There are really brain modules in conflict, that maintain balances that sometimes tilt toward
one mind type and away from the other, in each pair. These are brain modules paired so
that doing more of one always means doing less of the other. Often humans when they get
insights and breakthroughs are riding one pole of such within brain polarities and in their
excitement do not count the cost of dropping and de-emphasizing the other pole of the pair
involved (the other brain module not now given emphasis).
In recent years, for examle, may books have been written about two such oppositely paired
brain modules--our fast emotive brain versus our slow conceptual brain. Books explained
how emotional messages travel without words, faster in groups, and set the context that
determines what we notice and whethr we are positively or negative disposed to it
(valence). This means by the time we notice anything, we have been influenced invisibly
and emotionally and probably did not notice much else--we come to every situation in our
lives pre-focussed, a dangerous narrowing of what we notice. Unless we develop conscious
and well practiced till automatic and unconscious looking for such pre-focussings and
undoing them, emotional messages will permanently stunt and narrow and en-bigot our lives
and what our lives do. We readily observe this in families we visit or visiting us, in new
firms we join, in new bosses we report to, in new employees we hire--they can be seen
exploring stunted lists of alternatives, operating within unseen, unspoken, un-realized lim-
its--put there by fast emotional brain messages. When you undo these emotive message
pre-focussings within groups--you innovate.
Mr. Chow, the restaurant inventor, came from Central St. Martin and did a Chinese restaurant
frequented by the Beatles, Rolling Stones, prime ministers, by doing the architecture, Euro-
pean fashions on waiters and waitresses, top design chandeliers, contemporary modern
abstract artworks on walls, no chopsticks--elegant European top hotel surrounds--to put peo-
ple in luxurious ease--so the food would get proper respect as food and people would not
be distracted by playing around with chopsticks. Thereby, Mr. Chow used art to make
attentive space for another art--the food as art--of his restaurant. This was the TOPIC MIND
versus the COMMENT MIND polarity at work within brains--the topic was “the food” as art,
and the comment was client response to the topic, the food art. To make the food the topic
the architecture, tablecloths, waiters and their uniforms--all else had to drop away,
(become COMMENT) to fit in European top class norms--to produce comfort, fit, luxury, ease,
readiness for a TOPIC, for the food art as TOPIC. Usually in Chinese restaurants the food is
a COMMENT not the TOPIC---the TOPIC is the whole usual Chinese restaurant image we all
repeat dozens of times in our lives, and the food is a COMMENT on that as topic. Think about
our ordinary image of Chinese restaurants--shoddy, crowded, clamor of chopsticks, the expe-
rience is the cultural surrounds and the food is just another decor item--a restaurant where
the food is marginal. Mr. Chow tilted to TOPIC--the food is the art, the other arts are to
make the rest of the experience drop out of mind, disappear into usual European norms for
restaurant luxury. In this way tilting to one mind not the other is a somewhat subtle thing--
it requires countering a lot of your own self, norms and attitudes and assumptions in you that
you usually never question or raise to consciousness. EXACTLY THE SAME SWITCH of com-
ment with topic DEFINES the first iphone--the phone part was a COMMENT on the TOPIC, web
connection = the whole world in your hand, the phone was not TOPIC.
The greatness of an innovation--how much of a field, how much history it changes--can be

predicted by how many of the brainscape dimensions below, it tilts, rebalances from usual
emphases in the places it operates in.
MINDSCAPES
Most leadership regimes and design ignore all of the following. The following affect the
process of leading or designing and the use of the arrangements that leading
and designing result in, both.
1. The Fast Emotive Mind versus the Slower (Editing) Conscious Mind--emotional signals set
our minds in a frame that determines what our conscious minds notice and react
to---we seldom freely choose what we notice
2. The Calculative Symbolic Mind versus the Associative Mind--we build formal models, but
actually operate unconsciously using vague plural deep similarities, metaphors,
associations
3. The Raw Input Mind versus the Indexed Input Mind--autistic savants see without indexing
so see non-objects, pure percepts, so they can draw exactly--most of us never
directly see our seeings, instead we see indexed version, edited version.
4. The Male Mind versus the Female Mind--most of what is around us is overly male, solution
moves things toward femininity
5. The Engaged Mind versus the Detached Mind--when you attain satori in zazen, you sense
THAT over there is exactly me here, no obstruction (mu ge), and instantly a flood
of compassion for beings around the world now torturing themselves with ego-
drives to be separate, distinct. Engagement is bought by leaving compassion
behind, engagement is sheer psychopathologic focus (Jobs, Bill Gates, Zucker-
berg)
6. The “Be” Mind versus the “Have” Mind--Kegan stages of psychologic growth, learning to
have what we used to be, wielding our contents instead of our contents wielding
us
7. The Explore Mind versus the Exploit Mind--conflicting desire to stay open and experience
more versus desire to use what we know via focus
8. The Conform Mind versus the Rebel Mind--we do not want or respect clubs that accept us
as members, we want to belong while maintaining our own uniquenesses
9. The Pour Soi Mind versus the En Sor Mind--Sartre, we are conscious beings (pour soi)
wanting the permance and security of inanimate things (en soi)
10. The Faith Mind versus the Evidence Mind--moms give us faith in what reality is that fails
till we learn to supplant faith with experiment and evidence
11. The Object Mind versus the Frame Mind--what we objects we identify and notice utterly
depend on what frameworks are mobilized inside us, and the objects promote
subsequent later mobilization of certain frameworks not others
12. The Topic Mind versus the Comment Mind--thought always is something noticed and
reactions to it
13. The Distributed Rep Mind versus the Gramma Neuron Mind--most of what a concept is, in
our minds, is layer after layer of association and context but there is also very
specific neurons for particular concepts like “grandma”
14. The Propositional Mind versus the Analogy Mind--we maintain statements of what is true
in experience and situations and we notice patterns and relations that, though not
strictly true, by analogy have meaning and implications for us
15. The Declarative Mind versus the Procedural Mind--we remember facts about things and
we remember how and why we did things certain ways and convert one to the
other
16. The Domain General Mind versus the Domain Specific Mind--we think amateurishly about
nearly everything except for tiny domains where our thinking is disciplined, made
modest by data, that is, professional
17. Left Brain (defenses; forcing unity) versus Right Brain (realities: discrepancy detector)--
we build models and collect flaws and exceptions to them both
18. The Conscious Mind versus the Unconscious Mind = Meta-Representation Mind versus Pri-
mary Representation Mind; language as needing/enabling reporting internal states
to others/self = consciousness; modeling others’ minds led to modeling own mind-
-we notice things in experience streams and we notice that and what we are
noticing, both
19. The Prototype Mind versus the Exemplar Mind--we have models that define what is
named one way and another, and we have examples that suggest quickly what-
should be examined for such naming
20. The Inference Mind versus the Ecology Mind--we have various kinds of noticing and impli-
cations of them in our minds and we have various dialog-ing brain modules in a
kind of mental module ecosystem of constant conversation
21. The Low Level Implicit versus the High Level Explicit Mind; Controlled Attention vs.
Immediate Representation Mind--we have percept and percept processing hard-
ware that bring noticings to an indexing/editing layer that interprets those notic-
ings as objects in worlds we know and can operate on
22. The Rational versus Irrational Mind (Kahneman etc)--there are rational operations we
can consistently perform punctuated by errors we always make that prevent us
being entirely rational
23. The Rule Mind versus Model Mind--we can enact any of various rules to predict and han-
dle futures or we can apply coherent models and work out implications from
them.
24. The Cognition Mind versus the Meta-Cognition Mind--we think and we can think about
how we think and adjust how we think
25. The Gene Mind versus the Environment Mind--we are born with percept and concept
hardware processes, mostly factor analysis--what changes when we change X--we
observe kids doing such experiments--AND we modify what those co-occurrence
noticings build (grammar for one thing) with models of who and where and what
we are enabling manipulation of worlds we find or build
26. The Culture Mind versus the Non-Culture Mind--part of us is beyond culture capabilities
of percept and thought, and part of us is Initial Factory Setting taught us uncon-
sciously while growing up somewhere and sometime--few of us become fully con-
scious of those Initial Factory Setting and change them--those few who do are
called “adults” (generally 55 years old or older)
27. The Like Module versus the Interest Module--what interests us we dislike and fear, what
we like bores us.
YOUR INSTRUCTIONS TODAY: 1. choose seven of the above and write how they affect
the process your team used of designing, and the design that resulted from that process,
both. Which mind dominated? What resulted from that? Which mind was ignored or
slighted? What resulted from that? What was the cost or flaw in the result because of
favoring one mind type over another? 2. Redesign so as to use more the slighted mind
type of each of the seven pairs.

THE MINDSCAPES MODEL OF INNOVATION
the implementation
questions
HOW DO YOU DO THIS? This approach to innovation can be done two ways---one way is direct, you fig-
ure out which of the poles of each mindscape polarity (corresponding to 2 brain
modules in conflict) is emphasized in current arrangements and imagine a new
version with emphasis on the opposite pole of that particular polarity. The
other ways is indirect, or, more exactly speaking, meta-. You apply some other
innovation model in this book to a situation and identify in the innovation
achieved with that model what pole rebalancing was underlying it and further
emphasize that change in emphasis of pole by modifications to that initial inno-
vation approach.
WHAT ARE THE MAJOR The challenge in this approach is considerable. It is hard for most busi-
OBSTACLES YOU ENCOUN- ness”men” to grasp things as abstract as these minds at conflict within brains.
TER? They lose patience an reduce deep abstract subtle things to obvious embodied
practical things, losing all power in the process. Within seconds of learning one
polarity--fast emotive slow concept brain modules, for example--people will
give entirely wrong examples of it. A certain native abstractness of mind is
needed perhaps to do innovation this way--yet ALL innovations have, within or
underlying them, such shifts in mind polarity emphasis.
WHY DO MANY NEVER This approach is far too abstract for the kind of person attracted to business,
ATTEMPT IT? self aggrandisement and money, and the strutting and bombast needed to make
one’s way among a zoo of rank obsessed monkeys.
21. The Tipping Point Model of Innovation

There are two primary views of causation in the world--the Western model: find rare tipping
points where slight changes on input change entire system states; and the Western model:
10,000 bee stings, tweak slightly parameters all over every part of a system till entire system
outcomes shift fundamentally. We can see this at work in Japanese TQM versus USA Silicon
Valley. Thought total quality theory has root problem, root cause, root solution etc. identi-
fication (based on countering the most common ways human distort actual causes), in actual
practice total quality tweaks all parts of a process to change its outcomes fundamentally.
The problem with the tipping point model of innovation is------finding the tipping points.
Whistle points in mountains are the same idea (and exactly the same mathematics). You can
whistle here and there all over a mountain and get no result, but there are a very few hard
to find points where a slight whistle will release large avalances of snow. These days rangers
drop explosives from helicopters to prod avalanches of built up snow, giving up on finding
whistle points.
Finding whistle points makes knowledge central--enough knowledge to see and model accu-
rately the non-linear dynamics of a system with dozens and hundreds of interacting popula-
tions and variables. Einstein is the emblem of this--a man, slight of build, in a tiny attic,
with paper and pencil, uncovering the principles of the universe, and giving humankind use
of the power of stars.
Any innovation approach that requires having an Einstein around is impractical. So the tip-
ping point model of innovation has to explain how and why a great deal of it gets done with-
out anyone like Einstein around. That is the mystery this model of innovation has to
explain.
If you read widely you can come across types of tipping point--the last straw that forces
some people into rebellion against a government; the unusual person and activity that sud-
denly joins to totally unthinkably different communities, spawning decades of creative inter-
action; the ship carrying person A from culture B to person W from culture X, so that W
implements in X a method from B and person A implements in B a method from X--both men
becoming innovators. It is a matter of how the “highly unlikely” comes into the world and
gets development attention and investment, which means how it gets some persons
extremely motivated about its potentials.
A METHODS FOR FINDING TIPPING POINTS. Hannah Arendt, 40 years before the fall of the
Soviet Union published an explanation for how it would fall. Some “last straw” would cause
avalanches of loss of support on all size scales of Soviet society, due to an ideology Soviet
society based itself on, that itself was based on a wrong understanding of power. Marx
wrongly took Hobbes for his model--power was “a monopoly on means of violence”. Lenin
and other intellectuals were in a cafe bitching one day and a year later were in charge of a
huge nation--Russia. This so impressed them that they, like Catholic Europe for centuries,
launched secret police watching out for “dangerous ideas from groups of 2 or 3 intellectuals
in dangerous cafes”. Their paranoic--any five bright people drinking coffee could take over
a nation was based on their own terrifying actual experience of taking over Russia. They
used purges (mass murders) to control minds and ideas (which never happened) silencing
huge growing amounts of dissent, till one last straw revealed an ocean of contempt, kept
hidden from secret police for decades. Suddenly there was no one at all in the entire nation
who respected it any more. How did Hannah Arendt predict how the Soviet Union would fall?
She measured the total amount of power and authority in systems. Her definition of power
was the opposite of Hobbes, Marx, and the Soviety Union.
ARENDT’S DEFINITION OF POWER:

The more promises a group make and keep with each other, the more complex
the promises, the longer in time spanned the promises, the more peple in the
group making the promises--the greater the power of the group, without
upper limit. POWER OF ANY GROUP IS LITERALLY UNBOUNDED.
So Soviet society, using Roman Catholic “inquisition” secret policing of minds methods,
wiped out all intermediate scale groups making and keeping promises till there was only the
state and individual families with nothing doing anything with power and authority in
between. The society simply had too little authority and power to do things, any things.
One last straw, Chernobyl followed by Solidarity (the shame of a labor union overthrowing a
socialist government!)--wiped out the entire government and system.
Years before this collapse, in Washington D.C. bishops of various religions discussed choise of
the next pope, a Polish man, as “a probable last straw for ending the Soviet Union”. And a
few years and a new pope later, it actually worked.
For Poland had not wiped out all intermediate groups making and keeping promises. Poland
preserved the Roman Catholic Church and that Church preserved the Polish labor movement.
The new Pope mobilized the Church to mobilize the unions to strike against a Communist
government and demand real priority of labor. This emboldened peoples all over Eastern
Europe, with a new generation of Soviety leaders who were not yet mass killers and refused
to become mass killers.
Arendt realized that by extending itself to Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union was encompass-
ing societies with mid-range groups making and keeping promises that had been extermi-
nated, literally, from Soviet life in Russia. These sources of making and keeping promises
were more powerful in a real “getting things done” sense than the entire Soviet Govern-
ment was. By her definition of power the Polish Church and the unions it backed were,
together, more powerful than the entire Soviet government. And they were!!!!
The tipping point was a series of failures of power---the Soviet war in Afganistan, the Cher-
nobyl disaster spreading radiation across all of Europe--that lacked only one tiny last straw--
a group with enough power to stand up to the empty shell of Soviet government policings
and killings. “We the people have more power than our sick police state paranoid weakling
ineffective government” was the message everyone in Eastern Europe and Russia got from
the Pope and his Polish unions standing up to armies and communists. Within weeks hun-
dreds of millions of people stopped pretending to think as murderous governments and
police ordered them to pretend to thing. The naked emperor was admitted and everyone
laughed at his nakedness, his power-less-ness.
This all was discussed as a likely scenario in Washington DC at dinner parties, many parties,
several years before the election of the new Pople. It was all foretold by Hannah Arendt in
her books and private talks. It was based on not confusing real power with violence monop-
oly. Once you saw the amounts of real power of the players involved you were aware that
all that was needed as “last straw” was a demonstration of Soviet government incompetence
and weakness followed by any group with more actual power to get things done than that
weakling paranoid murderous thug government. It was not foce that overcame the Soviet
government--it was laughter, contempt, pity, total lack of respect--it simply had less power
than that Pope and his unions.
IMPLICATIONS OF ARENDT’S DEFINITION OF POWER FOR MANAGING AND FOR FINDING TIP-
PING POINTS. This has immense importance for every manager or leader. The amount of
power of any group of five or ten people is literally unbounded. The more promises, the
more complex their promises, the longer time spans those promises are kept over, the
greater the power of the group in history. Of course as number, complexity, time span of
promises increase--it becomes taxing to keep everything in mind, coordinate all, and prop-
erly allocate attention and resources. But the bounds are only human effort and lifespan
limits--there are no other limits. Power can grow to immensity, for any 5 or 10 people mak-
ing and keeping promises to each other.
For finding tipping points, the implications of Arendt’s definition of power is quite similar.
Keeping one’s eye on the actual amounts and types of power, from groups making and keep-
ing promises, versus others not making and keeping as many promises of as much span and
complexity, will reveal situations waiting for last straws--tiny specific inputs delivered at
whistle points. Keep this in mind when examining each of the tipping point types below.
Consider a firm that has been run by males, founded by males, filled with males for genera-
tions. Every idea, process, habit, attitude, and system in it is, well, .........very male. Now
someone comes in and by some miracle of indepence of mind, does common things there in
feminine ways for feminine aims. Most tasks and positions experiencing this will ignore,
reject, or counteract this. However, there will always be a few rare points where this
unleashes immense built up hungers, frustrations, imaginings, and ideations. Where people
lacking formal power but with real making and keeping promises with each other power, find
hidden attidues and imaginings suddenly invited, immense unexpected amounts of power
can suddenly appear behind feminized goals and means, transforming much of the firm’s life
and ways and outcomes. So any untested, always assumed way of being/thinking, simply by
gradually invisibly suppressing real making and keeping of promises power among a group,
reducing what kinds of things can be promised and kept, reduces actual levels of power and
invites hidden power from opposite ways, to grow, unseen, unacknowledged, till some last
straw appears at a “tipping point”.
THE INNOVATION BY TIPPING POINT ALGORITHM

1) find an immensely common shared unexamined limited way, routine, attitude
2) identify the restriction in kinds of promises made and kept as a result of it in
all groups = the actual reducation in total possible power it represents
3) find task or opportunities in danger for lack of enough total power in the group
to tackle them and get them done
4) demonstrate in small scale, sudden surge of power from breaking the limited
way, routine, attitude that restricts kinds of promises made and kept
throughout the group
5) if placed well, where power is really needed--this will usher in system wide
avalanches of change to the ignored way-routine-attitude throughout all firm
systems.
There is a short cut for doing the above algorithm I and my students have used worldwide for
years now with great reliable success.
When there is such an iceberg of real power latent and unused around, covered up by a layer
of formal weaker superficial power obeyed by all--due to arbitrary, dated, or neurotic
restrictions on what sorts of things can be promised and kept among people at all levels and
areas--problems tend to cluster where power is needed but not provided by present arrange-
ments. By plotting on comprehensive maps of just about any widespread social or intellec-
tual dynamic, where problems cluster, and examing each cluster for actual power imbalance
dynamics there more than elsewhere, the hidden alternative ways/routines/attitudes that
unleash immense hithertofore untapped power, can be made evident, and unleashed. The
key is having comprehensive, detailed, multi-level such models of various types of wide-
spread dynamics to plot problems on. It helps if these maps of concepts are regularized in
several ways for easy memory, repeated use, and navigation across (fractal concept models,
presented later on and used as illustration throughout this book have these vital attributes.
Below I copy into this book a couple of such widespread models very useful for spotting clus-
ters of problems, having underneath and generating them, such a hidden unadmitted power
restriction at a place where more power is needed (hence the clustering of problems).
create create from failed undo cognitive

problem attempts to from process surface
method influence algorithm research
institution- finding partial step to failed unconscious cascade
collaboration solutions attempts of past
alization values event assemblies
markets markets indexing indexing victories sequences
Manage Elaborate Manage
Organization Unlearn
Mind Indexes by Events
create create from name from role/task revise
solving update work workouts
perception to role/task to process automated
bid/offer collaboration indexing assumed events and
markets step/event processes
markets facts solving
indexing
Organization Content events
Research graft
Evolution escalating
institution- plurify exploration counter-
purpose by structure by hidden
alize values and learning learning productivity
experiment experiment plurification viewpoints feedbacks
effects
Organization Expanded Balance Surface
Experiments Repertoires Learning Feedbacks
plurify
policy by process by plurify process vicarious
exploitation tragedy of delayed
experiment experiment knowledge capability learning learning
sources the commons feedbacks
64 Ways
that
Organizations
organization SWAT
gossip Learn counter discipline legitimate
cognition organization corporate intensification peripheral
counter life national
management forms compilation cabaret exercises participation
neuroses neuroses
events
Organization Narration Counter Counter
Reflection Events Neuroses Roles
capture deploy incidental counter counter crossing under-
functions encounter cellular
crises personal organization boundaries studying
as continually spaces workspaces neuroses leaders
neuroses
learning elsewhere
Experience Border
causal
Formation computation
Violation propagate
possible JIT self campaign business invent
maps futures configuring deployments solution standards
search management hobbies
conference structures cultures
Simulate Social Counter Counter
Experience Computation Rules Norms
devil’s standard vertical interest fit fit
coalition espoused
advocate role play cognitive horizontal technical
red cascade building groupings to to
tool sets
teams processes enacted social
New Re- Non-linear Social

Innovative- interpre- Fame Haven System Cellular Secularity Religion
ness tation Dynamics Automata
Process
Conserved Historic
Dream Diversity Symbol
Newness
Utterly Preserva- Drama Showing Fatal Tampering Language Art
New tion the Way Succeeding
Founda- Culture
tion
Initiative No man’s Action Happiness Exercises Meanings BenevolenceStructures
Land
Liberty Freedom Wisdom Style
Miracle Promise Novelty Covenant Skills Knowledge Generations Families
Social
Processes
Innovation Measure- Incentives Consump- Inputs Purposes Opportunity Checks
ment tion
Productivity
Productivity Distribution
Distribution Anticipation Welfare
Resource Variation Property Markets Interests Plans Spaces Rights
Economy Polity
Time Technology Quality Systems Norms Laws Mediation Execution
Natural Human Tools Forces Defense Police Legislation Juridication
The two diagrams, on one page, above, have a special form. They are “fractal concept
model” of branch factor 4 and 3 levels of branching. They have been organized in three
ways: the number of branches from each node is the same throughout the diagram, the order
ot topmost level four items is repeated by analogy with all lower level items, and the form
of the names, roughly in this case, reflects what level they are on. These regularizations
make the diagrams easy to memorize at the 64 item level (85 boxes total when you include
the 16 and 4 higher level group names). They are a tool for expanding what ordinary mental
operators apply to from 4 to 6 ideas at a time to 64 or 128 ideas at a time--greatly expanding
mental productivity in several simultaneous ways--more coverage, more detail, more levels,
and order, better clearer naming of points, and greater number of ideas.
The topmost fractal concept model summarizes dozens of articles and books on how organi-
zations learn, in 64 ways ordered on that diagram in three levels. The bottommost fractal
concept model summarizes 64 social processes that all societies and every unit in all societ-
ies have going on inside them (every individual, group, corporation, agency, nation, culture,
art museum, store, etc.). Both of these are general enough to be useful when plotting prob-
lems, especially when plotting recurrent problems. You will find clumps appearing when
you get to 20 or 30 problems plotted on one of these two diagrams. Circle each clump and
carefully examine all the problems in it and all the boxes (adjacent ones) within the circle.
Try to “name” a “problem generator” in one or several of those boxes that generates all the
problems, regularly. Then analyze that generator for the power limits, hence power weak-
ness spawning problems, mentioned earlier in this chapter. Imagine what limits the kind of
promises people make and keep there, removed or reversed--get something to actually DO
that and you have a probable “last straw” delivered at a right “tipping point” where slight
inputs change entire system states = major innovations that change entire fields and/or his-
tory.
I decided not to make this a workbook--that would expand it to unusuably immense size, so I
will not DO here the process I just described. It is simple enough, as described just above,
however, that hundreds of my students, with nothing more than the two fractal concept
models and the instructions immediately above, have identified tipping points all over the
world correctly and found “last straws” that unleashe disproportionate energies and changes
on all size scales.
Below is another tool for innovating via tipping points. It is a list of kinds of tipping point,
used by top designers to make field changing and history changing designs. These amount to
innovations when they change and spread over entire industries or economies. In any situa-
tion or product or device or system you wish innovated, examine each one of the tipping
point types below and seek its presence there. Looking for specifci types of tipping point is
a great deal easier than looking for them in general.
TIPPING POINT DESIGN

Aiming a leadership regime or product design at tipping points is rarely done. Finding
such tipping points requires genius. But we all find such tipping points and years later
read “our idea” in a magazine article about someone famous, who got the same idea
when we got it BUT THEY DID SOMETHING WITH IT. To get ideas is easy, to LOVE them
enough to do something about them--is hard and rare.
ELEVEN ways people aim designs at tipping points are given below.
1. EDISION PRINCIPLE ONE--surround the one design with 20 supporting others--one

invention, light bulb, required 200 more in a support system to deliver electricity
to it all over cities--the productivity model of creativity, generate a lot of ideas
and throw away the bad ones (Linus Pauling, 2 Nobels)
2. EDISON PRINCIPLE TWO--set up a design inventing machine--if something you
design-invent sells with enough funds to keep you inventing, set up procedures for
regular mass producing of inventions/designs, and hire others to turn ideas into
realities-prototypes to sell. Invent a design-generating machine that self funds.
3. STEVE JOBS PRINCIPLE ONE--save a dying industry--find an analog industry dying under
digital attack and sell it a system--product, content delivery mechanism, debundled
pricing--that saves it
4. STEVE JOBS PRINCIPLE TWO--counter the excess malenesses, engineeringnesses
around you--as owner CEO use your total power to get a wife to undo your
asperger’s ignoring of others, SO you lead Silicon Valley’s excessively male males,
doing what males cannot imagine, fixing excesses caused by sheer maleness
designing things--
5. FRANKLYN (discoverer of DNA, but missed Nobel)--undo the cultural and neurotic
blindspots of all around you--aim at cultural and neurosis blind spots that gender,
age, era, national, professional cultures have--she did the boring pains-taking
grunt work of crystalizing DNA so X-rays could show its structure--do what all oth-
ers slight and avoid due to cultural or neurotic blindspots
6. SILICON VALLEY PRINCIPLE--turn products into platforms for customer designing
and inventing--sell all humans means to do all 30 creativity & novelty sciences
themselves, democratizing invention, composing, performing, venturing
7. ANCIENT RELIGION PRINCIPLE--re-invent the most mundane heavily used never
questioned aspects of life and work--undo injustices in all of all societies via
redesign of the most used most daily most mundane forms of life/work (invent
“the job”, new ways to meet, to write, to read, to talk)
8. ANCIENT RELIGION PRINCIPLE--find a way to do bold goals that already embodies
fully the achievement of those goals in how it operates to achieve them gener-
ally--achieve your ends by inserting them into the practices of your processes for
achieving them--invent ends-y means--Mao Tse Tung against Nationalists--
9. GOOGLE PRINCIPLE--find the one thing you are best in world at and apply it to
every growing thing--when someone invents a new territory, provide maps and
transport means in and around it;
when someone invents the web, THAT is a new territory;
when someone documents all life and work, THAT is a new territory,
when devices collect what people seek-find-notice in each GPS point,
THAT is a new territory
10. UNLEASH HIDDEN DAMMED FORCES--find somewhere in conflict where great pres-
sures have built and been thus far unreleased--your design give channel or voice
to huge built up hidden forces not yet expressed or realized--your design calls
them forth, makes them visible and active, a shocking display of MORE from a sit-
uation than anyone expected. Think of the first FEMALE ACTION MOVIE HERO who
shoots and beats people--liberating women to be bad in film.

THE TIPPING POINT MODEL OF INNOVATION
the implementation
questions
HOW DO YOU DO THIS? Three paths to “found” tipping points were provided: one, look for clumps of
problems caused by inadequate power caused, in turn, by an unwitting uncon-
scious limit on the kind of promises people make and keep; two, plot problems
on comprehensive fractal models of just about any general function and circle
the clumps, for each identifying weakness as in 1 above here; three, examine a
situation/device/system/etc. looking for, one by one, each item in the list of
ten types of tipping point provided above.
WHAT ARE THE MAJOR Tipping points are not enough--you need a last straw of some sort, to set large
OBSTACLES YOU ENCOUN- hidden forces in motion, there. It must be said that recognizing limits, often
TER? centuries old, to the kind of promises a group makes and keeps, is anything but
easy. Chances are only raw outsiders can do this and their unusual ideas or
actions will be dismissed and followed by no one local, in most cases. Only
when groups are suffering, in great need, their weakness at particular key
points obvious and painful and in the way of greater goals--only then can deep
changes in noticings, approaches, attitudes, routines, etc. be mentioned, tried
out and tolerated long enough to amazing results to santify them.
WHY DO MANY NEVER There is a sloppy way of talking that leads to sloppy ways of thinking, prevalent
ATTEMPT IT? in world cultures of business. Men like to slap each other’s backs and feel
chummy (while backbiting each other secretly). So just as there is Innovation
Noise, there can be Tipping Point noise---just about any place in any device or
system, called “tipping point” and usual tiny reactions there exaggerated into
“the first signs of a flood”. Only where people talk and act honestly, cleanly,
with little exaggeration and male hormone caused self inflations and lies, can
tipping points turn out to be real.
22. The Well Located Brain-Flaw-Countering

Model of Innovation
Zen buddhism for eons has had a practice--a way of watching your mind at work, undis-
tracted by the verbal excuse making machinery inside your mind (occupy it with counting
your breaths, following them in and out). Hours and weeks even years of doing this, and
only, this, sometimes opens a door to Enlightenment of ecstatic life-change sorts. The flaw
in brains that this uncovers, at first as a concept you can verbalize and later, and more
importantly, as a strong emotion of wanting liberation from your own brain and how it works,
is this--you brain only generates---worries, nothing else. It is primarily occupied, all the
time, in generating worries (which, further observing of your mind at work, will reveal come
from your mind always increasing separation between perceived/conceived thing in your
life. As soon as emotionally this realization throws you into despair of ever being in any way
happy while led around in your life by your own mind--at that moment of despair--some-
times a door opens--MOKSHA--liberation not from the world, and suffering, but liberation
from the worry and separation always generated by your own mind. At that moment of lib-
eration two things instantly disappear forever---self is extinguished as a painful delusion, a
torture, and world is extinguished as a reality different than self--these two go away, and in
their place, rushing in, wonderfully, is----compassion--an instantaneous sorrow of how every
being around you at that very moment is torturing itself with separation and worry by fool-
ishly following the dictates of its own mind.
This is the biggie brain flaw, the flaw that Steve Jobs overcame in EIGHT ways:
ORPHAN POOR ZEN LSD DESIGN JAPAN INDIA DIGITAL-REVOLUTION.
So, to skeptic readers, doubting that countering brain flaws can, by itself, result in the
world’s most valuable enterprise, and most revolutionary products--Jobs-Apple is the proof.
The Zenovation Model of innovation that starts this book is the story of how merely becoming
(making of your self) a Void Master, doing the Digital Revolution, immense innovation results.
Lots of people did and do the Digital Revolution (even Harvard and MIT, though both late),
but only Jobs-Apple, as Void Masters did it!! That first model of innovation in this book dem-
onstrated in detail how Void Masters do things differently and with more innovative out-
comes. There is a direct powerful innovative result of having business things and technology
things done in Void Master ways outlined in that chapter. Here my point is--Jobs, the Void
Master, mentally, emotionally, socially practiced in six ways, pushing past ego, self, world--
sprinkled perhaps with a bit of “orphan”ness. The first brain flaw listed in this chapter is
what Jobs overcame---enslavement to your own mind, delusional sense of self separate from
world, delusional “I should” faked forms of compassion done without liberation from your
own ego and world.
HOW TO SQUANDER YOUR NOTICING OF THESE BRAIN FLAWS AT WORK. Any readers of
this book who are just a little bit stupid, will go to some work situations, meeting, discus-
sion, and the like and spot rather quickly one or more of the below brain flaws screwing up
something important. That is not what this chapter is about. These flaws operate 24/7
so all the value is in finding WHERE a bunch of these flaws cause immnese latent forces,
new ideas, new ways to be left un-attended to, un-noticed, un-developed. The value is
readers, for example, seeing a group drift, unconsciously, towards heroic, fast, visible male
styles of deed, and thereby missing more modest, slow, less visible female means or ends of
much greater innovative impact. To repeat an example from earlier in this book--we at EDS
faced a choice of putting on a hum-dinger usual male style technology conference--better do
a male approach to selling that already was not working--or to form an entirely female style
technology conference of listening and apology and service. The latter, if proposed in front
of usual EDS executives would have been dismissed and laughed at as “wimpy” “unmanly”,
but in reality, my group at EDS was isolated, and so we did not report to executives and set
up huge meetings on our own--feminine style tech conferences that enormously out-per-
formed all the heroic male-ish strutting and self inflating sales events that had already failed
for two straight years, getting failured events written up in the New York Times.
The brain flaw is our society for eons being founded and run by males, in male ways, so that
problems from excess maleness get “solved” by males proposing newer “better” forms of
maleness. Countering that flaw and instead suggesting feminine forms of event, sales,
design, promotion, puts you in unexplored territory, without competitors, doing things no
one has seen and felt before, using parts of both male and female minds ignored by nearly
all work systems--a recipe for great impact and innovative effects.
The algorithm of this chapter is find where particular of the brain flaws below cause large
worlds, new ideas, forces ignored for days or years or centuries, to be found, unleashed, and
developed.
THE WELL LOCATED BRAIN-FLAW-COUNTERING MODEL OF

INNOVATION ALGORITHM.
Find a place/time/function where particular brain flaws
below are causing large forces, worlds of ideas,
potentials to be skipped, omitted, denigrated, left
unexplored and unused.
22 TYPES OF FLAW IN THOUGHT,

87 PARTICULAR FLAWS IN THOUGHT
The flaws in brains below are 24/7--always there, operating before we notice, invisible
to us. They distort reality in consistent predictable measurable ways. Some of
them are, alone, the cause of mass killing wars and other cruel absurdities of being
human. Eleven of them are why global warming will devastate all of humanity and
threaten the existence of civilization itself in coming years, much more rapidly
than we are prepared for (because our brains are flawed). We will watch hundreds
of million die, migrate, and murder on latest smartphones, while we sip $100 a cup
water. HOW TO USE THE BELOW? Locate, locate, locate them--these are
everywhere in all minds 24/7 so countering them, in general is a giant waste of
time. The key is LOCATING where particular ones of the below are causing us to
leave un-noticed and un-tapped immense latent sources of power and change.
Where are entire new worlds of action, energy, and idea missed, slighted, over-
looked, unconsciously ruled out, because our brains have one or more of the flaws
below. The genius is NOT in finding these flaws--they are everywhere everyday in
everyone--any moron can spot them and counter them--the genius is the one who
LOCATES where particular ones of the below are causing us to skip, miss, counter,
block immense forces and new worlds and new ideas easily possible, were our
brains to somehow NOT be thusly flawed. The items below are in order--from
most powerful and important to least. Spending time down in the middle or at
the end of the list, before handling the first six or eight--is suicidal, foolish,
stupid, and all too common.
zen buddhist meditation Daisetzu Suzuki, Kaplan

delusional enslavement to own mind--observe mind as worry genera-
tor
delusional self-world distinction--observe mind as separation genera-
tor
delusional faked compassion--compassion as automatic result of own
liberation from thrall of own mind, not some “right” goody
attitude.
narrow people, fields, experts: broad problems H.

Simon, A. Giddens, K. Boulding, Schelling,
Mandeville
people-fields-professionals are ever tinier fractions of problems we
face (as knowledge grows exponentially)
self reflection and investigating resources load of being a self, assem-
bling variety of narrow expert services you need makes peo-
ple long for the oppressive community care systems the
worked mightily to liberate themselves from
messages do NOT communicate: message words, generated by my
layers of context, when “heard/read” in your different layers
of context, have completely different meaning
good actions on one scale result in bad results on other size scales:
bad actions on one scale result in good results on other size
scales.
quality totalization Ishikawa, Kano

over-localization of causes, solutions--seeking causes where problems
appear instead of throughout the system the problem is in,
applyng solutions where causes appear
overly shallow causes--focus on first blocked goal to identify problem-
atic aspect then seeking only cause for that 1st problematic
aspect
people only willing to call “a solution” things that perpetuate their
deepest problems
leap from problem to solution without causal analysis--memorized
socially fitting “traditional” causal attributions
blaming the nearest worker--blame system supplanting cause finding
cause determine by highest rank opinion not facts--local knowledge
ignored
statistical tampering--interventions ignorant of statistics making vari-
ations worse not better
complexity tampering--interventions ignorant of non-linear conse-
quences of present actions making side-effects worse that
what gets fixed
religions of business Bond Hampden-Turner Geertz

all problems “solved” by more competition, freedom from regulation,
returns to shareholders (USA East Coast)
all problems solved by more connectedness, problems from technolo-
gies solved by more technology (USA West Coast)
all problems solved by totally scripted lives wrapped in government
care (Nordic Europe)
all problems solved by joys from style and lifestyle leaving structures
decrepit (the South)
all problems solved by aged-approved “innovations” preserving exist-
ing elites and their powers (Japan)
all problems solved by more expensive excellence too expensive for
clients to buy so extend loans that default (Germany)
all problems solved by one actor, who, lacking enough power to do
things from rest of society (which it forbids), substitutes vio-
lence (China)
system effects Jervis, Abbott

time blind: missing delayed effects, threshold effects
space blind: mistaking physical locality for social locality
reaction blind: stakeholder reactions to first steps become new envi-
ronment for next steps
culture effects Nisbett

gestalt bias: foreground or background noticed first
locality bias: causation plural distributed or singular local
schema bias: identify from category or relationship
gender effects Tannen

talk dimensionality:talk for connection or for status
talk purpose: talk to share feeling or to fix
talk vector: talk for presenting or for receiving
risk assessment effects Kahnemann, Tversky, Nisbett,

Piattelli-Palmarini
overconfidence: more knowledge = greater confidence in own wrong
answers
illusory correlations (from confirmation bias): bias to verify rather
than debunk = when convinced of a positive correlation seeks
confirmations, ignores disconfirmations; salient coincidences
supplant base rates; believers of X see X patterns in truly ran-
dom data; a mentally ill assassin, both rare, makes us think
mental illness is violent
predictabillity in hindsight: disjunction effect or find a scapegoat we
readily believe conditions caused event that happenedwe
could have predicted x
memory effects Myers

association with self: any association with self makes anything better
remembered
sense plurality bias: scent at stimulus + scent at deep sleep = better
memory
gender contents bias: female = stronger emotion memory; males bet-
ter at spatial memory but fail to seek help
projection: we project present mood, values, attitudes selves onto
our pasts, missing how much growth and change occurred;
memory constructed to support present mood/ theory
reading/listening/input Kintsch, van Dijk, Meyers

what makes recall good hurts access, 1 processing:
more processing = more recall
what makes recall good hurts access, 2 levels:

more levels of processing = more recall
what makes recall good hurts access, 3 links:
more links to existing knowledge = more recall
beauty effects Etcoff

wealth: more beauty more income
recognition: more beauty more promotions, awards, acts of received
praise
expectations:
more beauty expectations of goodnesses--wealth, skill, sex, appeal,
friends
depression effects Cantor

mood networking: negative moods open the doors to remembering
many prior negatives
prediction: depressed person anticipates future more accurately
mood attribution:
when depressed we misperceive neutral expression as threats or cri-
tiques
happiness effects Gilbert, Wilson, Powell

unpredictability via overestimation: cannot guess what will make us
happy and how happy it will make us, overestimate how
happy X will make us
hedonic treadmill: self defeating striving: more accomplishment
leads to bolder goals = more striving
habituation: our need for novelty means much that brings happiness
today will bore us tomorrow
influence emotional contagion effects Cialdini, Glad-

well
suggestibility: when reminded of our fault, perform worse on follow-
ing task though no relation
hatred of firstness: when in group with crisis will not be first to
respond but deny influenced by group; after someone else
responds we happily respond too
self as predictor distorter positive behavior predictions of self are
very innacurate but predictions of positivie behavior by others
are accurate for them and for us too
tribal effects Berreby

looping effects using a human kind more finds benefits causing more
use causing illusion the kind is essential or eternal causing
more use etc.;
making a new tribe rites of passage, making a slave, inquisition, navy
recruits = same ways: isolation, new rules, commone fate
group punishments, little sleep, intense work = social death,
born to new rules; training’s dark side urge for social death/
rebirth
founder effects make happenstance initial differences be part of the
kind’s definition helping distinguish it, making it easier to use
cuz easier to distinguish;
most stress at top and bottom of ranks top monkey faces constant
rank testing, bottom faces constant deferring;
kind bad is not you are smarter than us or you are dumber than us but
you are different than us
invented traditions extend through time (falsely) a kind making it
seem to capture _gsomethinig essential shared_h among peo-
ple, making it feel eternal
intuition effects Myers

hindsight bias = forgetting surprise: people find results of already
done experiments obvious but when presented research ques-
tion, have not a clue
knowledge curse: we cannot see/remember the world without our
current knowledge of it; presents appear inevitable to us
attribution bias:
we are why we succeeded but bad situations are why we failed; they
are why they failed and situations are why they succeeded
communication Gladwell
focus beats mass: we have mass communication image but the world
is 20/80 one fifth or less determines 80% or more of every-
thing = persuaders, connectors, mavins
we drop detail and assimilate messages to our own framesinfo ends up
confirming existing frames not inducing new ones, we drop
non-fitting details in order to protect existing frames
we try to persuade people to innovate when we should merely find
the pioneeers a small minority are pioneers, willing to try
the new--finding them outperforms trying to make everyone
and anyone innovate
adaptive unconscious Gladwell

the experience illusion--months of detailed experience underperforms
_gthin slices_h lasting seconds:
two years of class = same judgements as 6 seconds of class tape view-
ing = we all make quick unconscious judgements using very
little information
we are filled with lots of junk intuitions--
but we can consciously develop thin slice capability: years of research
and stats leads to what to attend to: Gottman_fs ability to
predict divorce based on very particular mood exchange types
in conversation
so much is structured assuming experience counts but people who
observe your room for 20 minutes can judge your personality
better than life long friends can
policy dilemmas and intuitions Baron

harmful conserving intuitions: do no harm (harm done by acting worse
than harm done by not acting); status quo effect (burden of
proof on those changing status quo), naturalism (violating
nature thought wrong but nature does harms too), right to
rights and autonomy (coercion hated but without it people
hurt themselves)
harmful distribution intuitions:
group loyalty (usness confounded with rightness cuz rules of group
taught to kids as what is good = other rules = bad); retribution
(our harms seen/felt greater than their harms so retribution
escalates); fairness (so many kinds of fairness it becomes
excuse to not change harmful present behaviors cuz any solu-
tion violate some sort of fairness)

how we use intuitions makes them harmful:
intuitions become absolutes (makes compromise hard); intuitions
define aspiration levels (example, the do no harm principle
becomes doing no harm is enough, no need to do more than
that, no need to do good); wishful thinking (we seek evidence
against facts that undermine our self interests); my side bias/
overconfidence (I seek only facts that bolster my existing
beliefs, do not seek counter evidence); belief overkill (argu-
ments/facts on both sides but people deny any good to posi-
tions they oppose)
wrong statistical intuitions Deming, H. Roberts, A.

Madansky
confounding uniform distributions with random ones
assuming normality without confirming it--our intuitions that things
“should” be normally distributed are ignore sampling effects
reporting high correlations that are tiny and wiped out by much larger
sample biases we miss because enormously common in pub-
lishings
reporting correlational “effects” without magnitudes and boundary
conditions, so “X operates Y way” is treated as “true” though
a sneeze or slight breeze wipes out the effect.
logical fallacy effects Damer

offer counterexamples for social truths (which are statistical)----falla-
cies of irrelevance (questionable authority, appeal to common
opinion, genetic fallacy, rationalization, drawing wrong con-
clusions, using wrong reasons);
evils of the alternative support our side----irrelevant emotional
appeals (appeal to pity, threat, tradition, personal circum-
stance, flattery, guilt by association, strong feelings)----
appeals to primary value never defined of unquestionned
value
fallacies of linguistic confusion (equivocation, ambiguity, improper
acdent, illicit contrast, innuendo, misuse of vague expression,
distinction without difference)
tightly linked system effects Dorner

bad results from few decisions made, few decisions per goal = took
few aspects of system into account----change negative goal
into positive; change general into intermediate level, change
unclear into clear smaller, change simple into multiple,
change implicit into explicit;----slowness of our mental pro-
cesses obliges us to take mental shortcuts (the key variable
illusion) that oversimplify
bad results from dealing with happenstance problems not focussing on
fundamental problems----approach management: study inter-
dependencies, map them, rank problems by urgency and
import, delegate only problems truly independent for isolated
subsystems----slowness of memorizing means the many vari-
ables of each system state, get forgotten leaving us to
respond to the few we ----remember from our last system
snapshot
bad results from not testing hypotheses----reshape system so that
contradicting goals can collaborate; when make/propose
change in the system, make certain which traits of present

situation you want to retain and which you must retain; avoid
fire fighting----future problems are not real to us, only
present ones are, so we end up fire fighting and generate big-
ger future effects than we intend
YOUR INSTRUCTIONS TODAY: 1. Select six of the 20 types of thought

flaw above. 2. Express how the 6 x 3 = 20 specific thought
flaws in those six types have weakened your design. 3. Redo
your design to undo bad effects from each of those 20 flaws of
thought.
Below is a worksheet version of the above list. The ENTIRE worksheet applies to ONE LOCA-
TION, where you sense that brain flaws are at work in such a way that they cause laten pow-
ers to be missed, distorted, go unused, and the like. In the blank third column, for each
FLAW operating (not all 90 are operating in any one location) you put:
HOW that flaw shows up operating THERE

WHAT POWER might get usefully unleashed by coun-
tering that flaw THERE
HOW might you counter that flaw as it operates
THERE.
In a usual case, three to ten flaws are found operating in such a way as to bypass, omit,
slight, denigrate, latent, fallow powers. Often EACH of those flaws cuts off powers that
otherwise could be put to great use. Often omitted such powers, still exist and because not
usefully channeled, they go hither and yon, unseen, and pop up as demonic unexpected con-
sequences and problems. Free energy running around a system show up as unwanted “fea-
tures” of the situation.
87 FLAWS IN HOW BRAINS THINK

WORKSHEET FOR LOCALE ANALYSIS
WHAT LOCALE ARE YOU ANALYZING______________
what flaws are at work there (indicated by which row
below you write in the 3rd column of);
how does each appear there;
what power might be unleashed there;
what countering of the flaw there might unleashe
that power;
TYPE FLAW DESCRIPTION

INDICATE WHICH OF THE 90
FLAWS ARE AT WORK THERE
& HOW THEY APPEAR;
WHAT POWER MIGHT

COUNTERING THEM
UNLEASH THERE;
HOW YOU MIGHT COUNTER

THE FLAWS THERE;
quality 1) delusional enslavement to own

mind--observe mind as worry
totaliza- generator
tion 2) delusional self-world distinction-
Ishikawa, -observe mind as separation genera-
tor
Kano 3) delusional faked compassion--
compassion as automatic result of
own liberation from thrall of own
mind, not some “right” goody atti-
tude.
zen 4) narrow people, fields, experts:

broad problems H. Simon, A. Gid-
buddhist dens, K. Boulding, Schelling,
Mandeville
medita-
5) people-fields-professionals are
tion ever tinier fractions of problems we
Daisetzu face (as knowledge grows exponen-
tially)
Suzuki, 6) self reflection and investigating
Kaplan resources load of being a self,
assembling variety of narrow expert
services you need makes people long
for the oppressive community care
systems the worked mightily to lib-
erate themselves from
7) messages do NOT communicate:
message words, generated by my
layers of context, when “heard/
read” in your different layers of
context, have completely different
meaning
8) good actions on one scale result
in bad results on other size scales:
bad actions on one scale result in
good results on other size scales.
quality 9) over-localization of causes, solu-

tions--seeking causes where prob-
totaliza- lems appear instead of throughout
the system the problem is in,
tion applyng solutions where causes
Ishikawa, appear
Kano 10) overly shallow causes--focus on

first blocked goal to identify prob-
lematic aspect then seeking only
cause for that 1st problematic
aspect
11) people only willing to call “a
solution” things that perpetuate
their deepest problems
12) leap from problem to solution
without causal analysis--memorized
socially fitting “traditional” causal
attributions
13) blaming the nearest worker--
blame system supplanting cause
finding
14) cause determine by highest
rank opinion not facts--local knowl-
edge ignored
15) statistical tampering--interven-
tions ignorant of statistics making
variations worse not better
16) complexity tampering--inter-
ventions ignorant of non-linear con-
sequences of present actions making
side-effects worse than main
intended effects
religions of 17) all problems “solved” by more

competition, freedom from regula-
business tion, returns to shareholders (USA
East Coast)
Bond
18) all problems solved by more
Hampden- connectedness, problems from tech-
Turner nologies solved by more technology
(USA West Coast)
Geertz 19) all problems solved by totally
scripted lives wrapped in govern-
ment care (Nordic Europe)
20) all problems solved by joys
from style and lifestyle leaving
structures decrepit (the South)
21) all problems solved by aged-
approved “innovations” preserving
existing elites and their powers
(Japan)
22) all problems solved by more
expensive excellence too expensive
for clients to buy so extend loans
that default (Germany)
23) all problems solved by one
actor, who, lacking enough power to
do things from rest of society
(which it forbids), substitutes vio-
lence (China)
system 24) time blind: missing delayed

effects, threshold effects
effects 25) space blind: mistaking physical
Jervis, locality for social locality
Abbott 26) reaction blind: stakeholder
reactions to first steps become new
environment for next steps
culture 27) gestalt bias: foreground or

background noticed first
effects 28) locality bias: causation plural
Nisbett distributed or singular local
29) schema bias: identify from cat-
egory or relationship
gender 30) talk dimensionality:talk for

connection or for status
effects 31) talk purpose: talk to share feel-
Tannen ing or to fix
32) talk vector: talk for presenting
or for receiving
risk 33) overconfidence: more knowl-

edge = greater confidence in own
assess- wrong answers
ment 34) illusory correlations (from con-
firmation bias): bias to verify rather
effects than debunk = when convinced of a
Kahne- positive correlation seeks confirma-
tions, ignores disconfirmations;
mann, salient coincidences supplant base
rates; believers of X see X patterns
Tversky, in truly random data; a mentally ill
Nisbett, assassin, both rare, makes us think
mental illness is violent
Piattelli- 35) predictabillity in hindsight:
Palmarini disjunction effect or find a scape-
goat we readily believe conditions
caused event that happenedwe
could have predicted x
memory 36) association with self: any asso-

ciation with self makes anything
effects better remembered
Myers 37) sense plurality bias: scent at
stimulus + scent at deep sleep = bet-
ter memory
38) gender contents bias: female =
stronger emotion memory; males
better at spatial memory but fail to
seek help
39) projection: we project present
mood, values, attitudes selves onto
our pasts, missing how much growth
and change occurred; memory con-
structed to support present mood/
theory
reading/ 40) what makes recall good hurts

access, 1 processing:
listening/ 41) more processing = more
input recall
Kintsch, 42) what makes recall good hurts
access, 2 levels:
van Dijk,
43) more levels of process-
Meyers ing = more recall
44) what makes recall good hurts
access, 3 links:
45) more links to existing
knowledge = more recall
beauty 46)
income
wealth: more beauty more
effects 47) recognition: more beauty more

Etcoff promotions, awards, acts of
received praise
48) expectations: more beauty
expectations of goodnesses--wealth,
skill, sex, appeal, friends
depres- 49) mood networking: negative

moods open the doors to remember-
sion ing many prior negatives
effects 50) prediction: depressed person
anticipates future more accurately
Cantor
51) mood attribution: when
depressed we misperceive neutral
expression as threats or critiques
happiness 52) unpredictability via overesti-

mation: cannot guess what will
effects make us happy and how happy it will
make us, overestimate how happy X
Gilbert, will make us
Wilson, 53) hedonic treadmill: self defeat-
Powell ing striving: more accomplishment
leads to bolder goals = more striving
54) habituation: our need for nov-
elty means much that brings happi-
ness today will bore us tomorrow
influence 55) suggestibility: when reminded

of our fault, perform worse on fol-
emotional lowing task though no relation
contagion 56) hatred of firstness: when in
group with crisis will not be first to
effects respond but deny influenced by
Cialdini, group; after someone else responds
we happily respond too
Gladwell 57) self as predictor distorter
positive behavior predictions of self
are very innacurate but predictions
of positivie behavior by others are
accurate for them and for us too
tribal 58) looping effects using a human

kind more finds benefits causing
effects more use causing illusion the kind is
essential or eternal causing more
Berreby use etc.;
59) making a new tribe rites of pas-
sage, making a slave, inquisition,
navy recruits = same ways: isolation,
new rules, commone fate group
punishments, little sleep, intense
work = social death, born to new
rules; training’s dark side urge for
social death/rebirth
60) founder effects make happen-
stance initial differences be part of
the kind’s definition helping distin-
guish it, making it easier to use cuz
easier to distinguish;
61) most stress at top and bottom
of ranks top monkey faces constant
rank testing, bottom faces constant
deferring;
62) kind bad is not you are smarter
than us or you are dumber than us
but you are different than us
63) invented traditions extend
through time (falsely) a kind making
it seem to capture _gsomethinig
essential shared_h among people,
making it feel eternal
intuition 64) hindsight bias = forgetting sur-

prise: people find results of already
effects done experiments obvious but when
presented research question, have
Myers not a clue
65) knowledge curse: we cannot
see/remember the world without
our current knowledge of it; pre-
sents appear inevitable to us
66) attribution bias: we are why
we succeeded but bad situations are
why we failed; they are why they
failed and situations are why they
succeeded
communi- 67) focus beats mass: we have

mass communication image but the
cation world is 20/80 one fifth or less
determines 80% or more of every-
Gladwell thing = persuaders, connectors,
mavins
68) we drop detail and assimilate
messages to our own framesinfo
ends up confirming existing frames
not inducing new ones, we drop
non-fitting details in order to pro-
tect existing frames
69) we try to persuade people to
innovate when we should merely
find the pioneeers a small minority
are pioneers, willing to try the new-
-finding them outperforms trying to
make everyone and anyone innovate
adaptive 70) the experience illusion--months

of detailed experience underper-
uncon- forms _gthin slices_h lasting sec-
onds:
scious
71) two years of class = same
Gladwell judgements as 6 seconds of class
tape viewing = we all make quick
unconscious judgements using very
little information
72) we are filled with lots of junk
intuitions--
73) but we can consciously develop
thin slice capability: years of
research and stats leads to what to
attend to: Gottman_fs ability to
predict divorce based on very par-
ticular mood exchange types in con-
versation
74) so much is structured assuming
experience counts but people who
observe your room for 20 minutes
can judge your personality better
than life long friends can
policy 75) harmful conserving intuitions:

do no harm (harm done by acting
dilemmas worse than harm done by not act-
ing); status quo effect (burden of
and proof on those changing status quo),
intuitions naturalism (violating nature thought
wrong but nature does harms too),
Baron right to rights and autonomy (coer-
cion hated but without it people
hurt themselves)
76) harmful distribution intui-
tions:; group loyalty (usness con-
founded with rightness cuz rules of
group taught to kids as what is good
= other rules = bad); retribution (our
harms seen/felt greater than their
harms so retribution escalates); fair-
ness (so many kinds of fairness it
becomes excuse to not change
harmful present behaviors cuz any
solution violate some sort of fair-
ness)
77) how we use intuitions makes
them harmful:: intuitions become
absolutes (makes compromise hard);
intuitions define aspiration levels
(example, the do no harm principle
becomes doing no harm is enough,
no need to do more than that, no
need to do good); wishful thinking
(we seek evidence against facts that
undermine our self interests); my
side bias/overconfidence (I seek
only facts that bolster my existing
beliefs, do not seek counter evi-
dence); belief overkill (arguments/
facts on both sides but people deny
any good to positions they oppose)
wrong 78) confounding uniform distribu-

tions with random ones
statistical 79) assuming normality without
intuitions confirming it--our intuitions that
things “should” be normally distrib-
Deming, H. uted are ignore sampling effects
Roberts, A. 80) reporting high correlations that
Madansky are tiny and wiped out by much
larger sample biases we miss
because enormously common in
publishings
81) reporting correlational
“effects” without magnitudes and
boundary conditions, so “X operates
Y way” is treated as “true” though a
sneeze or slight breeze wipes out
the effect.
logical 82) offer counterexamples for

social truths (which are statistical)--
fallacy --fallacies of irrelevance (question-
able authority, appeal to common
effects opinion, genetic fallacy, rationaliza-
Damer tion, drawing wrong conclusions,
using wrong reasons);
83) evils of the alternative support
our side----irrelevant emotional
appeals (appeal to pity, threat, tra-
dition, personal circumstance, flat-
tery, guilt by association, strong
feelings)----appeals to primary value
never defined of unquestionned
value
84) fallacies of linguistic confusion
(equivocation, ambiguity, improper
acdent, illicit contrast, innuendo,
misuse of vague expression, distinc-
tion without difference)
tightly 85) bad results from few decisions

made, few decisions per goal = took
linked few aspects of system into account--
--change negative goal into positive;
system change general into intermediate
effects level, change unclear into clear
smaller, change simple into multi-
Dorner ple, change implicit into explicit;----
slowness of our mental processes
obliges us to take mental shortcuts
(the key variable illusion) that over-
simplify
86) bad results from dealing with
happenstance problems not focus-
sing on fundamental problems----
approach management: study inter-
dependencies, map them, rank
problems by urgency and import,
delegate only problems truly inde-
pendent for isolated subsystems----
slowness of memorizing means the
many variables of each system
state, get forgotten leaving us to
respond to the few we ----remember
from our last system snapshot
87) bad results from not testing
hypotheses----reshape system so
that contradicting goals can collabo-
rate; when make/propose change in
the system, make certain which
traits of present situation you want
to retain and which you must retain;
avoid fire fighting----future prob-
lems are not real to us, only present
ones are, so we end up fire fighting
and generate bigger future effects
than we intend
How to use the table above. Find situations, locales, functional areas of an organization,
inter-organization interfaces, and the like---that seem to collect problems = too much hid-
den free energy at work, unshaped, uncontrolled. Something must be missing the energies
there to be harnassed. A key to locating such fecund for revolution, fecund for massive
energy release situations is several symptoms:
1. PROBLEM PERPETUATING SOLUTIONS what we are willing

to call, there, “a solution” seems to always perpetuate
our deepest problems there
2. X CAUSED PROBLEMS SOLVED BY MORE X problems
caused by too much X, there, are nearly always “solved”
by more X.
3. OPPOSITE EFFECTS ON OTHER SIZE SCALES when good
actions on size scale ONE are applied, bad consequences

on size scales below and above that appear; conversely
when bad actions on size scale ONE are applied, good
consequences on on smaller and larger scales appear.
4. PROBLEM CAUSES IN CHARGE OF SOLVING those
responsible for problematic situations there, are
appointed always to solve the problems they themselves
cause and sustain there.
5. ANY SOLUTION WITHIN BAD FRAMEWORK O.K. solutions
are applied within ideologic/religious/cultural
frameworks causing the problems being solved, but all
refuse to propose solutions that require any new
frameworks
6. SUCCESS FAILS all copy what works, till everyone is the
same, then situations change and there is no one with
alternate variant skills and attitudes so survival is not
possible.
7. SOLUTIONS REPEAT THE PROBLEM ELSEWHERE when a
problem is made to go away, it re-appears somewhere
else in the same system, each solution chasing it to
another locale nearby
The above seven are symptoms of unseen free energy at work in situations--underneath,
behind, around, above, not managed, recognized, respected, noticed. If you examine your
present workplace, aims, new allies, product ecosystems--you will always find a great num-
ber of locales where several or all of the above seven are present.
The presence of the above is a call to apply the TABLE above on 87 flaws in how brains think
to the locale indicated. The above are symptoms of hidden free energies at play. The brain
flaws at work in such locales are hiding the free energies and preventing people unleashing
them in wanted directions, amounts, forms.
This is two part method--find hidden free energies, analyze for brain flaws at work there
that prevent seeing and handling usefully such energies.

THE WELL LOCATED COUNTERED-BRAIN-FLAWS MODEL OF INNOVATION
the implementation
questions
HOW DO YOU DO THIS? Step one--seek locales likley to have large latent fallow free energies--using the
seven criteria listed above. AT THOSE LOCALES do an analysis of what brain
flaws are active, usually three to five is enough for practical purposes. Figure
out how to counter those brain flaws there and thereby notice and harnass the
free energies there. THE REALITY IS--that brain flaws MAKE OUR WORLD
SMALLER, the LIMIT what we NOTICE, what we TRY, what results we GET. They
make us miss MOST fo the energy in situations there to use. And such unused
free energy runs around creating endless trouble, surprises, upsets, bad side-
effects.
WHAT ARE THE MAJOR As already emphasized above--the big error is always the same--countering
OBSTACLES YOU ENCOUN- brain flaws in arbitrary locales where it does not matter. The key is LOCATION-
TER? -finding fecund situations where free energies are running around unseen and
unmanaged--THERE identify the particular brain flaws preventing noticing, find-
ing, handling those free energies, and there countering those brain flaws to
that energy gets used beneficially.

THE WELL LOCATED COUNTERED-BRAIN-FLAWS MODEL OF INNOVATION
the implementation
questions
WHY DO MANY NEVER Mis-trusting your own brain is quite a bit different than mis-trusting the brains
ATTEMPT IT? of others. We enjoy spotting faulty thought in others but do not enjoy them
spotting such flaws in us. This assymmetry causes endless trouble. Most brain
flaws are not found, admitted, countered because they challenge self images
and big inflated egos. They puncture the self assurrance people squirt over
others to impress them.
23. The Intensified Socialness Model of Innova-

tion
Silicon Valley is not a valley, it is a peninsula. Efforts to copy it elsewhere--Berlin, Beijing,
and others--have not realized the centrality of--density of interaction, frequency of chance
encounters, huge supplier variety within 5 minute drives, overlapping social-commercial-
academic events and locales. Social plasmas develop of interactions so dense and intense
that ego and ranking of originators are stripped off ideas, making them flow faster (but on a
peninsula they need not flow “farther”) than elsewhere. The intensified socialness model
of innovation emphasizes 16 kinds of socialness, made thusly intense and dense in Silicon
Valley and a few leading innovator firms. Simply making life more social and more intensely
social result in great scale innovation that emerge automatically without intend, plan, goal.
The recipe for history and entire field changing scale innovations of this chapter is as fol-
lows:
SIMULTANEOUSLY INSTALL AND INTENSIFY SIX KINDS OF SPACE:

1. SOCIAL INDEX LEVELS--increase the number of interests, needs, and capabili-
ties each person in the group knows and acts upon about all others in the
group
2. RISK AND DEVELOPMENT CULTURES--establish the secure emotional base to
return to that enables great risks and establish the trio of available training,
a population fo strivers, and a reliable near future that economic develop-
ment requires
3. SHARED SPACES--develop one or several, in diverse modalities, spaces that all
may access, contribute to, edit, and do real time collaborations thru (shared
CAD models, a cafe visited Thursday nights, a global same-time e-forum,
etc.)
4. CREATIVE MARGINS--set up: plural diverse competitive sources of funding of
new ideas and attempts, viable marginal incomes and rent facilities, weak
status and rank hierarchies allowing ideas to flow and be used regardless of
where invented
5. CITY-FICATIONS--set up the routines by which all of us turn new, strange, wild,
and unfamiliar places into homes, various kinds of mappings, explorations,
personalizations of encounter, events sustained and held
6. ORGANIZATION TYPE BLENDS--master and blend the seven ways to organize
people with tasks (bureau, family, craft, adhocracy, monastery, divisions,
polis) flexibly arrange and blend them as task mixes evolve.
SIMULTANEOUSLY ENACTING FOUR SORTS OF SOCIAL DEPTH:

1. SOCIAL PROCESS BALANCES--continually notice imbalances among the 64 social
processes shared by all individuals and groups--economic, political, cultural,
and social change ones--and resurrecting slighted ones to amaze other or
shrinking emphasized ones to amaze other
2. FLOWS AND HOMES--a number of things the flow of which is lubricated a num-
ber of ways, till various things all flow, mixing in swirls and eddies together,
till flowing--ideas, persons, technologies, funds, ventures--each finds homes
that love them into changing the world.
3. SOCIAL PLASMAS TILL IDEA FUSIONS--set up intense events and challenges, cri-
ses and exercises that push people beyond ego, stipping origin and pride off
of ideas so they flow faster and more, till idea fusions occur that release
immense new vistas, energies, and outcomes.
4. SOCIAL LIFE OF INFO AND DEVICES--surface the hidden unconscious routines
and facilities, un-noticed by all, that enable present devices and overt facili-
ties to do their tasks well enough--and with inertia, resistance to being
changed, such that when new devices or facilities are inserted, if they
require changed routines to work well, they will be rebuffed and left dere-
lict, unused.
SIMULTANEOUSLY ACHIEVE VARIOUS FORMS OF PSYCHIC DEPTH:

1. PRACTICE OF THE PERSONAL GROWTH PROCESS--change “being X” with “hav-
ing X” in many, nay, all dimensions of self and life; encourage regular deliber-
ate encounter of the Despair Doorway, that happens when all you know and
are have been tried and failed, so the only way forward is to let go of deeply
loved habitual parts of your self, and free them up to change considerably =
bingo, the key breakthru insight you need.
2. THE CREATION POWER FORM OF THE SOCIAL REVOLUTION PROCESS--do this
process: liberation at last from present ways and compromises via a last
straw, thrown into no man’s land for grateful encounter with a few other lib-
erated ones, who with you try the utterly new, again and again, till something
sticks, whereupon two things spontaneously effortlessly emerge--a historic
dream that attracts disciples, copycats worldwide, and, a new form of happi-
ness beyond mere lifestyle boons--public happiness, with long later work pro-
tecting your new invented baby from establish powers of the past trying to
assimilate it away.
SIMULTANEOUSLY DEVELOP SEVERAL WAYS OF BUILDING POWER

1. HIGH PERFORMANCES--practice moving to high performances via the good girl,
bad boy, wayware, and creativity dynamics of improv-ed moves
2. POWER TYPES DEVELOPED--simultaneously make and keep promises with more
and more diverse groups, unboundedly expanding power to get things done,
move from negative power that gets you noticed to assetive power that gets
some of your items on group agenda, to partnering power of developing group
agendas with others, to transformative power; move from individualist poli-
ties to communal ones to hierarchic ones to fatalist ones to individualist ones
again in cycles; liberate to free invention of the new making historic dreams,
that must be protected from old established power.
3. CAUSAL POWERS DEVELOPED--master spotting non-linear consequences of
present actions ahead of time; push problem statements, cause statements,
solution statements to root levels by countering common mental flaws in all
people; find ways of finding tipping points in systems where slight inputs
change entire system states; find ways to permanently make problems go
away by tweaking every aspect of a system in small myriad ways, that get
normalized into incremental continual new systems of work.
4. MASTER THE APPARATUS OF CULTURE MAKING, CHANGING, CREATING--distin-
guish definitions and uses of culture, tools enabling operations on culture
aspects, traits of culture (we wish changed) from dimensions of culture (same
as traits but we allow them to stay as semi-permenent constraints), types and
social processes of culture in some of which particular traits and dimensions

show up, powers and high performance of cultures that usually are what our
goals are.
IF AND WHEN A PERSON OR GROUP DEVELOPS, INTENSIFIES, PROMOTES, PER-

FECTS SIMULTANEOUSLY ALL THE ABOVE--INNOVATIONS OF HISTORY AND
ENTIRE FIELD CHANGING SCALE RESULT, AUTOMATICALLY, WHETHER WANTED
OR NOT.
IN THIS MODEL, INNOVATION EMERGES FROM SHEER PLURAL SOCIAL INTENSIFICA-
TIONS. It is not intended, planned, designed, or managed. It is a byproduct
of intensified socialness.
THINK OF IT THIS WAY---

INNOVATION COMES SIMPLY FROM
MASSIVELY DENSE FRIENDSHIPS
RELATIONS AMONG 16 TYPES OF
SOCIALNESS
TUNING RELATIONSHIPS INTO NON-LINEAR SYSTEM AVALANCHE EVENTS =
EMERGENTS = INNOVATIONS
INNOVATIONS AS CONGEALED INTENSIFIED SOCIALITIES
INTERACTION INTENSITY
How to
innovate: social index social process balances high perfor-
levels mance traits
intensify so-
cialness, both SPACE SOCIAL PSYCHIC PROMISES
engagement
forms and de- DEPTH DEPTH AT
tached forms, LEVERAGE
till explosive
non-linear sys- POINTS
tem ava-
lanches of shared flows and personal power types
immense social spaces homes growth
concentration creative
of mind and
mood and
margins SOCIAL
inventive city-fications social creation causal powers NESS
action “burp plasmas and power
up” innova- organization idea fusions
tions. types
CULTURE POWERS
risk & deve- social life of info and culture amount
lopment devices and dimension
cultures coverage
Before presenting each of the sixteen ways of being social, below, I want to lay out in prose
what the diagram tries to show--how the 16 combine to generate “innovation for free”.
There are several progressions implied in the diagram--1) from spaces set up to social depth
to psychic depth to power development (promises made and kept); 2) interactions intensi-
fied by increase in social index levels, bucking up slighted social processes, damping down
overly emphasized social processes, and moving toward a high performance culture; 3) set-
ting up a culture of risk and a culture of development, laying bare the hidden social supports
that make things work in present and in imagined future environments, and adjusting culture
traits, dimensions, powers, using tools and operations on culture elements, to produce high
performances and applications of culture power. The first progression is the INSIGHT pro-
cess from earlier in this book, writ large. The second intensifying connection and isolation in
a rhytm that moves toward high performance. The third progression erects entrepreneural
culture elements that evolve into general culture mastery and powers.
Insight powered by intensified interactions powered by inventive culture elements

erected into powers = INNOVATIONS.
1. social index levels---how many of the interests, needs, capabilities of each

member of a group does each other member know and act on?
Developed by Greene at Xerox PARC [28]
2. social process balances---which of 64 social processes found in any social unit
on any size scale is emphasized then, now, and later by a particular group and slighted
then, now, and later by it?
Developed by Rockefellor Brothers Funding of ICA, enhanced later by Greene at Mat-
sushita Electric Wireless Research Lab, Kodama [29]..
3. Traits of high performers--How much of how many of the 64 traits of high per-
formance teams does this particular group evince and how much of how many of the
missing ones does it now move towards achieving/embodying?
Developed by Vaill, March, Waterman, Noguchi [30].
4. Evolution among power types--how much of each type power does this group
now embody and how much of which types now missing from it does it move towards
achieving/embodying? Though MBA programs are stuck with coercive, reward, posi-
tional types of formal power and expert and consultative forms of personal power,
this all assumes bureaucracy one of only 7 Mintzberg types of organizing people.
Arendt, has a much more profound model of creating power from nothing by people
liberated from past ways, by “last straws”, collaborating, making and keeping prom-
ises to each other, trying out alternatives to past ways till something works, causing
the sudden emergence of institutions entirely new in history and of a new public form
of happiness. Rollo May added the evolution from negative to assertive to partnering
to transformative power and Ellis, Thompson, and Wildavsky added the evolution of
individualist cultures into communal, into hierarchic, into individualist cultures.
Developed by Rollo May, Fiske, Wildavsky [31].
5. Organization types evolved—how far from external controls to control by
alignment of deep interior emotive aspects of person has this group evolved?
Developed by Mintzberg and Greene [32].
6. 64 dimensions of all cultures--How many and which of the 64 types of rou-
tines/ways/views of a particular culture that are effective, when tested by others,
are how well shared and well practiced by this particular group now?
Developed by Hofstede, Nisbet, Bond, Hampden-Turner, Tropenaars. Tannen, Kierkeg-
aard, Sartre, Kaufmann, Cowan, Abbott [33].
7. Causal power types--How much of which types of causal power does this group
embody and aim towards embodying in the near future? This is a sequence from local
causes, to causes of local causes, to system-distributed causes of local causes, to

whole system problem culture causing of local problems, to systems of tipping points
causing local problems, to networks among sets of tipping points causing local prob-
lems. The latter are more social solving views than the former.
Developed by Ishikawa, Deming, Kano, Kaufmann, Cowan, Greene [34].
8. Risk, development, long-term demand-generated cultures--How much of
each of the traits of cultures of risk, cultures of development, does this group share,
rehearse, embody, improve? Risk cultures require prior set up of secure bases that
give people the confidence to try risky options. Cultures of development require pop-
ulations of strivers, readily available methods from experts, and reliable near futures.
Both require long term demand like the 10+ years of the Saturn V moon-rocket pro-
gram had in fostering the emergence of Silicon Valley.
Developed by Grondana, Marsh, Yunnus [35].
9. Personal Growth Process, Changing Be X to Have X--How much of the basic
self change process has this group together gone through? Ancient religions, modern
therapies, and performing arts training all use and present the same self change pro-
cess—changing from being X to having/wielding X where X is a succession of things
people base their pride on—their wants, their friends, their relations, their opinions,
their deeds, and so on. People who progress farther along this sequence are more
social and wield more of their own selves and of the selves of others than less mature
people do.
Developed by Kohlberg, Marx, Perry, Kegan, Sartre, Campbell, Strausberg [36].
10. Liberated to Freedom--How much of how many of the creation power dynam-
ics does this group now use and evolve towards more use of? This is the coincidence
that the sequence of “states of mind” in various traditions of spiritual growth, and
stages in social revolution, and stages in power development, and stages in social and
political development, share the same four part direction of evolution. Laid over
each other they form this model of stages of creating the power to create. This is the
only consulting tool having moods associated with objective social steps, hence very
powerful for moving from group climate to stages of development causing that cli-
mate.
Developed by Arendt, St. Teresa of Avile, St. John of the Cross, Gautama Buddha,
Daisetzu Suzuki [37].
11. Social Life of Devices & Info—how many of the invisible social supports that
existing devices and ways depend on are noticed and channeled to support new
devices and ways being installed? The French and European practice literature
brought to Xerox PARC in the form of anthropologists of technology found that tech-
nologies, products, and their devices worked because of hidden social supports, and
new replacement items that require changes in those hidden social supports often
thereby failed.
Developed by Duguid, Lave, Wegner, J.S.Brown, Bruce, and Greene at Xerox PARC
[38].
12. Shared Spaces—how many people, how diverse, with what amounts of fre-
quency, quality, and intensity join ideas, views, and selves in particular spaces (physi-
cal or virtual)? There are various kinds of space, intellectual spaces, emotive spaces,
social spaces, work spaces, family-home spaces and they differ in kind of socialness
that “takes place” there and is afforded there
Developed by Shrage, Runco, Simonton [39]
13. City-fications—how well have we mapped what is around and when and how to
make use of it? 288 operators by which people turn wildernesses and new jobs/cities
into homes. Socialness increases as we map overlaps between our interests, needs,
capabilities and those afforded by where we have arrived. Those who city-fy the
most, end up most social, diverse, powerful, and influential.
Developed by Jane Jacobs [40]
14. Flows and Homes—how well do various resources flow among various supports
they might need till some stick to a place the turns them into huge new supports
themselves? people, ideas, funds, technologies flow and flow, between organizations,
ventures, labs, media till they find someone to love them, develop them into some-
thing. This is a theory of socialness of tech clusters like Silicon Valley.
Developed by JS Brown, Duguid, Zhang [41].
15. Social Plasmas and Idea Fusions—how many diverse person and views interact
how intensely stripping off ego and status concerns how deeply till idea meets idea
purely on idea terms fusing into new inventions? This is the idea of a scale of social-
ness till the most social state is reached where people actually lose some normal lay-
ers of socialness, and become creators of societies by doing so.
Developed by Greene, Shils, Arendt [42].
16. Creative Margins—how many very capable people of how many diverse fields
with how much regularity share some marginal location, physical, social, or virtual
where normal rules drop away and new combinations and practices some quite inept
or violating of usual ways are experimented with. Groups having more such marginal
subworlds where usual norms and rules attenuate allowing experimentings in private
where babies new ways can develop without public condemnation and testing, are
more social.
Developed by Isadora Duncan, Karl Jung, Herman Hesse, the WWI anti-war
movement in Ascona, Switzerland [43].
16 KINDS OF SOCIALNESS WORKSHEET

TO MEASURE, TO MEASURE HOW THINGS IMPACT THEM, TO MEASURE HOW INCREASES OR
DECREASES IN THEM AFFECT THINGS WE WANT--CREATIVITY, PRODUCTIVITY, ETC.
1. social index levels---how many of the interests, needs, capabil-

ities of each member of a group does each other member know and
act on?
Developed by Greene at Xerox PARC [28]
2. social process balances---which of 64 social processes found in

any social unit on any size scale is emphasized then, now, and later
by a particular group and slighted then, now, and later by it?
Developed by Rockefellor Brothers Funding of ICA, enhanced later
by Greene at Matsushita Electric Wireless Research Lab, Kodama
[29]..
3. Traits of high performers--How much of how many of the 64
traits of high performance teams does this particular group evince
and how much of how many of the missing ones does it now move
towards achieving/embodying?
Developed by Vaill, March, Waterman, Noguchi [30].
4. Evolution among power types--how much of each type power

does this group now embody and how much of which types now
missing from it does it move towards achieving/embodying?
Though MBA programs are stuck with coercive, reward, positional
types of formal power and expert and consultative forms of per-
sonal power, this all assumes bureaucracy one of only 7 Mintzberg
types of organizing people. Arendt, has a much more profound
model of creating power from nothing by people liberated from
past ways, by “last straws”, collaborating, making and keeping
promises to each other, trying out alternatives to past ways till
something works, causing the sudden emergence of institutions
entirely new in history and of a new public form of happiness.
Rollo May added the evolution from negative to assertive to part-
nering to transformative power and Ellis, Thompson, and Wildavsky
added the evolution of individualist cultures into communal, into
hierarchic, into individualist cultures.
Developed by Rollo May, Fiske, Wildavsky [31].
5. Organization types evolved—how far from external controls to
control by alignment of deep interior emotive aspects of person
has this group evolved?
Developed by Mintzberg and Greene [32].
6. 64 dimensions of all cultures--How many and which of the 64
types of routines/ways/views of a particular culture that are effec-
tive, when tested by others, are how well shared and well prac-
ticed by this particular group now?
Developed by Hofstede, Nisbet, Bond, Hampden-Turner, Tropenaars. Tan-
nen, Kierkegaard, Sartre, Kaufmann, Cowan, Abbott [33].
7. Causal power types--How much of which types of causal power
does this group embody and aim towards embodying in the near
future? This is a sequence from local causes, to causes of local
causes, to system-distributed causes of local causes, to whole sys-
tem problem culture causing of local problems, to systems of tip-
ping points causing local problems, to networks among sets of
tipping points causing local problems. The latter are more social
solving views than the former.
Developed by Ishikawa, Deming, Kano, Kaufmann, Cowan, Greene [34].
8. Risk, development, long-term demand-generated cultures--
How much of each of the traits of cultures of risk, cultures of
development, does this group share, rehearse, embody, improve?
Risk cultures require prior set up of secure bases that give people
the confidence to try risky options. Cultures of development
require populations of strivers, readily available methods from
experts, and reliable near futures. Both require long term
demand like the 10+ years of the Saturn V moon-rocket program
had in fostering the emergence of Silicon Valley.
Developed by Grondana, Marsh, Yunnus [35].
9. Personal Growth Process, Changing Be X to Have X--How much
of the basic self change process has this group together gone
through? Ancient religions, modern therapies, and performing arts
training all use and present the same self change process—changing
from being X to having/wielding X where X is a succession of things
people base their pride on—their wants, their friends, their rela-
tions, their opinions, their deeds, and so on. People who progress
farther along this sequence are more social and wield more of their
own selves and of the selves of others than less mature people do.
Developed by Kohlberg, Marx, Perry, Kegan, Sartre, Campbell,
Strausberg [36].
10. Liberated to Freedom--How much of how many of the cre-

ation power dynamics does this group now use and evolve towards
more use of? This is the coincidence that the sequence of “states
of mind” in various traditions of spiritual growth, and stages in
social revolution, and stages in power development, and stages in
social and political development, share the same four part direc-
tion of evolution. Laid over each other they form this model of
stages of creating the power to create. This is the only consulting
tool having moods associated with objective social steps, hence
very powerful for moving from group climate to stages of develop-
ment causing that climate.
Developed by Arendt, St. Teresa of Avile, St. John of the Cross,
Gautama Buddha, Daisetzu Suzuki [37].
11. Social Life of Devices & Info—how many of the invisible social
supports that existing devices and ways depend on are noticed and
channeled to support new devices and ways being installed? The
French and European practice literature brought to Xerox PARC in
the form of anthropologists of technology found that technologies,
products, and their devices worked because of hidden social sup-
ports, and new replacement items that require changes in those
hidden social supports often thereby failed.
Developed by Duguid, Lave, Wegner, J.S.Brown, Bruce, and Greene
at Xerox PARC [38].
12. Shared Spaces—how many people, how diverse, with what
amounts of frequency, quality, and intensity join ideas, views, and
selves in particular spaces (physical or virtual)? There are various
kinds of space, intellectual spaces, emotive spaces, social spaces,
work spaces, family-home spaces and they differ in kind of social-
ness that “takes place” there and is afforded there
Developed by Shrage, Runco, Simonton [39]
13. City-fications—how well have we mapped what is around and
when and how to make use of it? 288 operators by which people
turn wildernesses and new jobs/cities into homes. Socialness
increases as we map overlaps between our interests, needs, capa-
bilities and those afforded by where we have arrived. Those who
city-fy the most, end up most social, diverse, powerful, and influ-
ential.
Developed by Jane Jacobs [40]
14. Flows and Homes—how well do various resources flow among
various supports they might need till some stick to a place the
turns them into huge new supports themselves? people, ideas,
funds, technologies flow and flow, between organizations, ven-
tures, labs, media till they find someone to love them, develop
them into something. This is a theory of socialness of tech clus-
ters like Silicon Valley.
Developed by JS Brown, Duguid, Zhang [41].
15. Social Plasmas and Idea Fusions—how many diverse person
and views interact how intensely stripping off ego and status con-
cerns how deeply till idea meets idea purely on idea terms fusing
into new inventions? This is the idea of a scale of socialness till the
most social state is reached where people actually lose some normal lay-
ers of socialness, and become creators of societies by doing so.
Developed by Greene, Shils, Arendt [42].
16. Creative Margins—how many very capable people of how many

diverse fields with how much regularity share some marginal loca-
tion, physical, social, or virtual where normal rules drop away and
new combinations and practices some quite inept or violating of
usual ways are experimented with. Groups having more such mar-
ginal subworlds where usual norms and rules attenuate allowing
experimentings in private where babies new ways can develop
without public condemnation and testing, are more social.
Developed by Isadora Duncan, Karl Jung, Herman Hesse, the WWI
anti-war movement in Ascona, Switzerland [43]

THE INTENSIFIED SOCIALINESS MODEL OF INNOVATION
the
questions
HOW DO YOU DO This approach to innovating is simple but a lot of things and a lot of work done simul-
THIS? taneously. You just intensify socialness 16 ways at the same time. Sometime while
doing that, innovations of major size will emerge whether you want or plan them or
not. They arise automatically as socialness--both engaged and detached forms of it--
get denser, more frequent, more emotional, beyond more normal norms and bound-
aries, breaking personal and group habits and traditions. Step by step ego falls away,
normal culture and family limits fall away, normal personality shynesses and hesitan-
cies fall away. Interactions become more numerous, more diverse, more detailed,
more multi-level, more emotionally intense, more beyond norms and routines. As
more intense isolation altlernates with more intense connection, as boundaries of
ego, and expectation, and worry, and comfort get crossed, ideas that were born ten-
tative get bigger and bolder, and regions of self and world never ventured into spawn
ideas never imagined before. All this evolves, grows, develops, step by step, almost
invisibly till somewhere, often where no one expects it, everyone is somewhere else--
somewhere they have never been before or imagined before, with big idea friends
they never could have imagined before.
WHAT ARE THE This is not a 1-2-3 shortcut to innovation. This is a quite broad and general road that
MAJOR OBSTACLES gets you there, always, but not at a certain set time. Its value is it always gets you to
YOU ENCOUNTER? biggo innovations; its cost is 16 diverse directions of socialness to develop at the same
time. Each on its own is do-able. Each on its own has valuable side-effects. But
TOGETHER the sixteen become something vastly more than any of them alone.
WHY DO MANY People want a shorlcut. They want something simple. The trade-off is short-cut ways
NEVER ATTEMPT IT? often do not get you where you want. Long slow wide roads always get you where you
want to go, but not quickly, not simply, not without massive self change.
Below, in the rest of this chapter, I present TEN models corresponding to ten of the 16 kinds
of socialness of this model of innovation. Some have appeared in other chapters. The mod-
els are here for reference, adding flesh to the paragraphs above.
Cities as Diversity Generators,

A Theory of Jane Jacobs,
1961, in The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Vintage Books, NYC
niches from niches cities are diversity, when they lose it, they die; it is the diversity
generated by cities that sustains civilizations, without it they die
too;
city diversity itself permits and attracts and stimulates and
invents more diversity
DIVERSITY
SOURCES
small entities = diversity city diversity is small scale enterprise/entity diversity because
only small entities cannot afford vertically integrating within
themselves functions and services upon which they depend, so
they need lively diverse cities as supply environments
time, need, cost, numbers cov- cities generate diversity 4 ways: 1) parts of cities must serve
erage = diversity more than one primary function so people go outside on differ-
ent schedules for different reasons; 2) blocks must be short; 3)
districts must mix buildings that vary in age and condition
because entirely new buildings are so expensive they drive out
diversity; 4) dense concentration of people
success fails, monumentality four forces against diversity: 1) diversity self destructs by
kills, self-fulfilling fear of slums, making places attractive enough that people bid more so only
monumentality of funding kills the richest can afford driving out small, new, dark nascent
diverse things; 2) massive single elements driving out diver-
sity; 3) population instability driving out diversity as people
expect others to flee so they flee till all flee inviting develop-
ers to eradicate it all; 4) money gluts or starves development
that brings diversity
DIVERSITY
KILLERS
causal path: diversity to attrac- diversity makes a district attractive, competition to move
tion to competition to price rise there occurs, winners of these competitions will be narrow
to nascents out to repeats to segment of the diversity of uses there that makes it attrac-
homogeneity to death tive; the richest winners will win bids gradually pricing out
nascent, small diverse stores and services; successful expen-
sive uses will be repeated as they are found to be lucrative till
five, ten or more of the same entities are selling there = no
diversity
double diversity destroyers: double destroying of diversity happens at the tipping point
destroy where arrive = are because the repeating arrivers who win expensive bids for
repeats, destroy where left = popular space reduce diversity there while, because they left
were unique there some place, reduced diversity as well at the place they left
diversity growth: start = replace in initial growth stages of diversity, new diversity comes by
samenesses, end = replace consuming/replacing samenesses, but late stage diversity
diversity includes repeating financial winners, that is, replacing diver-
sity with samenesses
CRUX
THE
the issue: measures to find tip- the issue is spotting the tipping point where more new entries
ping point where new arrival are reducing diversity than increasing it--the issue in doing
decrements diversity this spotting is having valid standardized measures of diversity
dimensions so all can measure when the newly arriving newly
attracteds are killing off the diversity they arrived because of
diversity solutions: zone for three solutions to the diversity destroying diversity problem:
diversity, tax for diversity, zone for diversity not uniformity; assess taxes for diversity (do
covert cultural profits into finan- not impose uniform rates on whole areas/blocks); staunchness
cial, know diversity growth against economic profit for cultural/diversity profit by key
alternative places buildings; competitive diversion (diversity growing areas as
well known as diversity arrived areas so less expensive moves
SOLUTIONS
DIVERSITY
into them can increase their diversity)

design complementary functions deadly borders redone as exchanges between partner comple-
to exchange across borders mentary institutions facing each other across borders (ice rink
opposite cafe, roller rink opposite sportswear shop etc.):
replace logically clean planner borders with diversity inviting
exchange lines between functional distinct areas: railroads,
highways, parks, university edges, etc.
centers for criss-crossing traffic, through land and not through land = two types; centers of
peripheries for functions areas for criss-crossing traffic and functions around peripher-
ies for exchanges at borders not functions at centers
Seven Stages in How People Think:

What is Subject in One Stage Becomes Object for Reflection of Next Stages

OBJECT THOUGHT Can recognize objects and persons Cannot distinguish own perception of
Object permanence of exist independently of our own object from actual properties of the
independent elements sensing of them; can distinguish object; cannot do cause-effect reason-
inner sensation from outer stimu- ing; cannot recognize that other persons
object: I have nothing. lus have their own purposes independently
subject: I am objects. of ourselves; cannot see oneself as having
impulses that one can control or manage
Perceptions Demanding need fulfillment Transient Emotional States
CATEGORY Unites plural data in the actual Cannot experience “the future” co-
THOUGHT under one category; can do cause- present with “the present”, that is
effect reasoning; can construct implicit as consequences of present
Within Category Thinking own point of view and see others actions; Cannot subordinate current cat-
object: I have objects; have different point of view; can egory to another for same data or a possi-
regulate own impulses, needs, ble category that is other, hence, has no
subject: I am my needs goals; can delay gratification ability to create long range plans, pat-
terns, or generalizations; cannot reason
abstractly or form hypotheses; cannot
take own point of view and other’s point
of view simultaneously; cannot construct
obligations and expectations to maintain
mutual interpersonal relations; cannot
internally coordinate more than one
point of view or need; cannot distinguish
one’s needs from oneself; cannot self
appreciate “ I have low self esteem”.
Cause-effect Transactional reciprocity Enduring Dispositions: Needs, prefer-
ences
ABSTRACT Can reason abstractly, can reason Cannot systematically produce all possi-
THOUGHT about reasoning; can experience ble relations; systematically isolate vari-
the future as co-present with the ables to test hypotheses; cannot
Cross- Categories Think-
present--implicit in what ones construct generalized system regulating
ing [Traditionalism]
commits to in the present; can interpersonal relationships; cannot orga-
object: I have needs; create hypotheses and test them; nize own states or internal phenomena
can form negative classes; can into systematic whole; cannot distinguish
subject: I am my val- form personal ideals; can be self from one’s relationships (cannot see
ues, I am my relations aware of shared feelings and self as author of relations).
expectations that take precedence
over own feelings and expecta-
tions; can internalize another’s
point of view; can empathize on
internal not transactive level;
responsive to socialization without
being responsible for it
Abstractions: ideals, Mutuality: can internalize Inner States: self consciousness
values, generalization, another’s point of view
hypotheses


RELATIONSHIP Can be free from any ideas or val- cannot establish two different power
THOUGHT ues in principle; is author of own positions within one relationship; cannot
values and manager of own rela- own their own work; cannot detect how
System-Complex Think-
tionships; can create relation the institutional settings I am in subtly
ing [Modernism]
between independent value-gen- control my values and life outcomes, lim-
object: I have values erators rather than by sharing val- iting my autonomy
and relations; ues; have separate behaviors of
subject: I am my com- others causing my feeling so they
mitments; I am my loy- are responsible for behaviors but I
alties; others concerns am responsible for feelings I get
are my concerns from their behaviors, not them;
others are not responsible for how
I feel
Ideology as Theory of Regulate relationships and multi- Self authorship: identity, autonomy,
Relationships: organize, ple roles; maintaining boundaries self regulation; a self independent of
evaluate, and create and setting limits in relationships duties, roles, and relations (having
ideals and values duties not being them)
DIVERSITY Can be free of any system of val- Cannot get different paths and ideologies
THOUGHT (horizon- ues or ideology; can unravel any to work together. Cannot get people to
subtle system of values in institu- shift to loyalty to two or more such com-
tal version of Clear
tional settings; can detect how plete competitive systems. Can see the
Mind Thought power underlies innocuous seem- possible theoretical equal validity of dif-
below) ing hierarchies and procedures ferent paths and ways but cannot distin-
Diverse System Thinking around me; can build relations guish practical differences in concrete
[post modernism] between wholly incompatible sys- powers and results.
object: I have theories tems and cultures
and systems, commit- This stage probably exists only because
ments and loyalties human life-span have extended from 50
subject: I am refusal of to 75 years of age in the last 50 years.
mystifying some one
system or ideology
Procedures for De-con- Negotiating the provisional Self whose construction is relativized:
structing ideologies and erecting of boundaries and lim- my whole self is in need of re-invention
systems its in new types of relationships to relate to selves of other cultures and
between incompatible systems genders; recognize possibility of bor-
rowing styles across gender and culture
gaps without unwitting participation in
power sources hidden behind gender
and culture behaviors;


CLEAR MIND Can see the unity underneath Cannot get beyond the fundamental anxi-
THOUGHT (vertical appearances; can accept each eties of human existence: cannot imag-
diverse path or way as one of ine how to redesign humanity now that
version of Diversity
many valid ways towards truth, the power of gene design has been devel-
Thought above) having its own distortions and vir- oped by humanity; cannot imagine a new
Trans-Diversity tues; can treat all comers as global religion founded in clear “no
Thinking [Buddhism as a friends and fellow spirit travelers; mind” thought and feeling;
Philosophy] can detect the roots of power and
ego drives in fundamental human
anxieties that people flee from
object: I have demysti- rather than befriend; can befriend
fications of each of var- such fundamental anxieties myself
ious ideology systems,
gender systems,
national system
subject: I am clear “no

mind” consciousness
beyond illusions of
diversity
Procedures for Detect- Negotiating provisional unities Self whose relativity is relativized: the
ing Which Fundamental underneath apparently diverse pluralities and diversity of ways around
Anxiety of Existence systems and drives me is illusion, underneath which is a
Underlies Particulars of reality of divine emptiness, shining
a Way, Path, Ideology, clear consciousness that fulfills my
Gender dreams and releases me from the roots
of division, difference, diversity in ego;
self who returns energy from head to
base of spine, who becomes its bodily
mind not its intellectualized mind
alone. Self stripped of modernity and
Western tradition “head” energies and
yet stripped also of traditional society
refusal of self-negation culture and the
open future horizon it continually
renews.


GLOBAL ECO Can see why and how I and others Cannot invent new consciousness to
THOUGHT use differences to keep others replace global no mind clear conscious-
out, to deny the unity of human ness: cannot change consciousness I was
From Individual Trans-
clear mind consciousness; can use born with; cannot invent new partial
Diversity to Global Trans-
differences myself as bridges to ways tailored for local conditions and
Diversity and Trans-Unity
others not walls anxieties.
object: I have clear

“no mind” conscious-
ness beyond the illu-
sions of diversity.
subject: I am a global
movement to stop the
using of differences for
prejudice, war, self jus-
tification, keeping oth-
ers out; I am using
differences as bridges
to others instead of
walls to keep others out
Conflict resolution, dif- Get differing people to change Self who has a mission to shift loyalties
ference demystifica- loyalty from their local from of others from their local happenstance
tion, tracing difference birth systems and conscious- commitment systems to a new global
wall effects and envi- nesses to a new global no mind clear mind commitment that does not
sioning bridge effects clear consciousness that refuses use difference as excuse for walling
to use differences as walls and others out or conflict.
excuses for conflict
P16 don’t
bother
43
others or
self
why can I not
make my own
story
CONTINGENCY
IMPACT
FUTILITY 42
41 will it/I make
a difference?
preserve:
peacefulness of
flaw:
death is exteriors
or
or exteriors or
must I die? life
MORTALITY NAUSEA
EXISTENTIAL
QUESTIONS
35 SIN 48
Nisbet
TRAGEDY
do my plan mystory of:
exper- have known adaptors
the group
action or
or or experiences I
play roles in
or
meaning AUDIENCE 45 why does posses-
46 ing make me object
where is meaning?
NO ESCAPE
what/who am I? 38
RELATIVITY
people arrangements
tasks or
of:
ethnic selves act role = id situations
or love the
institutions Nisbet intent = id situation or
or Nisbet love the person
why something?
40 why love dies?

primacy: 56 immanentgods: work: 52 27
life or 63 pleasant end work to caring seniors:
or
quality substance
about self
54 (attributes)
exactitude
or
or 50
Nisbet 49 or
several chance
9 causation:
plural 10
or 61 world reality is: 62 or
25 preserve: 26
is fallen stable or in flux from talent save face or
distributed gradual [contracts
homo-
causes or always save truth
causes Nisbet or
or info
55 51
(mind to mind)
analysis 12 serial
or COMMUNITY
or relation
synthesis parallel

Nisbet
or or
or right one pole contradiction:
other categories over harshness
friends or other tolerated
achieved
life or
14 relationships 13 inner or
tell
or
30 not tolerated 29 personalasrejection
or or 58 blended middle 57 or
outer or
ascribed
rank
EMOTION
RANK or
GROUP project OUTPUT or 21 22
2 right vs. wrong environment: 6
or 17 drive for 18 apologetic
backward
1 foreground item morality 5 focus from individual: reasoning
or
or controllable distinction
or parallel forward
background projects or reasoning
Nisbet power from vs. case details
Nisbet are what is real] 31 as relation
hierarchy closeness individual universalist 59 status 20 exclusion interesting 24
threat
egalitarian
or
Most businesses and academics use 8
Japan dimensions, 40 years old and too general

& vague to help--I use 64 recent ones
specific enough to fully describe a culture.
K'/!@- 524

$"-
%*% .
-%
)%
-$0$#

%
4

%
*
0

,
*

E!

2
&

)

E!

-!?
A
0

' 2
'?
!, @

)$"
*
E!%

2&
*

)

& !.@
>
'!
.! ,

Models
reflecting
CREATE
P13 WAY
WARE


doing
HIGH
PERFORMANCE
CULTURE
TRAITS
effort excep-
tions
Extremes
past successes
BAD GOOD
BOY GIRL
parts

If you want to EXCEL as a parent, as a MANAGER, as a LEADER, you want to

inspire high performance in others--these 64 are WHAT, therefore, you specifically
have to do---actions & systems & events that fosters these 64 achieve
high performance (in sports, in science, in commerce, in arts)
institutionalizing overweening monitoring of living archetypes replicated immigration
analogous wanted continual moni- liberation &
continual search changes found & effectiveness of
institutionalizing toring & counter- ourselves olympian destiny
freedom
volunteer army
for further debunked ing of erosion forces I guess people like
similar revisions editing own ideas
of continual ossification me write it baby revolutions
of past monitoring & spawned everywhere
liquefying
countering
self criticism 59 48 44
society 64 acting to revise 63 acting to fame haven
60 INSTI- WRITING “the audience MY “send me your
SEEKING the of
old in light SPOTTING MONITOR
the new
protect the TUTION- HISTORY 47 STORY 43
ANALOGOUS OVER- INSTITU- new from the old ALIZE WITH of the unborn AVATAR COPIOUSLY huddled masses” NEW
LIBERATIONS Back to Zero WEENING TIONALIZING Socializing COUNTERING DEEDS and ancestors” EXISTENCE COPIED Replicating RECRUITS
Humanity’s Your Selves
Perusing Surveying Erosion Transformation Erosions Status from Drama Pioneering Demonstra- Novelty’s
Possible OLD PARADIGM Liberations set up NEW PARADIGM Contribution ZATION Possibility
A WORLD OF
Liberations REPLACED finding monitor- ESTABLISHED LIBERATIONS
seeing the analogous beyond OF PERSONS completely
specific erosion counter particular past hierarchy relevant daily lives exported hope limitless sympathy
ently from new needing analogous types erosion actions my privacy publicized people everywhere seeing all those
viewpoint liberations new monkeys, new seeing possibility others trapped in their
keeping watch on blocking and tackling bananas where there was none selves and lives
tion spot
Defending 46 Global & 41
61 62 58 45 DAILY
SEEING WITH
57
ANALOGOUS the Future MONITOR COUNTER POWERLESS TOTAL Historical POSSIBILITY
FOR
42
Dreams INVITING
NEW EYES LIBERATIONS EROSIONS EROSIONS PAST RELEVANCE OTHERS ALL OTHERS
Conserving Local
Not Content Disrupted Immortality Mindlessness Misinterpretations by Bystander Becomes
the past assimilates Masses Conquest Plurality Instructing Generation
the new as it first unity of mankind
appears may only
the new is
not well CARE the passage
of time causes the new into plural hints of entire the miracle MIRACLE my life experienced in
diverse past frame- systems crumbling of victories
be tip of iceberg defined enough to forgetting of “last works becomes teaching shared vision of
of further novelty be consensed on straw” violations “oh weofusedinterpretation
to do
one pillar pulled and the slammed door
the garbageman
new future
suddenly people must the entire ediface becomes archway eyes lighting up with
pull the string and “what was I revolting that all the time” tumbles into a new world professor hope worldwide
stay awake during
a new sun appears meetings about” 55
measuring
56 countering COUNTER drama
35
representativeness
39
fragility of INTER- 36 “see what is “show the way” I LEAD
the new
51 COUNTER eroding powers PRETIVE ENTIRE happening there” SURPRISED I AM 40
52 COOPERATION OFFENSE of the past ASSIMI- OLD WAY BY THE
UNFATHOMED Baby Care MISFIT FORGETTING LATION UNDERMINED Whistle Points VICTORY THE WAY Most Individual WORLD
Distinguishing Found becomes Globalization
Ecosystems Emotions Breaking Breaking David vs. All Responses Transform- Most
Disrupted Disrupted Inter- Interpersonal Goliath Inventions ational Social of Local Acts
Organization Dependencies Identity GLOBAL possibilities
RISKS OF ASSIMILATION
Dependencies THREATS the past the unfair GLOBAL
the new BIRTH the new the past assimilates fight VISIBILITY the POSSIBILITY for everyone
counters counters all assimilates the new personal, now changed by
all institutional personal habits the new procedurally
new institutionally old things are auto- root for the underdog unimagined tactics group, mankind what we do here
arrangements old things are easy matic
unhead of acts,
identities discovered and now
the old church beside powers that be applied at unheard changing the defini-
to do continually remaking
the cell phone store besides themselves 54 CREATION of places
COUNTER POWER 33
53 PERSONAL
49 50 COUNTER PROCESS Steps of Self & AGAINST 34 37 38
MISFIT MISFIT ASSIMILATION TION Social Change ODDS IMPROVISATION FUTURE EVERYONE
Invention
the Old Dreams realization that emergence of Consequences
discovery of the whole world start of war of Ways sudden colleague interactions new power beyond risk-filled action
other liberated as enemy liberation emergence already are your planned or to realize novelty
ones with friends like you they just don’t get refused of a new new envisioned envisioned powers pullingbottom cards
utterly alone together, who needs enemies the point compro- public world the story retelling
mises & threats form of happiness the hut is really a from a house of cards
simultaneous discovery game done with
the rat rejects its if I were to live for castle
16 inventions
cheese 1000 years... 31
FINDING entry to no act of 32 emergence of
THESE 28 emergence of 27
ANOTHER man’s land 15 12 rebellion
11 SUPRISED public forms
BEGINNINGS SURPRISED power from ENACTING
LIBERATED FIGHTING WANTING WANTING BY of happiness ARE BY nothing THE NEW
Optimism of Against Response Unsettledness “flow” Unhappy All Self, New Designs
Impractical Hopelessness the act of THE BREAK abandon- PIONEEER immolation Time, Past PROMISE work to
UNCERTAINTY courage ment of HAPPINESS of daily labor to POWER fashion
utter loneliness hopeless odds of saying “no” burned bridges personal happinesses create really new acts and speech to
the road never the outrageous is choosing my destiny, a bull’s eye on my lifestyle goals work as one long vision and realize realize new vision
before taken my normalcy so this is my battle- forehead a cityscape made of party it
sweating inventions fashioning holes in
ground tightropes being
30 25
Discovering 9 RELEASED Obeying CAPTIVATED
10 FROM BY 26
13 14 Liberty HAVING 29 POSSIBILITY FASHIONING
NECESSITY UNSEEABLE SHEER DEFINING ESCAPE FROM PRIVATE Freedom OF NEW THE NEW
Provisos & Excuses of Self & Mortality Embraced as Partial Responses All Emergents Not Contents
World Better making & keeping Natality struggle to
utter despair at tipping point refusal of emergence of
something CONSCIOUSNESS absolute promises to each past inside PEACE see and pre- solutions better
continuing, having fundamental end of road releases system- other selves in serve what
building houses own operations or planned ones
caught in the headlights
what the world is, Alice falls thru the the butterfly flaps one with words reflective garbage in this haystack there
is at fault rabbit hole into wing disposal is a needle, I believe my ideas are birth
house of mirrors another world leavings of the real
ideas
death last straw 7 emergence 24 emergence
4 sentence 8 20 SEPARATING of novelty 23
THIS 3 COMMIT COLLAPSE POSSESSING of colleagues 19 NOVELTY SURPRISED
OVER Limitless ENEMY UNKNOWN Absurd OLD SELF HONOR Wealth of the EXCUSES CHAFF From Trying NOVELTY
repeated DESPAIR exhaustion saturation HOMELESS Change fighting SURVIVAL INSTITUTION Innovations
of all you do for COMMUNITY imagining novel DEVELOPMENT focus from
blocking intents &
or failure and know end of the road super saturation survivaltogether alternative worlds & means attempted survival struggles
drawing five jacks quicksand, every not even close, miss eleven fingers in the institutions together bricolage a boat made of
18 21 22
1 2 5 6 17 VISION BEYOND LIVING
STUBBORN FAILURE OF AT LIMIT OF BEYOND TOUGH TOUGHNESS & SHEER SURVIVING
Copyright 2003 by Richard Tabor Greene, All Rights Reserved, US Government Registered
*

+,- ./ (0 (0
)8
&1 (0 3+453+#
3+453+#
2 !2 ( (
! ( 99

*9
++

) ( !&!
" 67 " ! # " ! :;
! 1 & $! . 2
$
( ( &

< ( 2 2
#2= >9
*
+ >

@
%
2 ( ! &
" A
$= (!! !
< > '(
! B( (
" C ). 2 (> "
7 (!
# ) !
$
$

%#!7 !

# (
#( ! + ( #
> % ( ! :#;
# ( ( ( (!! # >
( 2 ! +
(
( ( 8! > "
" #! #

" " (
&!# (
- ? " / ! >

Taking Place: An Idea and Event Architecture for Creative City Theory and Practice INSIGHT
Use these to design cities,
businesses, markets,
and to measure how
HUMANE plans from UPD
feeling
ATE
frame change
of joke punch-
alternate
like engagement
the with
sudden detachment
apply to
DIM
ENS
ION P37
by deeper functions ever more sequential the stages of
penetration of as new social lines = non- abstract dynamics from
architects and local forms of materials & technical
for
linear system
avalanches
The representations
Insight self built fractal penetrating any
globality doing them concept & causal culture
planners and performance appear
till partial
solutions merge
Process accumulate
failure set
models mapping
new what works &
leaders are. as global
benchmarks What to
functions
enabled by
suddenly into
entiresolution, invert
and index &
articulate it
spot diamonds
Recognize
what does not
in the rough; work, who leads
RI E
& past standards

Update newmaterials social/tech.l prune failure index richly Patterns & who follows
EA US
creations
TY
demand away to get spec of
US
change emerging in locales
appearing noise
LIN &
ways of required solution amid finding core
E
stratify erect
N- SE
thinking as customer attributes noise responses: city-fy processes blending tune
DI
developers new ideas
become customers requirements: object, emotion, there & missing engines: that mix of
NO XPO
VE
paradigms never assume them inter-idea, inter-person, segment, associatn., in places constantly mix cultures/fields/
statistical, of projects appear from past reminding, frame,
RS
inter-domain, inter- find
create diverse scales till paradoxes
E
complexity, neighborhood, goals interpretation,

leaders expce. repertoires diversities force thought beyond
ITY
creativity shun vested for
recognize inter-city problems decision
tampering power of modernity
solution amid causes social city types:
of ways to work, = creation
responsibility failures:
clutter & edit solutions revolution monument, polis,
past things carefully till Apply implementatns. steps:liberate, monastery, guilds, continually set up
optimizing Solving for side-effects invested in; nuclear family, kid/
future thing work split, missing full solution errors, results freedom,
historic dream, enterprises, alter update their Foster automation
away flaws not Linearity of their actions powerless- local media, care recognize & Fractally anchor past conserve clusters abstract variety Interaction of idea creation via;
masculine ness sequestering support search engagement novelty
fill gaps, bridge nets,
optimizing entire feminine for outside new learnings for times:
part-time,
far-reaching
system Compen- culture’s for own frames at morale of shared-time, Distinguish cognition,
dimensions of promote rebalance emphasis,
energy diagnose flawed style
imbalances sate despairwhi tune efforts progress vacation-time, relationships, orthogonal spot non-linearity,
people role inter-depen- ways of points till failures for fractal justice, disciplines invite out- admit error, invite
flow optimizing dencies benchmark
citying accumulate into socialtraining spaces: etc. so diverse side global skill
idea hierarchy
own subsystem among city ecosystems: ways to citify l without
learning the despair doorway orchestrate physical, social net, from fields world into local extremes
via harming niches create globally in in
fractal rhythms temporal, cyber,
cities: so beats
blends global combine representations:
parts competing new niches new cultures combine into beats ubiquitous invent new quality museums, meets,
SET
educating for increasing
connected other natural exponential
cognitiveness &
not chaos cultures value meshing benchmarking, etc.
subsystems selection take-off whistle insight
abstractness
measure of views &
catch practice
goals tune assess
occurrence
stages: negative, systems point showcase morale
events for on larger
rigorous
grounding of
culture
interactions curriculum that localize inventions cities/firms
Launch locating idea Diverse diversity
COM
all parts of cities
social
great comes from smaller size ideas till new hybrid cultures are as competing
assertive, part- stages:
implementings pride of imple- scales Insight
Non- menting cultures get
waves Diversity decays evolving natural selection
ER
automata Linearities error

analysis:
manage Tools rigorous invented/
emerge assess
Types familiarity, to
ner, trans- liberty, wrong: plural media whole learning
leadership problem, Perfect discipline
abstracting
campaigns + compare from cases society Culture & & educating see code mix/ processes codevs.
breadth freedom, process viral cause, soln. Executn. stretching projects: Educating balance more via diversityso must
POW
events models from

recombination
PET
variety of formative historic dream,
tactic events experience,
that blend,
mix cultures, Tools break plural from uniformity:renew action factors:
micro- growth measures literature,cases, dimen- mechanisms/ people who succeed
frameworks conserve novelty institution regimes butterfly of long term standards of current case sions distinguish othernesses into
cultures of: 64 or so
dimensions frames apply process events
power: development
effects: same
scale of inputs different
execution performance on eras, persons,
groups, nations, dimensions
of abstract (giant)
innovation homes to entire Competing have their codes
ITIO
effects plural size
see bigger Types &
found for population
problem notoutputs
scale of sudden
scales professons,
practices,
genders
manage
by fact
uncovered
baby new evolving Natural copied widely
world indexial system replaces fields high performances code (gene) Processes Selection
The
strategize & posi-
Origins power: tion & fawn to delayed
cause wide
Surprise avalanches
manage by
opinion,
experience, Results partiality via:
expose
as cultures expressn
N
procedural find get established block till
side-effects Types
of own acts authority mixing diversities, from repeated recognition/fame
repertoire power: knowing extreme power assigned
attention,
seen as periodic &
culture
of eclectic
deepening interact,
till certainty culture automated
educate conditions & = code replicatn
of culture routines for customer mechanisms evolving with innovation
unconnected chaotic
who/how usefullness to you mesh agenda new items brain & attractors creative evolving rightness erodes
magic--do the reality systems T choice replaces replaced by
rightness regularly updated
invention Establish serving
impossible articulative from till partner same complexity
menus of diverse mutation from copy
with ease extreme Create so no short cuts
views
fractal inventive
power: Population rates + human errors =
amazing with
unlikelies
Processes with keep promises
liberated
speak ideas via
questionning
question of quality:
ideas, competing for hierarchy of of Strivers autonomy interventions mutatn
exactness reflected ferret weak points ones till
only (reflection speak
ideas by
invent repeats of question you
persons, what? mere fame
works, kills creation ideas
show spaces establish
City-fication
whistle points, utterly new as niches funding support reliable
locate meetings) get others fields, firms,
cities, ecosystems
leverage pts., develop skills emerges crystal seed
ideas to ask compete Idea spawning near
& work to extremes: that crystalize Indirec-
entire fields parasitic, Eco- other
niches tolerance, future
there index, articulate, speak via
procedure, frame
later
lead by creating
tions deeds that
accumulate
symbiotic,
disease
systems
density of risk, heresy
variety surrogates that into ideas idea inter-
new ideas action till
the social act for you lead by contexts
setting contexts
combine with chain
old tillexponen- reac- establish
secular dramas before-
divine curing scales

tial growth take-off tion
hand benevolence reliable near
theory fact between senior future attracting
religions of by fractal repertoires events culture packaging & junior, & peers
Flower
God & success scope expand link link media and
other unite inter- new
sect
replaces for visibility: for cooperative investment
systems social/status interfaces lifestyles, experience impressions
INTERFACE
ideological physical, ways to be

that recall & ideologies, social net,
opinion, + realities spaces competing
SPACE
classes
growth/ diverse classes use them religions,
have power neuroses
temporal, cyber, together/apart
ubiquitous invented
for space for
What fields linked social
movements orthogonal crises
as spaces process cultr clear of owning
shrink update social Inter- disciplines
or
conversatns Questions
unite substrates
change,
compile
events into
defining as Space channel showing,
comparing, Creating ownerless
sectors via Needs by ortho.l
illusions update Space places and
& technical face link fields of
puncturing
artificial
of
worlds reveal Existence
with culture of
development Invent vice versa honesty Trans- distractn
substrates &
Means knowledge experiencing, between-
transition Linking disciplines link regions
them
explain
perversions explain our
realities in each
domain automate style challenge parency & distortn analyzing Spaces field
invest- social culture of policy & fleeing from
recoveries freedom into
& link media audition spaces
as one joint space become clear of
process clear of creations problems
ment wealth idea processes dimensions link & competing educative
buffers so hassle/process
falsecertainties
link social othernesses & of it centralities spaces wheres space free emotionally &
status classes waves, realities interests
288 Processes
functions, cultures from evaluation, socially clear
via bridging ecosystems, agencies, made distortns
visible of goals judging, bosses, space into which
fractal
collaboratns recur-
firms
identify key social self-managing dark for idea imagination
processes & staffs,
crafts for model/bench- organizn. executives, births expands
rences each one
built +
mark them
strengthen
slighted ones,
by line managers
= waste
inventing & try outs funded Oil weaken Tevents Staffless M by
Emergence M by
emphasized
of new disciplines: design,
copy the
mental, social,
social
best events economic community combination

process
Social
Processes
ones
link school Copyright 2005 by Richard Tabor Greene means:
Ideal sales,
service, Events,
with workplace deploy fns.
30 year produce M by
educative
of other city
good points
labs, media,
performance
events/ local +
All Rights Reserved, US Government Registered
jobs local global
for each
social
conferences process
to line goal: zero= value Automaton
waste, all
by Movemts. switch leader function
spaces/tools
Evolve from ordering to generate
all role punishments seed funds Entooling library expanded updated yearly: on each one
Email: richardtgreene@alum.mit.edu value
Managing M by Fun- designing
respect and jails Creators reveal
delayed new power
for applying
educating craft
new local
dimensions wry ironic JIT ction action to procedures from nothing
culture emailed ideas + contests
on absurb
layers under
institu-
using global tionalize
mobilize frameworks projecting
continually reactions
Managing Deploy work to others by organizing
improve
replacing administrative idea uses lowquincostdistricts: all fields &
marginal tool invention
for unique
massive
local things
globally
evolving
self
out
frame
of
M by labor: unfore- liberated ones
success cultures paperwork: facilities/tools for ventures
local focus Journey
= create
localculture Out is projecting
institutionalize self Urban responses Experiment seeable promises
apply from home arising consequences Action establish local
trial new by them built self Cool
home stay Hassle
entool In global things
occupations, arts, contents eclectic
N
ventures local journey locally
work stay Removal erect via global entool global messages fund local create views not
guessable likes
styles &
Basics spaces of
CTIO
alternatives journey via

Solace System diversity psychic depth messages that fit into
that
enterprise
transitions
culture of
global show & from background live in reality change
culture stay broken windows among diverse detoxify
models
reflection communicate people’s daily
emotional lives from audience of
to future
mixes
tell; local funds
for languages
science & imagination: identity & appearance
preventative others current ways enthusiasm zone/fund as literally love, truth alternative = polis
exchanges tools messages the living to for introjecting
the new global
OIL
switch Techno- of globalities Create global local

futures after establish
of being urban messages the unborn from elite
law enforcing logy of manageable
defending
SA
that piggy
masculine back on Persuasn. challenge from
contributing
own field into specific Locality partnerships
locales religion own interests, each insight
modes with Use liked things audience to of all sorts
workplace feminine Globality foster local messages messages that
to
creating
general
Grow audiences concentrated exchange evidence Quality views, normed deed dynamics
service/school to Create media to that highlight enable people’s
focussed
based lives Selves as childish among mega-
MAS
from own Scope from what global part families, firm

existing will sell to staff, students
entool Locality counter elite borders to
new frames goals ideas & ways what will adoptions
city components
embedding otherness
rich broadcast to menus of
alternate from the
inspire and
instill
globally
& beliefs blending views,
encountering erect local
media ways
world of ideas growth fund follow take groups interests undo your
beyond self interest constituency sources
balance current to lessen blocking powers polar to disclosure standards
to the world of
practices & needs
for ownerless awe not of thru psychic normed as background &
using self builtstates are fear/bias toIllusion counter Locality menus of growth stages adult self build your culture’s
enforced problems preachers of individuals new ID via meanings &
fractal models corrections of diverse frameworks publishing, broadcasts, for spirit =
speaking venture capital, globalize science bricolage plurify them find the
adjust previous state, great listening Continuously beyond self
conferences, solace quality with detoxify solving of despair
social fractality: exhibitions, systems, value mesh- Sustain modernity’s questions of doorway:
process to not “right” rewarded and Improve
Discourse
interests only multiply within contests human sizing,
de-status-ing ing Civiliza- existence part of who you
replicated =
dialogs not Standards
endorsed a level, across
2 or more levels, festival life, practices tions failings: Cities
reach goals Present gradually switched across all levels everyman
maintain nuclear meditative are blocks, you
is Only increase spins enforcement comedies
performance
Multipliers social index solace system drown ideo- family disciplines of Accelerate must die to grow
mocking speaking fractal local balance with logues with etc. facing elemental Self
Response cognitive of careful
within self performance shops: events, success measures of
distinctions: local reality TV, existence Dev.t values relativized
simultaneously spot list limit of system policy
talk as policy interests cafes, clubs,
sister allow
discos, robots, fractal results
satisfy base + tiny frames,audiences contexts: readings, jobs: current, neighborhoods
debates next prep, career labs,
community creative poise you are by diverse diversities,
diverse collection till elemental
LF
interest/ thought of leap prep, border discourses Florida’s

self talent costs, dominate 3 Ts: of frameworks self existent
BA
attention not chosen, exploration/violation

SE
realizatn mental flaws, from gaps: societal & political technology, you accumulate is
not self interests chosen, and apply exposed
LA
goals missing reflectn. & religious tolerance,

SE
not thought sender push mentality goofy & ones

NC
not usual of talent

PO
to extremes sheer
listener framesManage context kinky off-the- number &
E
vs. integritythen apply info wall-isms Attract diversity

EX
built message Message receiver

design, welcomed Global spread of&
content using contexts of own not just Creative innovative
included + Context standards production, tolerated Elites arts/ideas/
frame long term beyond Foster subcreating, rising venture
set message programs to others’ then till creativity lifestyles
supported connects to districts
kits sequencing change contexts sincerity Meliorate grow beyond tooled rising global new
to establish around
context beyond Extremes intobackgrounds culture of
clubbed fields: events,
CO bridges issues situations erect abstraction persons,
MM & excusesmultipliers then IZE funds
UNI that turn 1 concre- BAL
CAT
E creation tize
into thousands
GLO
BEYOND
24. The Non-Linear Commonsense Model of Inno-

vation
People who see, intersecting evolving non-linearity of many diverse detailed multi-level
types, who walk that land, explore its crannies and crags, its valleys and mountains--their
STEPS are INNOVATIONS. Who walks this land? Who distinguishes 256 non-linear system
effect TYPES, 128 flaws in how minds spot and handle them, 48 GENRES of non-linear sys-
tems? INNOVATORS--all of them--inhabit this land. They have, mostly unconsciously and
inarticulately, gradually learned dozens of these things to spot and follow and react to--they
inhabit a non-linear land = they have NON-LINEAR COMMONSENSE. They cannot tell you the
types, flaws in handling, genres by name--because they did this unconsciously, over years,
without articulation, often hoarding this growing ability to see a land others miss--but my
students were able to measure HUGE differences in abilities to spot, react to, anticipate and
use intersection of non-linear trajectories from diverse sources, and these differences corre-
lated with MAJOR HOME RUN INNOVATIONS. This is the model of innovation of this chapter.
We all think two ways about what innovations are. One, we think innovations are amazing
things that change what is valued and possible in the world, re-doing the value and prospects
of a lot of existing things. Two, we think to innovate you have to imagine and visualize and
actualize a thing--your innovation--that does all that sort of stuff. Innovation as amazing
reviser of existing views and values; innovation from imagining and intended details of that
sort of thing. Which is it? Do innovations come from things that emerge that happen to
amaze and change a lot or do innovations come from imagined new things that do that? Are
innovations accidents or fulfilled intents?
Certain inventions, turn out to change a lot more than expected; they have unplanned bene-
ficial side-effects. Of course others have unplanned harmful side-effects and sink like a
stone right after launch. Certain inventors observe and imagine implications of current
trend lines of development or market-competitor-user reactions to current offerings, and
find nexi of mutually re-inforcing consequences, constituting powerful forces someone can
take advantage of with some devising. Both of these happen in reality--
CONSEQUENCES THAT SURPRISE the non-linear

consequences of present actions surprise us with
opportunity from unforeseen interacting lines of
response
ANTICIPATED INTERSECTING CONSEQUENCES the
observation and extension in imagination of present
actions, trend lines, reactions to present devices and
circumstances spots intersection consequences that can
be taken advantage of.
The issue with both the above is four-fold:
1. Viability--is what emerges, is what I devise valuable and

robust enough to survive?
2. Thrive-ability--can either spread, grow, be generally
valued?
3. Amaze-ability--does either change views, open vistas, re-
value existing things and ways?

4. Practices-fit--does either fit into existing practices or
changes a few of them in ways highly beneficial = worth
the effort of users doing lives/works differently?
Silicon Valley does something to your mind. First, as already mentioned in other chapters of
this book, you get tested for layers of anti-ness--people edit out of you East Coast religion of
business contents, they edit out of you Los Angeles central broadcast media tyrannies and
consumer passivities, and so on. Second, everything around you is new, growing, burgeon-
ing, and most such new things are riding on slightly earlier new things. As each innovation
gets added to them mix, it possibly combines with all prior such innovations, a few of which
combinations turn out to constitute still newer innovations--that is, an exponential growth
process, a combinatorial explosion. You can have an invention or idea, sit on the beach,
watch the sun rise and set, sip drinks, and wait for some niche to open up in that burgeoning
evolving mass, that your invention perfectly fits--then develop that, before the niche itself
evolves away.
This is just one current version of an old phenomena in human history--that most eras of
innovation started in cosmopolises, or in imperial cities or border towns when their empires
collapsed and all were suddenly free in several simultaneous ways from old constraints.
Throw a huge amount of diverse people and ideas together into a small area of time and
space, and, with a little additional lubricant of funding, bold culture, and luck, hope for and
get your combinatorial explosion of exponentially growing on each other innovations and
innovation-requesting niches.
All of the above can take the form of a kind of bio-sense thinking--in the two senses of eco-
systems of products/innovations, that evolve (mutations in some innovations leading to fur-
ther innovations). You sit in a burgeoning ecosystem with niche opportunities flowing
around you. Of course others are sitting and seeing those niches too--but in reality only a
few people who LOVE a niche enough will develop it into a real innovation. Worse, for
would-be innovators--TIMING becomes critical--notice a bit too late, move to slowly, take a
slilght wrong turn, and everyone’s interest, funds, attention turns elsewhere. Even the
brightest light and idea draws too little interest to develop.
How can you swim, thrive, in such an onslaught of evolving inter-penetrating ecosystems?
Who does manage to thrive in them now?
Apple and Jobs are, of course, the leading examples of thriving. They are doing things that
should date them and reduce their edge-y-ness, but somehow they turn those belated fea-
tures, copyings of pioneering others, perfecting of form and interface and supporting ecosys-
tem other services, into the world’s most valuable company, selling a smartphone, for
example, that captures 92% of the total global profits of the entire smartphone industry.
Amazing performance. They have done this both ways--consequences that surprise and
anticipating intersecting consequences.
Jobs and Tim Cook, the Void Master and the Culture Master, slowed reacting deliberately,
they waited and watched product, technology, funder ecosystems develop. They looked for
enduring intersections of consequences of present offerings, initiatives, trends, reactions.
What did Jobs, as Void Master, see, notice, respond with that his competitors all missed,
again and again? Zen meditation gives a good part of our answer, as does LSD, as does
Design, as does Japan.
ZEN--seeing all the variety of consequences there are

LSD--seeing the pulsing overall intersectings of those
consequences--the relation of everything to everything
JAPAN--removals, of clutter, strain, noise, waste, distraction
= utter transparency of systems to purpose--perfect
distinguishing of wanted from unwanted consequences
DESIGN--fractal excellence, excellence in seen and unseen
places in process and result of process--simultaneous
optimization along all modalities, simultaneous
development of plural creativity & novelty sciences.
Google and other tech companies face a similar challenge but with non-Void-master tools.
Google supports two kinds of search--long term ultimate bounds of humanity experiments,
done by elite teams, and one day a week invested by thousands of employees on projects
they imagine. Both of these are search projects, with side-effects likely to be as valuable or
more than what they aim for. The problem is they are few in number compared to the
number of intersecting consequences in Siicon Valley as a whole, much less compared to the
world as a whole.
In the past, 50 years ago, a man, patented fuel efficient jet engine designs, decades before
a world oil crisis, made them necessary by rising oil prices. When GE, a major manufacturer
of engines, went to patent fuel efficient designs during the oil crisis, they were dismayed to
find they had failed--by luck, one of their employees decades earlier already had taken out
patents of those designs. How did he, Mr. Zwicky, know to do that?
Zwicky’s method is now taught in colleges--under the name “morphological forecasting”. At

is core is one matrix of possible product features against possible market/user needs.
Hundreds of features against hundreds of needs makes for a huge search space so analysts
circle clumps of interesting intersections and study just those intersections in detail.
What Apple’s Void Masters, and Google’s twin search approaches seek is what Zwicky sought-
-identification of the most amazing intersections in flowing ecosystems of products, market
needs, technologies, ideas.
The Non-Linear System Effects Capture/Re-Purpose Model of Innovation is a way of

doing exactly the same thing--
identification of the most amazing intersections in flowing
ecosystems of products, market needs, technologies, ideas.
In this model, innovation is always the result of people and groups with large repertoires,
inside their heads, of types of non-linear system consequences of present actions. They are
the ones that turn burgeoning ecosystems of evolving niches and products and needs
intersecting in swirls, into innovations. The repertoire of system effects in their heads get
them NOTICING more and more diverse and more detailed consequences of present actions
than all others, so they notice too intersections no one else is aware of, competitionless
chances, obstacleless technologies. This works in two directions however:
LARGE REPERTOIRE OF NON-LINEAR CONSEQUENCES OF PRESENT ACTIONS

1. CONSEQUENCE INTERSECTINGS INTO NICHE INTO INNOVATION noticing myr-
iad types of such consequences and their intersections missed by others, that
result in powerful niches that call forth major innovations
2. DESIGN FEATURE AND NICHE CONSEQUENCES INTO DESIGN IMPROVEMENT
design of those major innovations elicited by those niches anticipating and
testing for more types of non-linear types of consequences of that design’s
features and ecosystem niche impacts, that in turn, revise the design to
expand scale and scope of what it takes advantage of and rides on.
NON-LINEAR CONSEQUENCE TREES--any one non-linear system effect pro-

duces a state of affairs that may spawn several other types of such non-
linear system effects--whoever and whatever captures the largest portion
of those automatic consequence forces, changes history and some entire
fields the most = the greatest scale of innovation. THIS IS A NEW LAND
THAT, WHEN YOU EXPLORE IT, MAKES EACH STEP AN INNOVATION!!!!
A small scale tool exists that can be modified for use with the hundreds of diverse types of
non-linear system consequences of present actions, and the consequence trees they pro-
duce. It is simple, easy and quick to learn, and generalizes with ease to other particular sys-
tem effects. It is called “response to response matrices”. You learn it as applied to one
particular non-linear consequence of present actions--how linear plans never work because
reactions to step one, change, always, the environment that step 2 takes place in, and so on
for step 3, and later. The way you see this is a matrix with six or ten rows of an action algo-
rithm on the left, going from step 1 to step 10, and for each row 8 or 10 columns, each colum
representing a stakeholder who will notice and possibly react to all or some of the row steps.
You do not fill in all intesections but only the biggies--the ones where strong interactions are
anticipated. For each of the six to ten such strong interaction likely intersections, you
“design” the step in that row so as to avoid harm from that strong interaction or so as to
make good use of a power available in that strong interaction.
For example, the Royal Bank of Canada invented a form of banking the world’s poorest peo-
ple could use that would also bring profits to the bank, in the vision of helping poor people
manage money while extending the Royal Bank brand early in economic development to
nations without bank competitors of the Royal Bank. To test the design of their “every-
where branch” they put some in poor neighborhoods of Montreal and Toronto. Within
weeks, street demonstrations and unexpected election losses, doomed these experimental
branches. What happened? There was a political side-effect of how these branches were
designed and conducted. Each branch was a banking half wedded to a meeting hall half--for
public gatherings and celebrations of community groups, made available for free by the
bank. But ideologues with big mouths saw those celebratory gatherings as recruitment-to-
my-cause opportunities, and turned each celebration into street demonstrations, police
fights, bad media coverage, and lost elections for local politicians = doomed bank branch
experiment. HERE IS THE CRUX--in designing the whole thing people considered reactions,
only a few, and only obvious ones, and only from “proper” stakeholders. No one considered
bad minded, egotistical, rabble rouser poor people advocats a valid stakeholder so their
probably reactions were ignored, simply never thought about--who cares what bad minded
noisy makers think? That was a fatal mistake--proper stakeholders are not your real and
most problematic ones. You want to plan for realities of reaction, not idealized nice-y
world reactors.
The response to response matrix explanation and exercise below is not how innovation gets
done but it is a tiny version of something much larger in scale already presented above. It is
a tiny precise step by step example that, if extended across dozens of types of non-linear
consequences of present actions, results in people and groups spotting niches and intersect-
ing non-linear system effects that all others miss = giant competitionless innovations.
4 TOOLS: Response to Response Matrix Intro, 256 Particular Sys-

tem Effects, 128 Flaws Handling Them, 48 Genres of Them
One expression of the basic non-linearity of the world is called “system effects”. Arendt
referred to this in her distinction of the difference between work and action. Work was
design and plan that produced something; action was injecting new things into human affairs
where myriad unplanned consequences thereafter emerged. People fearful of these unpre-
dictable consequences of any action, like to make human affairs instead. However, human
affairs are not like watches and chairs, something that can be “made”. Rather human
affairs are filled with reactions to reactions--these make the meaning of what you did,
change over time, as reactions come in that others react to. You cannot make human affairs
the way you make chairs and tables, even though weak leaders want to believe so. System
effects, coming from how people react to the reactions of others to some actions, prevent
anyone making human affairs and institutions in a chair-like or watch-like way.
There are two kinds of system to distinguish. In one you have a few entities or agents, each
one of which has many variables interacting to determine their behavior. In the other you
have many agents and entities interacting with a few variables for each determining their
behavior. Non-linear systems achieve great complexity of outcome using very simple rules
applied to many things interacting. This could be simple rules applied to many variables
interacting within one entity or it could be simple rules applied to many interacting entities.
The complexity could be, therefore, within entities, causing what their behavior is to be
unpredictable, or the complexity could be between entities, causing their behavior to be
unpredictable because of how they react to others’ reactions. It is the latter that is dealt
with in this section.
Some years ago I did a phone survey of the human resources vice presidents of the top 50
global corporations. I asked them what capability they wanted top managers to have that
such managers lacked--almost all of them said the same thing, capability to handle system
effects, the non-linearities of systems. They said that top managers were taking responsibil-
ity only for planned outcomes of their actions, and denying responsibility for unplanned out-
comes. That is why we all feel corporations are so selfish, childish, and uneducated--they
deny responsibility for the consequences of their own actions. Action in human affairs, is
always a matter of doing something, then finding later unexpected consequences of it--that
you are still responsible for even though you could not have predicted them. We drive our
car at safe speeds downtown and a small child runs out in front of us, too suddenly for us to
stop. We kill the child, due to no fault of our own, yet we are still responsible for the death
of that child and responsible for helping the parents of the child deal with their loss--even
though no person in our situation could have done better. Corporations do not take this
elemental form of responsibility--becoming cowards whenever anything unplanned happens.
They are less than human in this regard. The human resources vice presidents that I sur-
veyed did not like this state of affairs. They wanted to train upper level managers to take
responsibility for unplanned consequences of their actions. They wanted such managers to
anticipate types of surprise, likely to come from certain actions. They wanted full responsi-
bility for planned and unplanned consequences, not cowardly running for cover whenever
anything surprising happened.
Human systems have two primary sources of complexity: they evolve, and they self con-
sciously evolve. Human systems do not sit still, staying the same, day after day. They con-
tinually evolve, not just in literal contents, but the meaning anything human has evolves as
new viewpoints and frameworks for viewing it, continually appear. Take my digital camera,
bought yesterday. I was delighted to buy it yesterday and thought it was the best purchase
for my money--till, today, at 10 am in a magazine I was browsing through at a doctor’s office,
I noticed an announcement from another company, of a much better combination of digital
camera features, to be sold in a week. Now, a day after purchasing the camera, I am very
dissatisfied with it--the meaning of owning it has completely changed even though I have not
changed and the camera has not changed and what I can do with the camera has not
changed. Some one piece of news has changed my framework for viewing cameras. In
exactly this way, all that we do, changes meaning all the time as new ways of viewing human
affairs get invented and encountered. Not only this, but human systems evolve self con-
sciously. Human see how their systems evolve and see how the meaning of those systems
evolves. They watch the reactions of others and based on that, they react. Both of these
together--continual evolution of meaning and self consciousness of such evolution and of
reactions to it by others--make designing human systems utterly unlike designing chairs,
cars, and watches.
The nature of human systems is people design and execute planned sequences of actions.
However, other people react to the doing of the first step in such sequences, so that the
environment in which the second step is done, no longer is the same as the environment in
which the first step was done. This causes three problems. One, the second actions no
longer make sense given the reactions of others to the first actions. Two, the intended
results planned for the second actions do not happen. Three, unexpected side-effects of the
second actions overwhelm their intended effects. Something else happens. The people
doing the actions, that is, doing the first step, and then doing the second step, they them-
selves change as a result of doing the first step’s actions. So the environment of those doing
the actions changes when the second step’s actions are being done. So how they do and
why they do the second actions ends up different than planned. This causes three prob-
lems. One, second actions get seen by those doing them as ignorant of reactions of those
doing them to doing the first actions. Two, intended results of second actions diverge from
planned results. Three, unexpected side-effects of second actions overwhelm intended
effects of doing them.
Because actions are seen and reacted to by others and by those doing the actions, the envi-
ronment in which second actions are done differs from what is planned in two ways--the
doer contexts have changed and the observers’ contexts have changed. Therefore, you can-
not plan or design human affairs without a specific procedure for planning for reactions to
reactions. Plans that do not take into account reactions by doers of actions and by observ-
ers of actions, do not work. We see huge disasters caused by this all the time--Brasilia, a
designed city that everyone flees on weekends in order to get to a real city--San Paulo; pub-
lic housing in suburbs in France that trains youth in violence, drugs, and islamic radicalism;
US car companies ignoring fuel costs getting dependent on SUVs (sports utility vehicles) so
their markets crash when oil prices rise. The list is endless, disaster after disaster, caused
by ignoring how people react to the reactions of others.
Believe it or not, there is a surprisingly simple planning method that solves this problem--
that allows people to plan for reactions to reactions, so the evolution of meaning and the
self consciousness of people to how others react do not bust up what is planned. I present
the method below.
I list the steps of doing some project or action, each step as one row title in a matrix. I then
put as the title of each column in that matrix, the name of a stakeholder in the doing of that
project--someone who will care about and be affected by the doing of the project, whether
or not they are part of it or consulted about it. This could be people hearing the project,
living near it, getting jobs because of it, losing jobs because of it, winning political elections
by opposing or supporting it, married to someone working too long on the project, managing
the project, profiting from the project, cooperating with the project, or any of a thousand
other possible reasons to care about the project in some way. At the intersections of this
matrix you put the most likely or powerful response of the column title entity to the row
title action. Many such intersections will be blank as the column title entity will not care
about that particular action of the project. So you write a response in an intersection, only
when the column title entity will actually really care about the action in the row. When the
entire matrix is thusly filled in, it will be mostly blanks but have scattered filled in intersec-
tions (this is called a sparse matrix in math). If you have ten rows of actions and ten columns
of stakeholders who care about or are affected by actions, that is 100 intersections. You will
usually fill in about 30 such intersections. Survey those 30 or so filled in intersections and
circle the most important ten--important because big and powerful or important because
unexpected and surprising. Where responses seem similar to each other though caused by
different actions, you may group them, if the actions are adjacent in the row titles. Make a
new matrix having these ten most important intersection responses as its row titles, and
keep the same stakeholders at column titles.
Your new matrix has responses, from the first matrix intersections, as row titles, and the
same stakeholder names as column titles. In its intersections you put how each column title
entity is likely to respond to each row title response from the first matrix. In other words,
this second matrix is your response to responses matrix. Again, you put reactions likely
from column title entities to the responses in each row. Most of the time you will put noth-
ing in the intersections because the column title entity does not care much about that reac-
tion. Again, out of 100 intersections, you can expect around 30 to be filled in. You review
those 30 and identify the ten most important, by power or by unexpectedness. You may join
a few to get these ten if they involve adjacent rows. When you have your ten most impor-
tant responses to responses, adjust your original actions so as to make these responses to
responses more positive and to eliminate any of these responses to responses that are dan-
gerous. This latter step is hard work to do mentally. You have to change an action, write in
a new reaction to it in some boxes of the first matrix, then change what ten most important
reactions you get from the intersections of the first matrix, then put them as new row titles
in your second matrix, then see reactions to them, to make sure all such reactions to reac-
tions are neutral, positive, or at least, not dangerous.
This is a way of planning that handles the self consciousness of human systems, how humans
react to reactions they see others making.
AN EXERCISE IN PLOTTING REACTIONS TO REACTIONS--NON-LINEAR PLANNING BASICS
Divide into groups of 4 students each.

1. Select a system whose behavior in the future you are interested in predicting. If you
choose a large system like an entire university or like the national economy of Japan, you
will have to use large general lists of stakeholders and actions taken by the system; if you
choose a small subsystem like one department in a university or one part of the national
economy like high technology new ventures, then you will have fewer stakeholders to
worry about.
2. Make a matrix of the stakeholders of the system, inside it and outside it; these are all
people or institutions who care what goes on in the system whether they should care or
not (CHECK “free energy” groups who might opportunistically notice/respond):
columns = stakeholders
rows = all actions of the system (from external environment, leadership environment,
and internal subsets of components as environments)
3. Mark the intersections of the matrix:
Find rows that strongly influence column items in this matrix, mark such intersections
with a symbol indicating strength of the relations (strongly inverse, weakly inverse,
neutral, mildly direct, strongly direct)
Further research rows that have no influence on columnar outputs

AND, put in each intersection what re-action that stakeholder (in the column) usually
takes when presented with that action (in the row)
4. Make a matrix of these re-actions:
columns = stakeholders rows = key re-actions from the matrix built in step 3.
5. Mark the intersections of the matrix:
Find rows that strongly influence column items in this matrix, mark such intersections
with a symbol indicating strength of the relations (strongly inverse, weakly inverse,
neutral, mildly direct, strongly direct)
Further research rows that have no influence on columnar outputs,
{OUTPUT is this matrix:}AND, put in each intersection what re-re-action that stakeholder
(in the column) usually takes when presented with that re-action (in the row).
SYSTEM EFFECTS, ONE: Attention Distraction Effects

effect unplanned second order 1, people plan and intend wanted outcomes not envi-
omission effects sioning responses of myriad involved system ele-
ments/forces/persons
ownerless problems 2. problems without obvious owner, beyond simple
profession boundaries often too unfocused for
any one group to handle
emergents from interac- 3. totally unplanned outcomes often emerge from the
tions myriad parts of systems interacting as a result of
1 or several moves/initiatives
partial solution lowers 4. partial successes often change people’s ambitions
standards or criteria of success lower, so accept transient
solution that go away
counter side-effects counteract 5. many side-effects directly counter the main
effect main one intended effect, undoing it, or distracting from
it via huge costs worse than want
act combines counter 6. the actions done to reach a goal though individually
intent toward goal combine to counter the goal
staff combines 7. the people working to reach goal though individu-
counter intent ally helping reach it combine to prevent it hap-
pening
Time Blind
launch manner counters 8. the manner a solution is launched with counters

intent overall intent
result self-reinforcing growth 9. an act can have result that cause more such results
surprise self limits continually till negative feedback self limit pro-
cess grows big and reverses
moderate solution bad so 10. when initial small solution tries fail badly, people
miss good larger one give up and miss fact that much larger such tries
would work well
side-effects of result 11. the side-effects may be much worse than the ben-
worse than benefits of efits of getting the intended main effects
result
result done is not satisfy- 12.
some intended results when actually attained and
ing/wanted experienced do not satisfy
time similar input very differ- 13.similar inputs, even extremely similar ones, can
surprise ent outputs produce extremely different output types in any
non-linear system
usual input whole system 14. an input just like usual ones done many times
changes already can yet produce entirely different never
seen before results
fast good results then 15. early or easy initial results can be good lulling
huge bad ones people till huge bad ones suddenly emerge from
unseen negative feedback force
solution with delayed 16. good solutions can work well in many respects till
huge cost people notice huge negative costs that are
delayed often considerably
cause cause at problem locale 17. people can completely handle causes acting near
allocation only is attacked where problem appears and thereby miss many
other bigger causes acting in far flung other
parts of the system
cause of other causes not 18. many causes can be handled well but since what
attacked causes them is left untouched problem reap-
pears continually, especially when one cause
after another is handled
system caused variation 19. when design or configuration of the system causes
“solved” w/o system some problem, solutions that miss it will allow
changes the problem to reappear
big environment caused 20. environment or whole system design caused fail-
failure blamed on weak/1 ure gets blamed on one component or weak one,
component letting problem reappear
environ- other part as envt undoes 21. functions of one system part can be undone or
ment 1 part fn blocked or made harmful by functions of other
allocation parts acting as environment of it
lack of leeway in other 22. each part doing its own function very well can
parts stifles 1 part’s func- cause overall failure because they do not have
tion leeway helping each other do their individual
functions well
Space Blind
environment changes dur- 23. the solving process can take enough time that the
ing solving environment around it changes so as to undo its
effects
solution so particular to 1 24. a solution can be so particular to 1 environment
environment cannot be that it cannot be used or its effects are transient
used as the environment evolves
support credit & rewards not to 25. systems can reward people who did not actually
allocation those who solved solve so in the future they do not solve things
outside help used till own 26. outside help can assist you so long and well that
capability atrophies your ability to live without it atrophies causing
disaster when it is no longer available
great solution for situa- 27. great solutions can be too weak to last and keep
tion too weak to last problems at bay
great solution gets ene- 28. great solution can assemble and motivate scat-
mies cuz of who supports tered ones who dislike it or who does it or fame
it from the doing of it
order enough chaos: local act 29. enough chaos can prevail that good effects go
allocation effect goes unnoticed unnoticed and unappreciated
enough order: local act 30. tight interconnections in a system can make for
cannot affect system such stasis that nothing can change enough to
constitute solution of problems
sequence of solving exac- 31. the particular sequence of acts in a solution pro-
erbate user dissatisfactn cess can create user dissatisfaction that over-
whelms their overall result
solution delivery configu- 32. how a solution is delivered can undo any of its
ration harms benefits
others’ overfishing 33. people getting less than needed can try harder,
response getting even less, so trying harder till no com-
mon resource is left
rich get richer 34. those with slight initial resource advantages can
be so favored with results that their advantages
grow hugely
price war 35. several parties can undermine their competitors’
prices, till everyone together goes broke
envy isolate 36. successes can produce such envy caused isolation
that benefits are unusable
customer when get what want, dis- 37. people can find negatives of losing goal to achieve
response like it outweigh attaining concrete goals
when live with result, 38. people can find that experienced result dissatis-
hate it fies them
solving process raises 39. solving process can raise expectations to than any
expectations so hate likely result dissatisfies
result
Reaction Blind
representative of cus- 40. how we represent what the customer requires can
tomer’s spec are wrong distort or miss actual customer requirements or
miss customer changes
response producers become/sup- 41. the requirements of producers can supplant needs
to produc- plant customers of customers in projects so customer hate the
tion result
during production parts/ 42. while producing something enough time elapses
requirements change that components or overall requirements change
parts hijacked during pro- 43. parts during a project get noticed by others and
duction taken for other purposes
way something produced 44. the way something is done can undermine the pur-
kills interest pose behind it
response factors from unincluded 45. professions omitted from an effort usually have
to profes- profession, kill been omitted because they have vital but unpop-
sionals ular knowledge needed by it
profession not customers 46. producers of a project or designers of it may sup-
make requirements plant requirements of customer of it with their
own requirements
inter-profession disagree- 47. the plural diverse professions required by a
ment on basics project may be unable to agree on even the
most basic aspects of it
solution more complex 48. solutions may dwarf in complexity the problems
than problem they are to solve
attempt long cycle times allow 65. long cycle times for doing things allow time for
home runs time for many errors many errors to accumulate
giant greenfield initia- 66. totally new goals and means in a project fail to
tives that don’t build on link to already built up and tested capabilities,
past making achievements unstable
career system rewards 67. career systems can end up rewarding flashy
distinguishing self from launches of new initiatives not patient solid
others not building on doing of hard long things, so rewards can reduce
their work building on work of others or cooperating
aggressive specs that 68. leaders can force extreme specs utterly uncon-
ignore real capabilities nected with actual people and process capabili-
ties
unknown long cycle times allow 69. long cycle times in a project give time for outside
require- many outside market environment, customer, and market changes to
ments changes undermine what is done
many changes of require- 70. requirements that specify what a project does can
ments continually change during doing of the project
making designs chaotic
marketers “know” cus- 71. marketers can substitute own bias for what cus-
tomers but don’t and tomers really want and can impose not effec-
don’t see engineers as tively communicate requirements to engineers
their customers
one-product projects 72. major one outcome efforts can demoralize entire
Undependability
when all know competi- workforces who know competitors will instantly
tion will instantly respond respond to any one innovation actually done
unknown long cycle times allow 73. long cycle times for a project allow time for key
capabili- many changes of person- staff to change, retire, or lose interest reducing
ties nel skill and quality
one old generation man- 74. stable fixed old leadership generations controlling
ages so younger imagina- all shut out, always without exception, younger
tions shut out except imaginations or force re-interpretation mistakes
crises onto projects till failure results
unfunded capability 75. product development gets funded but not devel-
development so must opment of reliable new technology such products
invent product and tech- use so projects jointly develop both, making per-
nology together formance achieved unreliable
early phases under- 76. old projects always late so early phases of new
staffed/funded; unrealis- projects are understaffed, causing errors to be
tic schedules from spotted/fixed expensively later in projects;
remote leaders remote leaders force unrealistic schedules
tradition products/projects often 77. tradition of leaders suddenly cancelling projects
of quitting cancelled cause entire workforces to underinvest in
projects till nearly completed
no manager action till 78. hierarchies can cause local problems to get unre-
problems are huge solved locally, instead escalating to VP level,
delaying solutions
resources adequate only 79. managers can fear early resource flows, hold back
at product end resources, so errors build up expensively treated
at project end
subsystem team argu- 80. subsystem teams may refuse trade-offs among
ments escalate cuz refuse each other, hence, escalate arguments to VP
trade-offs level, delaying solutions
missing team members not co- 81. teams split geographically can result in “in”
coordina- located; global suppliers groups jerking other around suddenly without
tion jerked around without context, warning, or consideration of local con-
context ditions and capabilities
unprincipled manage- 82. hierarchies can impose levels of permissions which
ment causes waits for only serve to delay key actions through projects
many sign offs dangerously
travel, waiting, reporting 83. the logistics of communicating and documenting a
are most of development project can become half or more of all work,
work time supplanting real design
reviews distort actual 84. leader reviews can be unprofessional due to
capabilities remote leaders or delusional due to leader polit-
ical distortions of reality
faked no incentives for needed 85. all the incentives in a project can favor errorlessly
solutions behaviors: building reli- and quickly doing things impossible to due error-
able technology lessly and quickly without development of tech-
nique/technology base that is unfunded
leaders remote and igno- 86. Western leaders want social class superiority to
rant, do not like nuts and workers hence do not get hands dirty, lose sense
bolts solving of real capability, become totally dependent on
politics distorted reports
waiting till problems huge 87. leaders prefer to let problems grow so huge that
then killing entire project they kill entire projects as that spreads blame
preferred as it spreads beyond one leader; smaller problems can be
blame blamed on one leader so dangerous
no personal, social, 88. managers so competitive that no rational negoti-
Separation
knowledge basis for inter- ated solitons are possible among them, instead
manager agreement, so only political agreements are possible making
solution is political technically irrational solutions
faked managers lack the social 89. managers may lack the social skills to work with or
relation- skills to guide without encourage own employees, instead, such manag-
ships punitiveness ers are hated whenever they are around others,
acting punitively among them
managers force symptom 90. managers unwilling to imagine or solve deep
only solving by tacit issues or political ones, may force solving of only
intimidation superficial aspects by intimidating people
promotions not based on 91. leaders may be recognized and promoted based
actual problems faced on things other than actual problems faced and
and solved solved so incompetent contexts in higher leaders
judge/distort lower competent ones
no consensus building 92. overall product strategies of a group may be con-
process on product strat- tested and not agreed on so individual projects
egies do not add up or synergize
learning- no building on success/ 93. leaders to show own worth may deny worth and
lessness failure of previous teams value built up by predecessor managers, ignoring
previous team learnings
missing project postmor- 94. leaders may ignore reviews of completed projects
tems to find learnings as they do not intend to apply
past learning in future
tradition of hiding slack 95. project aspects that cause one role to work
time and no one covering harder than others not recognized and equalized
for others on team; no so people hide slack and other private benefits
pain sharing system that compensate them for unfair work loads
creativity valued over 96. creative solutions that bring visibility may be pre-
effectiveness ferred to humdrum but cheap reliable ones that
work better
consulta- consulting = participating 97. leaders can consult genba for genba’s reactions
tion then ignore them and consider that a participa-
solving tory system
roles assigned by prece- 98. leaders can structure all present projects just as
dent not need past ones were ignoring unique needs and oppor-
tunities of the present
social will not mind used 99. getting everyone to fail together is worth as much
to solve as getting everyone to succeed--togetherness
considered solution
rotating everyone before 100. rotating all leaders before an issue is considered
an issue adequate even if not consensus or insight occurs
and leaders sleep
social ignore = solve 101. ignoring a problem for generations is as good as
solving solving it, the Charlie Brown strategy, ignore it
till it goes away
admit issue = create issue 102. admitting you have a problem is the same as cre-
ating the problem--this attitude
Person as Bureaucrat
agreement all interpret 103. consensing on a vaguely worded agreement that

different is agreement everyone interprets completely differently con-
sidered agreement
agreement fact out- 104. social fact of agreement being announced more
weighs content important than whether anyone really agrees
with anyone else
hiding in intolerance of slight dif- 105. slight differences of one group to another, one
uniformity ferences project to another, hated and resisted, forcing
all into same mold
information hiding 106. hiding information and problems is as good as
actual solving--this attitude
if new, not an issue, only 107. new issues are not really issues, only issues that
old issues are issues have been seen before are treated as issues
copying rivals outweighs 108. copying competitor moves is considered more
inventing solutions important than inventing own solutions
issue issues are just distrac- 109. issues are considered distractions of real work of
irrele- tion from real work doing past routines without thinking
vance good managing = issue- 110. good leading is considered leading that avoids
lessness any issues and deals with no issues
changes in environment 111. environment changes are all assimilated to inside
interpreted as already of group already known phenomenon--so nothing
found inside group is ever really new, that is, nothing requires new
thought or effort
considering whether to 112. consideration processes are so thorough and long
do so thorough it = doing and detailed that they are more complicated
than actually doing what is considered
issue issue generators neutral- 113. any social unit that might generate issues is
buying ized coopted early coopted by payouts early, that is, paid to not
generate issues
attitude discrepancies 114. differences of attitude are considered issues so
responded to as issues opponent positions are constantly folded into
own position, remove ing debate
long standing irrational 115. long standing unfair or irrational situations are,
situation is natural = not because long around, considered non-issue, and
issue never improved
pay money to all parties = 116. instead of hard choosing and thought, just pay all
solving parties money to make issues go away
appear- ritual process repetition 117. following social rituals of consideration consid-
ance is work, not issue han- ered how to handle issues even if solutions not
is reality dling invented or tried
cost of issues is lost focus 118. issues considered harmful because they distract
on unity of group people from the mystic unity of the group and
society
social surface: establish- 119. getting everyone to call something, anything, a
ing a thing called a solu- solution is considered a way to solve issues,
tion = solving regardless of whether it really works or changes
arrangements in society
Mindlessness
super direct solutions, 120. getting people to like bad situations is consid-
bypassing causes ered good solution, better than removing bad
situations
faked easy meeting tradition: 121. meetings that just ritually endorse opinions of
interac- discuss = repeat elder whoever is oldest in the meeting, after consult-
tions opinions ing/ignoring everyone
group wrongs better than 122. wrongs perpetuated by a community are better
interrupting unity with than disrupting community by eliminating such
issue wrong at cost of lost unity
trance-like “no mind” 123. clear minds, without issues, is a goal of govern-
state is ideal conscious- ing
ness
mastery & automation of 124. action is ideally the mastery and automatic repe-
routines = ideal action tition of old established routines, not the hectic
scurrying to solve issues
peaceful perfecting everyday life = 125. inventing and living a perfected polished smooth
literalness greatness everyday life personally is what society issue
handling is for
issue preventing = gar- 126. preventing issues is the same as garbage collect-
bage collecting ing in importance
slight disturbance of “no 127. anytime and anywhere people get interested in
mind” daily life state issues is a real problem for society and must be
intensely investigated stopped
utter meticulousness of 128. tremendous detail and administrative power
handling trivialities applied to trivial disturbances of clear mind No
Mind consciousness
SYSTEM EFFECTS, THREE: Policy Self Contradiction
systemness power from position 129. instead of groups and individual actors by action
making power, most comes from their position in
systems
behavior from location 130. instead of groups and individual actors by action
making their behavior, most comes from their
position in systems
parts-whole 131. wholes have traits not found in any of their parts
differences
self conscious evolving 132. systems whose parts think (consciously react)
system and evolve nearly never do just what is planned
or intended
creativity complexity from simplic- 133. from simple local actors interacting by simple
of system- ity local rules, global complexity can emerge
ness dangerous safety mea- 134. safety measures increase unsafe driving habits
sures causing more injury not more safety
cannot do only 1 thing 135. humans acting in social systems can never do
only 1 thing or only what is intended
systems change 136. the system has traits different from traits of its
element traits parts, which system traits change context of
System Basics
parts traits = meaning changes

relativity tight linkage = 137. more tightly linked systems are efficient but sub-
from fault widening ject to widespread failure when small faults
connected- appear
ness basic units resist change 138. many interdependencies mean basic units resist
all changes because relations to other units
would also have to change
non-consensus based 139. some system elements exist only because other
existence elements must consense to eliminate them, con-
sensus is hard
relations determined 140. relations between some actors determined by
relations relations between other actors, not between
each other
system- cats cause flowers indi- 141. extreme indirectness of effects--cats eat mice
ness rectness which therefore cannot eat seeds, causing 1
effects flower type to dominate/appear
delayed effects 142. hard to declare any policy/intervention a success
time fractality because time period of side-effects is fractal,
multiple size scale
second best become 143. second best conditions do not produce second
disaster best outcome in non-linear systems, but often
disasters
theoretical best = actual 144. best in theory can be terrible in practice
worst
manage 2 acts: for goal for side-242. act dually, one to attain goal, one to handle side-
linkages effects effects of attaining goal
act in twos 243. acts that appeal to A and that appeal to A’s
enemy
do virtual acts for side- 244. do actions whose only purpose is eliciting side-
effects effects which are your wanted main-effects,
slough main-effects
influence by environment 245. influence others by creating environments they
adapt to
form solv- component compliant 246. design each system component to do its role
ing roles while adjusting to help adjacent “environment”
popula- parts to do their roles
cleavage bridging 247. mobilize all usually ranked, separated, profes-
Get Causally Systematic
tions
sioned things across borders to envision and
implement solutions
process transparency 248. manage processes till transparent to wants of
customers they serve
pluralize units of compe- 249. mobilize network of diverse types of firm/org in
tition scale with system causation of phenomena/
opportunities faced
handle distribute probs, causes, 250. distribute throughout entire system problematic
systems solutions aspects, causes of local problems, solutions to
causation undo causes
act against cause of 251. determine root causes generating other causes
causes as symptoms then address the roots, distributed
throughout system
distinguish system/spe- 252. address variations in outcome from traits inher-
cial causes ent in system’s design from transient happen-
stance circumstances
evolving wants & satisfac- 253. find wants unwanted when appear, solution not
tion satisfactory when experienced, design for con-
texts and outcomes
undo self undo producers become 254. producers of a project tend to supplant their
contra- customers needs for end users of the project’s product
dicting
solutions
43
P41
parts
hijacked
during
production
RESPONSE TO PRODUCTION
production way
42‘
41 kills interest during
producers 44 production
components
become or requirements
Use these 128 ways Reality surprises change consumers
us, frustrating our intents, to REACTION BLIND
35 profession not 48 factors from 39
SURF reality, to ride its non- customers
make solution
profession solving
not included
require- more complex process
linear dynamics rather than ments than problem 45
kill
raises
bitch at or fight them. price war 46 expectations
RESPONSE TO PROFESSIONALS so hate result
OTHERS’ RESPONSE inter-profession CUSTOMER RESPONSE
Use these 128 to DESIGN 33 envy isolate 34 disagreement
on basics 37 representative
of customer’s 38
products, systems, teams 36 47 spec are
when get what wrong when live with
that work in ACTUAL overfishing rich get richer want, dislike it 40 result, hate it
circumstances, not
losing intent or 64 WAYS TO CREATE POORLY
accomplishment 11 components 56
too
components
too big
63 egalitarian 52 fatalist & 27
problems of small overly hermit great
incemental single solver 50 hierarchist 49
when Reality result side-effects 54 solutions 53 pushed to heroics solution
much worse for situation
throws its than result benefits SCALES cuz alone ATTITUDES too weak to last
usual surprises RESULT SURPRISE overkill solutions DIVERSITY individualist SUPPORT ALLOCATION
9 intended or vital waste 61 committee 62 great solution
once really done 10
result cutting firms or
social
forced
departments 25 gets enemies 26
is itself not moderate 55
unneeded
ranks block diversity block 51 cuz of who
a
self-reinforcing benefit solution bad so feedback flows 64 feedback flows credit & supports it outside help
growth becomes 12 miss good from rewards not to 28 used till own
self-limiting larger solution SCALE BLIND those who solved capability atrophies
component config solution too SPACE BLIND
TIME BLIND lost in responding 60 perfectly suited
3
usual input 16 similar input 7 so problems culture of to present
situation 19 enough order 32 enough chaos 23
local actions solution local actions
whole system solution very different reappear designers cannot
only delivery effect goes
emergent changes has
narrower
delayed
giant cost
output combination 58 than culture
57 system caused affect
system configuration unnoticed environment
from interactions 14TIME SURPRISE 13 conteracts of humans of customers
variation “solved” 30 harms 29 changes during
intent FLEXIBILITY without system changes ORDER ALLOCATION solving
EFFECT OMISSION delayed negative COUNTER EFFECT new parts added CAUSE ALLOCATION sequence of solvings ENVIRONMENT ALLOCATION
rather than
1 partial solution 2 faster good
feedback after 5 manner of 6 reconfig old 17 severe environmt. 18 exacerbate user 21 solution so 22
lowers launch ones caused failure cause of dissatisfaction other particular to lack of
results counteracts action
side-effects intent combinations 59 cause where blamed on component 1 environment leeway in
unplanned standards ownerless problem seen weak other causes environment cannot other components
second order effects 4 problems 15 of main action 8 counteract intent component
only is attacked not addressed 31 undoes 1 part’s be used
24 stifles 1 part’s function
counteract it 20 function
128 System Thinking Fault Types

From Greene, Prietula, Senge, Wildavski, Kano, Taguchi, Ishikawa, Morishima, Boulding, Kauffman, Arthur, Gladwell
leaders remote & no incentives for unprincipled team members no many changes of long cycle times giant greenfield long cycle times
ignorant, do not like 88 needed behaviors: 95 management causes 84 co-located; global 72 many outside 79 initiatives that 68 allow time for
nuts and bolts no personal, building reliable waits for many suppliers jerked requirements one-product allow market changes agressive many
solving social, knowledge technology tradition of sign offs around 123 projects when all
don’t build
basis for inter-
hiding slack time
reviews distort without trance-like on past specs that errors
manager agreement,
86 so solutions are political 85 and no one covering 82 actual capabilities context 70 willknow competition
instantly respond 69 resouces adequate 66 ignore capabilities 65
for others on teams; 81 “no mind” state
MISSING COORDINATION is ideal consciousness only at project end ATTEMPT HOME RUNS
FAKED SOLUTIONS no pain sharing system UNKNOWN REQUIREMENTS
waiting till problems LEARNINGLESSNESS travel, waiting, reporting FAKED INTERACTIONS marketers “know” TRADITION OF QUITTING career system rewards
customers but don’t
78 distinguishing self
huge then killing are most of
entire project 93 creativity valued 94 development mastery & auto- and don’t see 77 subsystem team
preferred as it no building over work time 121 mation of engineers as arguments from others not
spreads effectiveness missing
easy routines = 122 their products/ escalate cuz no manager building on
project customers projects refuse their
blame ofonprevious
success/failure
96 83 meeting ideal aregroup wrongs trade-offs action till
87
teams postmortems tradition: action people better than
interrupting 71 often cancelled 80 problems are huge work 67
discussing = 124 unity feeling by
SEPARATION repeating elders’ opinions being right UNDEPENDABILITY
managers force symp- one old generation long cycle times
tom only solving by
managers lack social
MINDLESSNESS manages so younger 76
tacit intimidation 92 skills to guide without
punitiveness issue preventing 128 perfecting every- 119 imaginations early phases allow many
changes of
no consensus 115 = garbage utter day life = shut out understaffed/funded; personnel
collecting meticulousness greatness
social except
90 onbuilding process
product strategies 89 long standing surface: crises fromunrealistic schedules
remote leaders 73
irrational situation 126 of handling trivialities 125 establishing thing called a
a 74
FAKED RELATIONSHIPS is natural = not issue PEACEFUL LITERALNESS solution = solving UNKNOWN CAPABILITIES
promotions not based slight disturbance of unfunded capability
on actual problems ISSUE BUYING APPEARANCE IS REALITY development so
faced and solved 113 pay money to all 114 “nostate mind” dailylife 117 super direct
intensely ritual solutions, by- 118
must invent
product &
issue attitude process technology
generators
neutralized
= solving discrepancies investigated repetition is passing
causes
cost of issues together
91 coopted early 116
responded
issues
to as work, not
127 issue handling 120 unity of group is lost focus on
75
64 WAYS TO IMPLEMENT POORLY
admit issue = roles assigned by consulting =
104 ignore = solve 111 precedent not 100 participating
create issue agreement
changes in rotating
102 fact outweighs need everyone
before an issue 97
environment
content 101 interpreted as 98
already found
SOCIAL SOLVING inside group CONSULTATION SOLVING
agreement all ISSUE IRRELEVANCE
interpret social will not
differently 109 considering 110 mind used to
is issues are whether to do good
agreement just distractions it = doing managing = solve
so thorough
103 from real work 112 issuelessness 99
PERSON AS BUREAUCRAT
information intolerance of
slight
hiding 108
106 copying differences
rivals outweighs 105
inventing solutions
HIDING IN UNIFORMITY
if new, not an
issue, only
old are
issues
107
48 Genres of Systems Thinking

NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW
SCIENCES SYSTEMS UNITIES MEDIA SOCIALITY SELVES LEVELS KNOWING
EXCELLENC SYSTEM DESIGN NEW DATA SOCIAL DESIGNIN PERSONA COMPILIN

E SCIENCES EFFECTS SCIENCE TYPES NEUROSCI G SELVES L P. R. G
These are These are This is These ENCE Selves, Big KNOWLED
54 routes ways our identifyin come There are cultures, organizati GE
to the top thoughts g the past from 40+ brain high on lives ACROSS
of nearly and actions contexts global modules performa have too FORMATS
any field or blind us to that web with nces are much & The new
profession. all their generated media & known the too little comes
Tool: map consequenc bad things phones. interactio same?acc audience hidden
routes to es and today and Tool: ns all umulated at once unexpress
the top, conditions. fixing experienc messages practice Tool: ed not in
yours, Tool: them. e report must of brand reports.
others response to Tool: forms interact routines. insertion Tool: find
response dimension through. Tool: self events convert
matrix s of Tool: told self the
difference image- story, inchoate
frame- other told new
name self story
NOVELTY & COMPLEXIT BUILDING NEW SOCIAL GENDER TEAM STRUCTUR

CREATIVITY Y THEORY INTERFAC MEDIA PHYSICS ESCAPES EFFECTIV ING
SCIENCES This is ES These are Our fast We grow ENESS KNOWLED
These are study of This is a interactiv emotive up blind You set GE FOR
18 ways populations more e, mind sets to half 13 USE
the utterly of powerful everyone- contexts the world condition Apply
new comes interacting way to a- for our and its s to usual
into our agents that influence composer slow ways. entice a mental
lives and co-evolve than - conceptua Tool: 28 team to operators
world. into leadership performer l mind. brain steer to dozens
Tool: map inventions . emergent Tool: difference itself of ideas at
models of and order Tool: s subtract- s, well. a time not
creating no one meetings Tool: add fast magazines Tool: 13 4 or 6
your, others plans or where informativ mind of other factors Tool:
intends. persons e video contexts gender model; structural
Tool: find meet, of slow structural cognition
tipping ideas mind remark
points meet, making
change
appears
REALITY QUALITY FRACTALI ART SOCIAL CULTURE ORGANIZ BREEDING

SCIENCES These are TY Art is how REVOLUTI POWERS ATIONAL IDEAS
These are 22 This is we ON Each of LEARNING Master 3
four ways operators turning manage Liberation culture's DYNAMICS ways we
we tell applied to each part our from pasts 9 powers Groups invent the
accurate one body of of our emotions sometime needs use few new by
complete knowledge selves and and s leads to recognitio of the blending
truths to by Japan to lives feelings founding n and many what is
our selves make it multi- of others. freedoms. handling ways they uncombin
and others. world scale as Tool: Tool: Tool: high can learn ed.
Tool: you as powerful. our world functions manage by performan to Tool: idea
the comedy, Tool: is of all arts balancing, ce, change. transplant
your totalize, Tool: creativity transplant Tool: 64 s,
sacreds as globalize multi- powers X across ways exaptation
the joke scale matrices s,
plans/ bricolages
images
ERROR EVOLUTION EVENTS EMOTION MIND CAREER LEADERS KNOWLED

SCIENCES This is the These are Educated DILEMMAS DESIGN HIP GE
These are 64 faster ness Deep in Great FUNCTIO EVOLUTIO
12 ways we dynamics of more starts a mind careers N N
skip to the most visible journey polarities are DELIVERY DYNAMICS
alternate creative ways to to tempt us dual?wee SYSTEMS Ideas
easier process do work. adulthood to kly doing Many follow
realities at known, Tool: mass at 20 and harmful what we managers known
huge cost modified workshop arrives as extremes. qualify but little patterns
to self and for our use. doing fast adult at Tool: self for and directedn in how
others Tool: social of slow 55 or so and other opposite. ess they
Tool: automata processes; years old. assessmen Tool: delivered evolve
forcing response Tool: skills t and despair by them Tool: idea
yourself to stratify of rebalancin doorway, all. waves,
change= emotional gs be to Tool: need dialectics,
uses of intelligenc have, assessing, fractal
error e peripheral delivery embedding
participati alternate s
on means
PRESENCE BIOSENSE?N CITY- MIND SOCIAL THEORY DELIGHTI KNOWLED

SCIENCES EW SENSES FICATIONS EXTENSIO INFLUENC REPERTOI NG GE FLOWS
These are This is a These are NS E RES CUSTOME THRU
how we change how we It is tools Supersale People R MINDS &
stay from steel turn wild outside us smen use with more SATISFIER SOCIETIES
present, as strong to and new that make the mind's theories S Comprehe
perform, & bone?it places us smart, modules live in a People nsive
present to grows into not brains to sell. bigger stop at 1 fractal
others. where homes. alon Tool: un- world. satisfier, regularize
Tool: stressed Tool: Tool: do ads, Tool: omitting d idea
establishing and fixes spaces educating see-use observatio 21. maps.
your video its own theory extensions persuasion n before Tool: 22 Tool: glass
self breaks not brains triggers after new satisfactio bead
Tool: undo- only theory n gaming
mechanosen dimension
se s
INFLUENCE CHANCE- TECH STORY SOCIAL HAPPINES NEW KNOWLED

SCIENCES ERROR-RISK CLUSTERS RECURSIO PROCESSE S FORMS OF GE
These are THEORY ?REPLICAT N S DYNAMICS INTELLIG APPLICATI
We are We are Our ENCE
ways we This is why E SILICON ON
stories always arrival Schools
build and how we VALLEY inside showing happiness Using
mis-
worlds and depart These are stories?tr up system fractal
educate,
environme from needs the social agedies or imbalance has idea maps
exposure
nts others harmfully. fusions comedies d in our striving to plot
? social system makes us
adapt Tool: into social trends,
Tool: aims and inside it = smart not
themselves compensate plasmas possibiliti
characters means. drama memory.
to. for thought that as stories Tool: Tool: es, future
Tool:
Tool: flaws generate assess- extreme actions.
surface
meeting ventures. correct concentra Tool: need
area not
someone Tool: imbalance tions spotting,
s ideas
else's need flows and solution
homes stored
spotting
Another Intro to this New Non-Linearity LAND

A BEGINNING--17 WIDELY-REPORTED POSSIBLE SYSTEM-THINKING GENRES. Prior research
reported four genres of systems thinking already well researched, published, practiced in
diverse departments and professions.
The Reflective Loop Model [7] A very old model of leadership--single loop learning (did my
method work), double loop learning (if this method seems to be not working which other should I
quickly now employ), triple loop learning (how do I generate alternative ways beyond all I have
known and tried before to handle this present situation)--fits this data well. The Aphorism Model
[8] In fact, the aphorisms of any language capture non-linear dynamics within brains (we can do
what we want better than we can want what we want), and among brains (a stitch in time saves
nine, let sleeping dogs lie). Humanity via aphorisms has talked about non-linear system effects for
eons. The Meta- Model [9] Doing, meta-doing (meta-cognition, meta-learning, meta-creating),
and meta-meta-doing etc.--as laid out by Kierkegaard a century ago and Jervis more recently also
fit this model. The Frame Reflection Model [10] Schon famously suggested frame reflection,
spotting what inchoate unconscious automatic theories inside you "framed" what you noticed and
what meaning your gave to noticings, the replacing them with competing diverse others--as key to
expert top level practice. ALL THE ABOVE MIGHT WELL BE CALLED "META-" OR "REFLECTION"
GENRES OF SYSTEMS THINKING.
To the above we might add the following:
The Systems Dynamics School of Modeling Software automated solving systems of second order
differential equations and the rest was mess---people threw 20 variables into ill-formed models,
tweaked them to mimick "validation" data and found, inevitably, that they predicted only that data
(SEM in stats generally had exactly the same fate for exactly the same reason, models made to fit
any dataset lost all generality; models with good generality, fit no dataset well). The Military-
Government Inspired V Process (INCOSE) A sequence of 1940s, and post-war disasters, without
the dire life-and-death urgency of war-time, embarrassed, and produced design of massive
projects the way individual components of such projects got designed. The main idea--the V
process--was accounting for initial assumptions and decisions months and years later in final states
of affairs produced. The problem was technology accelerated so fast during each project that
validations inevitably looked dated and dowdy, showed up by recently invented stuff not there 3 or
more years early at project start. Total Quality Management More than 2/3s of the tools in that
V-process were directly borrowed from Japanese TQM. What got lost was the anti-culture nature
of TQM, invented in Japan as an opponent of usual Japanese management by hierarchy, opinion,
and experience. So tools were borrowed that countered bad tendencies in Japan's culture that did
not exist in other cultures and projects. Oh well. Web Globalization Dis-aggregation Dis-
intermediation What many missed was how TQM became the theory of business essence that
guided web application--to horizontal processes, not vertical silos, for managing by fact not rank
opinion, with data flows driving horizontal processes not local social clubs of managers. As a new
infrastructure, the web, spawned coordination theories about markets replacing hierarchies, and
auctions of bids replacing fixed internal transfer prices. ALL THE ABOVE MIGHT WELL BE CALLED
"META-" OR "REFLECTION" GENRES OF SYSTEMS THINKING, TOO.
In this brief fragmented history, systems thinking (and derivative works like systems
engineering) appear as a kind of consciousness of X, where X is usual kinds of project,
design, engineering: learning to learn how to learn LOOPS, gradual increments in inputs to
minds changing entire mentalities DE-FRAMINGS, doing the doings we do and thinking the
thoughts we think, design the ways we design, creating the ways we create META-NESSES,
reflecting on practice, spotting limits, examining how own assumptions/cultures generated
limits that can be undone by simple RE-FRAMINGS, non-linear models of usual variables
interacting examined for emergent, delayed, other scale effects of present actions SYSTEM
DYNAMICS MODELS, extracting tools and methods from individual projects then applying
them to manage and direct huge projects of projects SYSTEMS ENGINEERING, taking a body
of knowledge--quality, or later anything else--from a profession and making instead entire
managements, workforces, and customer-supplier chains responsible for continuous
improvements in it TQM, computers applied horizontally to customers driven, capability-
invention driven global processes WEBIZATION.
But why stop there, for other meta-ness, reflection, second order types are obvious:
Derivative Hedged Finance The invention of "tools of mass financial destruction" so people who
think they are smart can bet for or against any future specifiable circumstance, paying fees to
over-grown financiers. In theory this was risk-management (a meta-function) in reality it was a
new way to churn transactions by moronic customers to enrich financiers. Risk thusly "managed"
became in 2008 risk explosion. Escapes from Economics via Behavior and Evolution The 1800s
general equilibrium got replaced by 2000s multiple transient equilibria as investor priority and
"efficient markets hypotheses" gave way to non-rational non-utility thought of actual humans and
male hormone emotions in markets that males miss by being, well, male. Behavioral (not rational
utility) models and evolving/developmental models (not equilibria) appeared. Escapes from Male
American Mercenary Models as Europeans noted the hormonal emotions on Wall Street and in top
US MBA faculty cultures, and outperformed US medical systems by immense margins with fractions
of US invested resources, and achieved longer than US lifespans and health in old age via lifestyles
not directed by money and US style media and "success". competing diverse others--as key to
expert top level practice. Evolution from Totalization of Bodies of Knowledge (TQM) to
Globalizations of Them Though the quality movement died in the US in the form of Six Sigma, as
traditional US organization consultants fought back Japanese guru hordes, quality continued
evolving in Asia and Europe by globalizing quality knowledge--from quality of production, to 9
other types of quality (of the earth, of participation, and more). Evolution from System
Dynamics to Santa Fe Institute Style Populations of Intelligent Agents Models Models became
radically bottom up as agent behavior models drove emergent whole economy effects and
inventions (that no individual had to think up or invent in the models), proving populations of
things interacting can invent without any person consciously conceiving or "inventing" in the usual
sense.
This adds to the above list of meta-ness types and reflection effects: investing in your goal
in invest in hedges of risks of failing and of succeeding INVESTING IN RISK MITIGATION (and
thereby merely in enriching Wall Street), evolving real behavior (from experiment) models
replace rational 18th century idealization models NON-ECONOMIC ECONOMICS; disengaging
and detaching and diversting from American modes, systems, values, means, and aims
GLOBALIZATION as DE-AMERICANIZATION; from totalizations of bodies of knowledge, like
quality, the web, to globalization of them TEN KINDS OF QUALITY NOT PRODUCTION ONLY;
replace models of the dynamics of many variables interacting with models of many agents
interacting for bottom up emergence results SANTA FE AGENT POPULATION MODELS.
Finally, if we look at system engineering practice and practitioners, and Amazon becoming
Walmart's chief competitor, we find more systems effects types and genres of systems thinking
candidates. The Multi-Culture Nature of Work globalization of systems of the web enabled sort
bringing more and more differences together into processes of huge reach and scope. Parasitic
Competing Cooperators No current way of organizing keeps up with the acceleration in new
technologies and aims forcing all to ride on the inventions of others while being ridden on by
others. From Single Right-y Models to Repertoires of Plural Diverse Models Mephistopheles, so
elegant in US$7000 Italian suits, an 800 math GRE Kennedy School graduate, is what evil looks like
in our time, Leontiev, Dostoyevsky, Shakespeare, Hannah Arendt said. Trust that any one model,
however right-y, can be safely trusted is eroding and people are turning to repertoires of plural
diverse models of things like educatedness, creativity, and effectiveness. Chthonian End-of-
World Risk Stops Investment and Returns for Saving Zero interest rates in top industrial nations
force the elderly to subsidize bank wealth and government debt relief, aging populations and
plummeting birthrates bankrupt health and welfare systems, bank bailouts impoverish national
populations losing mid-skill college grad jobs to software technologies and outsourcing, actual
global floods and warming exceed all forecast models potentially making food, water, and all forms
of insurance wither. The "reliable near future" that investment requires dies up along with
investment itself.
This adds to our list of meta-ness and reflection effects: global scale of operation
devastates single nation-tradition leaders, systems, traditions NO TOOLS FOR HANDLING
CULTURES; niches found on other niche in tech venture ecosystems become the competitive
landscape NOT POSITION BUT RIDE; trusting any one model however elite or right seems to
lead to disaster (MacNamara to Vietnam defeat, Fama efficient-markets to lost US $13
trillion in 2009), so people are turning to repertoires of plural diverse models balanced to
compensate for each other's biases and flaws MODEL REPERTOIRES REPLACE SINGLE RIGHT-Y
MODELS; generations of people uneducated but schooled, narrowly brilliant but generally
stupid are what our institutions are generating and they are completely failing at handling
our biggest challenges COMPLETE ABSENCE OF LEADERSHIP. Who we judge "experienced" and
"mature" now is locally competent but globally suicidal for civilization and institutions.
Experienced and mature people, take years to become so, and end up dually educated in
systems effects/genres: from above they are informed and directed to notice and handle
some types of them, and as middle rank leaders themselves they inform and direct their own
subordinates to do the same with other systems genres and effects. The question is--what
are all the genres of systems effects such as the above? Above 17 genres are listed--are
there more? How do we find and define them?
THE GLOBAL NEED. Ultimately Herbert Simon laid it out, decades earlier (Simon, 1969)--
that knowledge was growing exponentially so people, professions, disciplines of knowledge,
human solutions were ever tinier fractions of the problems we face. Civilizations of the
past died exactly this way, some say. We are throwing bits and pieces against immense sys-
tems sustained by hidden somewhat evil greeds and needs that cause people to prefer inef-
fective solutions to effective ones. People are willing to call "a solution" only actions that
sustain their deepest and most abiding problems, for one example. Cross-field fields keep
emerging to handle this--general systems theory, systems dynamics, sociobiology, human
ecology, cognitive neuroscience, and newly emerging others. Most have no practical impact
or power. A few, such as the total quality movement from Japan, showed immense power,
though not handling the whole job.
THIS RESEARCH'S APPROACH, SOURCES, DATA, ANALYSIS. Earlier, a huge multi-decade

four-level hierarchy of fundamental research (re-doing Plato) led to nomination of 150 who
rose to the top of their 63 professions from 41 nations by virtue of spotting and handling sys-
tem effects better than others (Greene, 2013a). They were interviewed about just what sys-
tem effects mattered in their rise to the top of their professions. A fractal hierarchical
model of 256 system effects in groups of 4, 16, 64, resulted, presented below in this paper.
15 years later, half those original 150 were still findable and contacted for the research
reported in this paper and asked: 1) where in the world now are bodies of knowledge, insti-
tutions or events that present and handle well many or large subsets of the 256 system
effects they earlier identified? 2) what abstract quite general realities generated subsets of
the 256 identified system effects types 3) how many and which systems effects did they per-
sonally master and require of people promoted to replace them in positions of rank and
responsibility? 4) what experiences in work and life tended to foster spotting and handling
of key subsets of the 256 systems effect types in the model? 73 people generated 8000+
responses that were categorized by similarity, prior function, source, area of the 256 system
effect type model covered, probably abstract generator-cause. 48 overlapping categories
appeared, some corresponding exactly to the 17 dimensions presented above, and most not,
indeed, quite different than expected. The diagram immediately below of 48 genres and the
table below that of 256 systems effects are the results of this research.
BRIEF PROSE DESCRIPTION OF ALL 48 GENRES. Eight paradigms, (super-genres) emerged

from overlapping the categorizations of similar items from respondents: new sciences, new
systems, new fields of knowledge, new media, new sociality theories and practices, new
dimensions and constituents of selves, new levels of human organizing, new knowledge
dynamics. Remember these emerged from data from 75 respondents, not from theories or
literatures.
Six system genres are new sciences emerging that cut across all traditional sciences, another
dimension to knowledge it appears, a non-linearity to knowing itself. The new sciences
include: excellence sciences--the various ways of rising to the top of nearly all fields
(educatedness, effectiveness, creativity, handling complexity, etc.), novelty and creativity
sciences--many of the excellence sciences are these ways the new gets into human affairs
(invention, discovery, etc.), reality and imagination sciences--we avoid truth in social
sciences but admit it in other fields having deniability (comedy, history, literature, fantasy,
gaming etc.), error sciences--study of why and how we betray our goals and means
(adapting to low standards around us, succeeding at immediate scales by undermining
success chances on other scales, erosion of trying by hassles of bigness, etc.), presence
sciences--the ways we stay present to others (before audience arts performing, before boss
work performing, before subordinates leadership performing, etc.), and influence sciences-
-ways we change others (attraction sciences, life contexting preacher effects, interface
science, long tail social supports, etc.).
Six systems genres are new types of non-linear interaction to look for and learn to influence.
New such system interaction types to spot include: system effects map (given below in
this paper, attention effects, bigness effects, self contradiction, and tools for unobvious
consequences), complexity theory (social automata, tuning interactions, emergent designs,
butterfly effect system avalanches, etc.), quality--a theory from Japan of business essence
via totalizing a body of knowledge 22 ways and, more, a set of practices so powerful that
they dominate businesses worldwide today and guided web application to business (policy-
quality-X deployment, pull systems, horizontal processes thru chains, etc.), evolution--
natural selection dynamics operating in nature and elsewhere (tech-product ecosystems,
self-tuning mutation rates, evolution of levels of self organization, etc.), biosense--
replacing mechanosense, a new biology-derived commonsense (image of strength changed
from steel to bone, growing products, viral distribution systems, etc.), chance-error-risk
theory--replacing definite predictive models with stochastic probablistic models (from
tipping point to 10,000 bee stings causality, from designs to tuning emergences, from
correlations to data patterns, behavioral incentives, etc.).
New unities are power from collecting what was formerly scattered and disorganized:
design science--unite artistic, system, policy-law, engineering, social design genres
(dimensions of difference, design grammars, transmogrifications, genre fusions etc.),
building interfaces--person to person genres of leadership have gradually been shown less
powerful than interfaces that tune types of interaction among population members (person
to person, group to group, person to media, media to media, event to process, relationship
to person to process to event, etc.), fractality--people and system oriented to operate
simultaneously across multiple size scales of multiple media types and geographic extents
(fractal causal models, between level emergence models, population tuning models, self
similar systems, systems of systems, etc.), events--bureaus got replaced by processes, now
processes are being punctuated with events (web processes with face-to-face events) and
replaced by new kinds of events--mass workshop events (multi-art community cabarets,
problem finding events, solution design events, solution implementation events, customer
contact events, research events, etc.), city-fications--accelerating globalization, climate,
technology change mean stable positions evolve into wildernesses so we all constantly have
to turn wildernesses into homes (insight processes, diversify-blend balance, pulsed systems,
socialness rhythms, fractal performance spaces, etc.), tech-clusters replicates of Silicon
Valley--techno-parks worldwide aspire to replicate Silicon Valley's global inventive
dominance (flows and homes, anti-cultures, de-mass-ifications, techno ecosystems,
mutation tuning campaigns, etc.).
New media are emerging that are more democratic, turning all into producers, fixing the fat
and sitting of mass broadcast media, undoing the violence and dumbing-down of mass
market chasing; they include the following: new data types--Bayesian models are replacing
correlational data while Big Data from web-enabled smartphone populations are making
business functions more evidence-based and less creative (location index data, purchase
indexed data, friendship indexed data, search-indexed data, experience report forms,
stratified respondings, etc.), new media space types--the liberation of production from
cocaine addict elites vie web-enabled smartphones greatly expands who composes and who
buys composings fostering intermediate-term inventiveness increases (apps spaces, app
search space, e-linked physical spaces, cloud based shared models, etc.), democratized art-
design-invention--new technologies democratize who composes-performs-exhibits dis-
intermediating agents plus long tail communities globally assembled around immensely
narrow specific interests (home studios, viral spread, trend riders, spoof spaces, etc.),
emotive media--mere information gives way to fun, art, comedy, sarcasm, critique,
interest-group-assemblies (escapes from maleness, the productivity of femininities, higher
education spawning evil, spoofs, extreme interests, etc.) , mind extensions--tools outside
our brains that make us smart (personal library, personal file systems, cognitive friend
networks, cognitive furniture, cognitive architecture, cognitive apparel, etc.), story
recursivities--characters as stories embedded in other stories (monsters out there reveal
unrealized powers inside us, going out to go in, loving dreams to learn to love mundane
realities, stories inside of stories, stories generated around stories, etc.).
New ways and contents of being social are emerging, things that used to be asocial now are
social, the scale and scope of who acts, who does things, is expanding and more flexible, as
follows: social neuroscience--we are mapping particular brain modules that generate
particular social functions (mirror neurons, monkey-see monkey-do, simulating how we will
feel, simulating how others will feel, etc.), social physics--computer simulations of societies
and social simulations of non-animate populations converge on common phenomena (social
automata, density effects on fitness evolution, object oriented socializing, algorithmic
socialities, social knowledge vehicles, knowing social vehicles, etc.), social revolution--
liberty, founding freedom, emergence of utter novelty, emergence of public happiness,
historic dreams, conserving novelty (social supersaturation, satisfaction baseline leaps,
social density effects, border and interface emergence, etc.), mind dilemmas--built in brain
module dominance hierarchy and occasional conflicts among modules (fear signal priority,
mind as worry generator, self inflating brain biases, happiness baseline return mechanisms,
etc.), social influence--humans automatically adapt themselves to environments they are in
or perceive themselves to be in (leading by interface set up, social media environments,
crowd source products and services, privacy-repute-cleaning systems, etc.), social
processes--64 functions shared by social entities in all societies (social process imbalances,
whistle point finding, social process rebalancing, social process drill up and down,
deployment across processes, etc.).
New selves are apparent as we discover that selves, cultures, and higher performances are
all exactly the same thing--shared heavily practiced routines that drop from our conscious
awareness. They include: designing selves--groups who practice heavily together develop
pride and personalities and full selves demanding apology and forgiveness (the self of
particular cultures, the culture than any self is, all selves are particular high performances,
all high performances are selves etc.), gender escapes--the femininity of productivity,
rolling back eons of excess maleness of systems and thought (replace rank with care delivery,
replace win-at-all-costs with win-while-helping-overall-mission, replace looking X with
actually being X, talk for relationship replaces talk for status domination, etc.), culture
power--8 dimensions have paralyzed culture tech for decades, now 64 and 192 dimensions
allow culture interactions of enough granularity to predict pricing, sales, next versions of
devices and systems (cultures of devices, culture of business practices, culture of persons,
culture dimensions, operations on cultures, etc.), career design--careers are stories inside
us we explain --where-- we are to our selves and others in status, need, worth terms (tech
riding, profession riding, niche forging, social mutation, natural selection job dynamics,
etc.), theory repertoires--the power of seeing what others fail to notice and imagining
alternative ways others cannot imagine via having theories others lack (all are theorists,
making unconscious theories explicit, planning personal theory repertoires, balanced theory
repertoires, theory-models for guiding noticing and action, etc.), happiness dynamics--the
brain basis (striving, arrival happiness systems in conflict as striving is one of the arrival
happiness types) of happiness has been expressed as modules (pleasure, engagement,
recognition, mission, and others).
New levels of mind, person, social relation have gained salience and attention, including the
following: personal PR--ways individual persons make themselves felt and present on larger
social scales (symbols of destinal contribution to the organization, links to top layers and far-
flung regions, creating a following who promotes with you, etc.), team effectiveness --30+
factors that makes teams effective undermined by scale and stakeholder indeterminate
priority (replacements for 5 mundane cognitive interfaces--meeting, discussing,
brainstorming, processing, reading/writing, compiling processes into event form, evolving
team layers from bureau layers, etc.), organizational learning dynamics--technical
substrates via new means and social substrates via globalizations are changing with
acceleration (erosion of leap innovation by continual substrate updates, practicing whole
organization doing X, 64 ways organizations learn, balances among those 64, etc.),
leadership function delivery dynamics--an emerging consensus on what the 64 basic
leadership functions are enabling investigation of multiple alternative ways to deliver them,
just-in-time, when and where and in types and amounts needed (event delivery, rescue
squad delivery, fixed inventory "special social class" traditional delivery, simultaneous
leadership overshoot and undershoot, etc.), delighting and satisfying customers--Apple
invents what customers cannot imagine, others perfectly fit what customers say they want
(the delight-satisfy trade-off space, 22 dimensions of satisfaction with X, 9 dimensions of
delight with X, transiency of satisfactions and delights, etc.), new forms of intelligence--
inability of fixed leadership inventory by special social class regimes to act with intelligence
in any circumstances (duos throughout history as inventors and leaders, trios today of 2
women with one man, crowd decidings via crowd editing of proposed alternatives, etc.).
New knowing ways, means, aims, knowledge types are emerging rapidly and information
technologies and devices generate new types of data and expand and focus who gets data,
who generates data, who uses data, including the following: compiling knowledge across
formats--20+ ways to format the same idea are commonly used so people argue and fight
though their ideas are the same because they mistake differences of format for differences
of idea (idea format types, compiling ideas across formats, translating ideas across
boundaries of professions, compiling ideas into practices, extracting ideas from practices,
etc.), structuring knowledge for use--the traditional cognitive habits of global top ten
colleges have been producing elites incapable of comprehensive, fast, accurate enough
thinking to handle accelerating non-linearities in our systems and situations (structural
cognition, expanding cognitive list limits, fractal page form, fractal concept models,
stratified respondings, etc.), breeding ideas--transplanting ideas across domains, exapting a
practice from its context of origin to entirely others contexts, bricolage use of something for
entirely other functions, are some of the glass bead combinatorial game, that generates
some new ideas but not all (exaptation, bricolage, transplants across domains, complex idea
cross-over operations, idea mutations and whole population competitions, etc.), knowledge
evolution dynamics--getting out of wrong folk images of how biologic natural selection
operates then applying such more correct models of natural selection dynamics to non
biologic domains (ecosystems of technologies, of venture tech businesses, of products
generating new product niches, on accelerating substrate evolution, etc.), knowledge flows
thru minds and societies-there are outstanding big obvious patterns in how new ideas
emerge from old ideas, repeated in domain after domain (victor ideas embedding vanguished
as sub-fields, generational resurrections of out-of-favor ideas, idea application interfaces for
neighboring ideas and domains, etc.), knowledge application--escaping old manias for
single right-y ideas via repertoires of plural diverse models balanced to compensate for each
other's weaknesses (power from comprehensive coverage, from drill down multiple levels of
detail, from tunable levels of idea granularity, etc.).
THE SYSTEMIC NATURE OF THE 48 GENRES ABOVE. The new sciences above cut across all
traditional fields--humanities & arts, social sciences, natural sciences, professions--consti-
tuting a new dimension of knowledge. This is non-linearity coming from meta-doing, more
reflective doing, of them. The new unities above are intersections, interfaces, meeting
grounds, shared intellectual and other spaces, operations on spaces. They change what
parts of the world and what people are in contact with each other and how they are in con-
tact. They enable the extra meta-ness introduced by the new sciences just mentioned as
well as the meta-ness from more dynamic, reflective, recursive, reflexive ways of systems
thinking in the new systems thinking styles. The new systems thinking styles above are non-
linear new kinds of sense, commonsense, and thinking. They emerge from the emergence
of biologic engineering, tissue engineering, artificial life forms, and from changes in tools
for modeling systems that make handling evolving, non-linear dynamics something anyone
on a personal computer can do. Old linear simplifications are no longer needed. The new
media above are new ways to represent self and world, and they therefore enable also the
extra meta-ness and reflectiveness of life and systems, design and invention emerging in our
era. The new ways of being social--sociality types--above come from new unities and new
media putting things together than formerly were apart, and from ways to handle, see, rep-
resent myriad diverse multi-scale things interacting and in contact. The new selves
above, are heavily practiced shared routines one develops, as who one is and how one
reacts and acts, upon the evolving substrates of new system thinking types, new unities,
new media, new socialities above. The new social levels above are our new tools enabling
us to operate simultaneously on multiple size scales, across multiple time-space extents,
across multiple media. The new knowing types above are our minds, bending and improv-
ing themselves so as to grasp all the above. Underneath all these are new tools making it
easier to see, model, handle, and invent non-linear complex systems, enticing us to rapidly
invent, design, deploy, and debug such new non-linear system types, which in turn, demand
more intensive use of our newly invented tools for seeing, modeling, handling and inventing
non-linear systems.
We can take two of the 48 genres in detail to demonstrate the distinct powerful non-linear
systems effects each genre represents. Total quality was, among many other things: 1) use
of entire workforces as computer 2) deployment of functions from professions, leaders, and
elites to entire workforces 3) replacement of determinist tools and procedures with
stochastic and statistical ones 4) immense change done in a finite-element calculus way by
breaking it into a large number of continuously improved small improvements and
increments of performance 5) deliberate counters to the primary features of Japanese
traditional management culture, that is, the set up of an anti-culture within Japanese
management culture to overcome its flaws 6) totalization of the handling of a body of
knowledge--quality of knowledge--in 22 ways, finally outperforming professional un-total-
ized treatment of that same body of knowledge 7) guiding application of the web by
modeling business as essentially horizontal, stretched between suppliers and customers, and
not vertical, a hierarchy of monkey-like men in continual status games. Quality knowledge
totalized in the above ways applied the workforce as a giant population of intelligent agents,
a kind of social automaton computer, to doing what formerly was done by elite, complex,
expert knowledge monopolized by few professionals. Quality thusly totalized anticipated
exactly the democratization of production, invention, and performance the web aimed at
and achieved. It was the social pioneer of similar aims. It expanded vastly who the doer
was and the time, space, function scale that doer operated on.
Similarly, field, profession, theory, and practice, quite generally have been invaded by
evolution dynamics. This entails their invasion afterwards by comedy, literature, and
history, the so-called reality sciences, for it is the evolutionary dynamics of any field and
profession that give rise to stories, and dramas, comedies and tragedies, and the whole
machinery of reactions to other human reactions, underground-man type rebellions against
the natural reactions encouraged in one from systems one is embedded in, and the like.
Since people and professions tell mostly lies and exaggerations, invading reality sciences
throw cold water truth on them and save us from our self exaggerating self absorbed selves.
To bring the power and practical impact of this home, take the law profession. It is so
nicely male and stable and perfectible, till evolution dynamics enter into it in the form of a
justice gap between the speed at which laws are made and the realities of how everyone
works and lives changed every 3 years by new technologies. By the time new issues are
recognized by the law profession, and committees formed, new technologies already are
replacing what those committees consider. Now that justice gap causes clients to invent
faster technically smarter non-lawyer lawyer functions and people to fill the justice gap.
Law a tragedy, comedy, and history moves from an entertainment to present vital current
threat and reality. Law and lawyering become non-linear, evolving, self-negating, self-
contradicting desperate re-inventions, to survive not to thrive.
48 passages just like the above can be written from the 48 genres model and from each
of the 64 sets of 4 system effects in the 256 system effects model.
INNOVATION BY EXPLORING A LAND--A LAND OF NON-LINEARITIES. All innovators are

explorers of the same giant variegated evolving land. It is a land available, see-able, only
to those with a different commonsense than the rest of us have, and than what colleges pro-
vide and re-inforce. It is a non-linear commonsense, filled with giant varieties of non-linear
consequences of present actions.
When we examined top video-games, 20 years ago, we found their biggest problem--how to
get home run game II. When we examined the most popular parts of their most popular
prior games we found something interesting and totally invisible to game developers because
totally unconscious and actually kept hidden, hoarded by designers and developers because
the felt it was key to their personal “creativity” “talent” “art” and “future earnings”.
The best game designers, intuitively, never articulately, deal with an inverse U function of:
number of variety of complexity of multi-size-scales-of
non-linear consequence of present gamer actions, and character-monster-opponent-land-
scape reactions/actions. If too many of any of these are present, the game scenes are too
hard and gamers give up. If too few are present, the gamers are bored. There is a sweet
spot, somewhere in the middle where “flow” ecstasy occurs---total immersion in the game
situation, loss of sense of time and place, feeling of working slightly beyond own present
capabilities. Game designers occupy a LAND of NON-LINEAR CONSEQUENCES OF PRESENT
ACTIONS.
All innovators do the same. The manage to see this land, live in this land, inhabit it, step by
step explore it, investigate clumps of intersecting evolving non-linear reactions to present
actions. Jobs did this via his Void Master capabilities. Tim Cook did this via his Culture Mas-
ter capabilities. Edison did this via his IDEA FACTORY dream of manufacturing the compo-
nents of new worlds never before thought of or inhabited by humankind before. The
amazing greatnesses SEQUENCE by Jobs-Apple-Cook comes from A LAND they inhabited, not
some method, MBA analysis, or morphological forecast. It was a new commonsense about
where they live and work, where ideas are found and interact.
HOW DO YOU, THE READER, BECOME A HISTORY-CHANGING INNOVATOR USING THIS

MODEL? That is a matter of seeing this land and entering it, and exploring it, till it becomes
a permanent place you inhabit, work and live in. It becomes a new COMMONSENSE. When
all that happens, each step you take, new geographic feature of this land you explore,
becomes a distinct innovation. You become a sequence of amazing inventions turned into
changes in entire fields and in history.
How do you see this land? How do you enter it? How do you explore it? Well there are not
goody cutsy MBA professor methods for this. The people in the past who were our greatest
innovators, spent decades learning to see and inhabit this land--sorry no cutsy MBA faculty
short cuts--lazy shallow people and professors need not apply.
You start your road to innovator, from this model’s point of view, when you learn to distin-
guish diverse non-linear effect types, flaws in how people notice and handle them, and
larger scale more diverse such types--genres. Real innovators in the past mostly did this
with two big liabilities---they found and explore this land unconsciously, and inarticulately.
Jobs-Apple, however, found a short cut---zen, meditation, India, Japan, LSD, design. That
“muge” consciousness enabled him to see and distinguish in an instant dozens of evolving
non-liearities intersecting at once. I cannot emphasize enough how laborious this Jobs
method actually is---you have to totally revise your mind, and an orphan, poor, located in a
digital revolution area he was not trained for but yearned to master, had motives for not
respecting this world’s rank, hierarchy, and mentality barriers that you may not have. So
the Jobs short-cut is a short-cut but a costly deeply interior one that is hard to match with-
out orphanhood, poverty, envy, terrible yearning. You have to want “an other world” = land
to explore so hard you dump on your newly born child--as Jobs ruthlessly did. Without that
crude harsh level of wanting OUT of this world and INTO an other world, the short-cut does
not work. Just try finding any MBA program training you in that level of motivation via that
level of suffering!
I have, with generations of my students, sought actual short cuts---even hard big complex
ones requiring months of practice. The charts in this chapter--256 particular system effects,
128 flaws in how we handle all them, 48 genres of non-linear systems effects types--are my
tool. I give my students 60 social enterprise and commercial enterprise example cases to
VIEW non-linearly, spotting and naming ALL non-linearity types, flaws, genres involved and
laying out, in articulated complete form, particular “non-linearity knots” = where evolving
non-linearities intersect for second and third order “interactions” spawing still more non-lin-
ear effects. This take 4 hours a week for 3 years--minimum. For most readers of this book
this is beyond their limits of effort and patience--I understand that though I do not sympa-
thize with that. With this forumla I graduate students who feel and see the stunted, overly
direct, simple-minded do A, do B, then get C linear stupidities of everyone around them and
how male hormones make men stupid, causing monkey fights among people who should get
work done. They FEEL the OTHER WORLD they inhabit by virtue of distinguishing hundreds
of non-linear trend lines and intersections, of countering dozens of flaws in how their bosses,
firms, customers, colleagues handle them. They INHABIT an OTHER WORLD--via their non-
linear commonsense, AND though they have no feeling of this--they end up as major innova-
tors of their generally famous global firms--things like undong 100 year traditions of how to
market, setting up anti-own-firm ventures that drive major parts of their firm into non-exist-
ence but at a cost of immense new sources of profit (though timing of these money flows is
iffy at times, will the new funds match the decline in old ones, this quarter).
If you think video games, and Silicon Valley ventures, and successful social web apps are
born from, constituted of, and evolving with non-linearity flows, intersections, and types,
you should raise a human child---that blows away in non-linearity knottedness any tech-
nology or technical or product ecosystem evolving!

THE NON-LINEAR COMMONSENSE MODEL OF INNOVATION
the implementation
questions
HOW DO YOU DO THIS? How do you inhabit a land you now cannot see? Well, step one--see it! How
did Steve Jobs see it? Two sets of things---the orphan, poor, envy-immense-
yearning, digital revolution locale set; the zen, meditation, India, design, Japan
set. Those took about ten years of his life, taken together. Not exactly an MBA
in length (or results). Is there a shorter way. MY way is 4 hours a week for 3
years = 150 x 5 = 750 hours with 150 assignments in between 4 hour sessions.
Not exactly an MIB in length (or results) too. Anybody else got any other short-
cuts?
So first you work 3 to 10 years getting yourself so you can SEE this land. Then
you have to enter it and explore it. THAT is far different than merely passively
seeing it. I use evolving intersecting non-linearity streams from diverse
sources--that I call “non-linearity knots”--getting students to see them, investi-
gate them, both anteriorly--what pathways led to the knot, and posteriorly,
what new non-linearity streams and later knots come from them. This exercise
begins to turn the space from something you merely view to a land you explore.
The third step, as readers have no doubt, already anticipated--is becoming a

gardener, landscaper in this world--shaping flows, un-tying knots, weaving
flows, finding kinds of intervention in these evolving intersecting exponential
hidden delayed other scale consequence explosions of consequences from
present actions.
THE SURPRISE--is between investigating knots and being a gardener in this land,
there comes a point where everything you do, small and big, becomes an actual
INNOVATION--you do not try or aim or intend--you merely inhabit this land and
each step and action, viewed by others in non-linear land, amazes them as “an
innovation”
WHAT ARE THE MAJOR The stupid MBA who wants a short cut to personal riches and flaunting his supe-
OBSTACLES YOU ENCOUN- riority to other beings--on the way to good quality cocaine treatment programs
TER? for his self destructive kids--do not waste my time, do not read this chapter,
and I do not want you as reader. Go away! For the rest of us, who know that
sort of short-cut-ism and self-uberalles-ism is a dead end (especially for your
own kids), the obstacles are few--just spend the time, learn the geography in
terms of types of non-linear system effects, flaws in handling them, and genres,
and gradually learn to find and investigate and articulate completely knots.
Along the way, at your own pace, suddenly you will find without trying in any
way, you have been an innovator as seen by others, for some considerable time
already. It happens to you along this road of exploring this land--you need no
aim, goal, effort, and all that direct male crap.
WHY DO MANY NEVER The real joke in innovating is all the people (lots of my students) who want to
ATTEMPT IT? be the same person they are now, think as they always have, keep the same val-
ues and views, never negate their own favorite habits-ways-routines YET they
want totally amazing novel outcomes from all that conservative lazy same-
ness!!!! How STUPID can you get? The definition of insanity--doing the same
thing all the time and expecting different outcomes.
25. The Become Theorist Model of Innovation

Inhabiting the land of non-linearity (and developing non-linear commonsense) is but one sub-
set of a larger land that some innovators inhabit. I need first to distinguish three forms of
theorist:
1. THE EVERYMAN THEORIST all of us born and raised

filled with theories operating unconsciously inside
us, that we did not consciously learn and choose,
put there by whatever, whoever, wherever raised
us--TO INNOVATE you need to find and surface and
eliminate nearly all of these theories
2. THE DISCIPLINARY THEORIST this is professors and
researchers, professional people, who master old
theories that constitute their field and may invent
new theories of their own for that field--TO INNO-
VATE you will need to find several of these from
several fields and combine them from time to time,
but any ONE of them is unlikely to evoke innovation
3. THE THEORY REPERTOIRE-IST this is the person
who collects theories from every diverse field of
interest, lifelong, at times ordering and categoriz-
ing them, blending and distinguishing them--TO
INNOVATE these burgeoning repertoires of theories
EXPAND the world you live in, what you notice,
alternative ways to go at choice points = become a
land you inhabit invisible to others = you innovate
all the time without intending to
= Land One
4. THE EVOLVING THEORY REPERTOIRE-IST this is the
person who collects theory but accelerates the
number encountered-collected and the diversity-
of-source-theory collected. Their repertoire, like
the inflation that is accelerating the size of space
itself, flinging galazies more and farther away from
each other, INFLATES without end--TO INNOVATE
anything done while inhabiting the theory land of
the prior repertoire-ist become an innovation, and
anything done while inhabiting this ever-expanding
ever-differing-from-itself land of theory become
INNOVATIONS of INCREASING INCREMENTS of history
and entire field changing power.
5. THE META-THEORIST this person studies the the-
ory repertoires of the world’s most interesting,
accomplished, and kinky emerging ignored-by-
media people and builds theories of the structure
and dynamics among theories of any one theory
repertoires and among the various theory reper-

toires of the world’s most accomlished people when
in contact--TO INNOVATE these very rare people
amaze their own prior amazements by hitting home
run after home run, sort of the miracle of videog-
ame 4 outselling videogame 3 outselling videogame
2 outselling world number one best videogame 1.
A serial home run innovator. Very rare (for a rea-
son).
= Land Two.
The fundamental concept here is---Theory Power (a book I wrote 20 years ago, now part of a
later book Managing Complexity). What is theory power?
WHAT IS THEORY POWER?

1. the more theories you know
2. the more abstract those theories
3. the more diverse those theories
4. the more comprehensive in coverage those theories
5. the more detailed those theories
THE MORE YOU:
a. NOTICE notice in all situations in life--seeing what all others miss entirely
b. ALTERNATIVES face alternative ways to go at choice points--lots of alternative
actions no one else see or imagines
c. ENCOMPASS define completely the context that others operate in---so you can
anticipate with 100% accuracy what will interest, frustrate, challenge, and
enable them
d. DEFINE BLINDSPOTS define completely the unseen habitual walls that block
views, acts of others--so you can predict with 100% accuracy what and how
they will fail with, what factors they will dangeously omit, what emotions run
rampant yet hidden inside them distorting their vision and relations with oth-
ers.
RESULT: MAGICAL POWERS RESULT: LIVING IN A BIGGER WORLD
The above lists are not complete but good enough for the innovation purposes of this book
and chapter. The above, when you encounter them in others, appear as almost magical
powers--bosses who walk into situations and respond to things you did not spot or care about
at all and ignore all sorts of provocations that get up your dander but that slough off of them
with ease, unnoticed and unresponded to. These people live in an OTHER WORLD. More-
over, these people have perfect vision of the limits and neurotic contents and fearful/defen-
sive emotions that define the bounds of your own life and style and intents. They almost
pity everything you are and do, being gentle to you when not necessary, helping you in ways
you did not want or think you need, but that actually are quite useful to you at the time.
They seem to manage you better than you do.
Every thing you do when inhabiting theory land of the above sorts (repertoire, expanding
repertoire, and meta-, levels 3-4-5 above) becomes an innovation without any intent or
effort on your part. You become on every level with every mode of action incapable of
repeating the past ways and results--you differ along so many diverse dimensions, in so many
evolving intersecting ways, that even you can never predict what your responses and
chances will be. At level 4 above, expanding repertoire-ist, you even differ increasingly
from your own past self, and your innovations differ increasingly from your own past innova-
tions.
THE OBVIOUS QUESTIONS--DOES IT MATTER WHAT THEORIES? Not really. Maybe in high
school, when still an ignorant bigotted kid, 90% controlled by theories, very old and local,
put in you while growing up--it matters. Such people, unfortunately many in 50+ year old
bodies, are not really there. They never made themselves, they were made by environ-
ments that raised them. You might as well talk to an old newspaper. There is no one there
inside them. Of course in business such people are legion, everywhere, especially at the
top--a lot of shortie CEOs with chips on their shoulders, lusting to lord it over the guys who
beat them up on the playgrounds of primary schools. Pitiful!
The technical term for people who manage to STOP being that made-by-environments-that-
raised-me person, is “educated people”. An educated person, by definition, is someone
who, when you talk to them you can get no hint of when and where they were raised--every-
thing they think, feel, and say comes from routines, views, contents they have consciously
chosen and installed inside themselves, in a multi-decade long process of replacing bad stuff
put in them by gender, nation, parents, social class, parents, peers with better stuff from
the best in history and in the contemporary world. In general you will not find any adults of
this sort till after age 55 or so. People younger than that, pretending to adulthood, are dan-
gerously hiding from you and others, their own teetering tall towers of narrow base and
view--hoping no one notices or challenges.
There are choices--you can collect theories in general for years, or in one or several domains
of interest of year, or from reasonable related domains while also collecting from unreason-
able unlikely domains that might add something innovative to the first domains. The prop-
erties of theory collections are myriad and the interactions among ideas and theories and
sets of theories in them are unbounded.
Consider, however, Alexander Graham Bell--his prior work on hearing problems and the audi-
tory system made later inventions of telephone, gramaphone, etc. “obvious” (after the fact)
consequences of mastery of theories of audition and hearing problems. But this after the
fact analysis really tells us nothing we did not already know--people who develop theories
because their family member is sick, because their dog is nuclear, because they saw the
world’s largest hamburger, are still expanding what they notice, alternatives they can take,
and the like. Interactions among the ideas, theories, sets of theories in them can spawn any
number of innovations in myriad directions.
Perhaps the greatest properties of fecund theory repertoires are already stated: the number
of theories, their abstractness, their diversity, their coverage, their level of detail.
THE CULTURE--EDUCATION--ADULTHOOD--COLLEGE CONNECTION

have what we be =---psychologic/religions/performing-arts growth process, detaching prides from parts of us. so we can change them
culture as major barrier to self growth and adulthood, education as un-culturer e-duco = Socrates (but not popular in Asia)
own ways bribe ---our own ways are fast, effortless, easy, shared, accepted even when bad, harmful, ineffective
= we mistake benefits of sharedness and automaticity with actual worth of our ways
child bigot in us all ---moms explain “the right” way to tie shoes, etc. and no alternative ways
= we grow up unconsciously convinced our ways are best, seeing them shared around us
sport team culture flaw ---we have us-them brain modules and love rooting for home team
= we attach our pride to our ways without any actual comparative testing of other ways
possibility of adulthood at age 55 ---fairy tales of getting lost in deep woods, monsters, back with powers
= encountering/trying-out others’ monstrous ways gives us better lives
discovering that possibility in college ---finding own self’s contents/ways not good enough
= idea of replacing own ways with new better routines you practice
purpose of college ---college is collections, best in history, best now alive, you choose ways from that library
= most people NEVER attend college, do not TRY to become adult, wallow in easy own child ways
30+ year journey of self making ---learn that you CAN become adult some day in college, start self change
= if work 30+ years, can replace own contents with self chosen better ones
adult definition ---if we talk and I cannot guess your time/place of being born/raised from your attitudes, views etc.
= you are adult, you have made your own ways/routines contents, not repeated childhood contents
educatedness as beyond self IFSettings ---from 0 to 20 society MAKES us, at 20 we are robots
= education is invitation to start journey towards adulthood
crisis: higher ed without ed ---lots of colleges, lots of students, very few people attend college, seek adulthood
= 50 year old bodies with 12 year old minds; people made by governments not selves
own ways self purify to suicide =---we copy what works around us, reject mis-fits, till we all are alike
we die when environment shifts as ALL of us are non-adaptive, no variety
SOME VITAL CONNECTIONS--EDUCATEDNESS, ADULTHOOD, COLLEGE, CULTURE EXTRAC-

TION, THEORY REPERTOIRE DEVELOPMENT, PERFORMANCE. Above is a diagram about the
links between culture, education, adulthood, and college. Immediately below is one page
(roughly) listing six very diverse domains of life central to all of which are the same dynam-
ics (from the INSIGHT process presented earlier in this book). The next page after that
below, is a list of six diverse parts of life, overlapping the ones before, that push us into self
growth by changing stuff we “were” into stuff we “have” and “manage”. “Manage” here
refers to countering known biases, flaws, faults in X and noticing and using benefits and good
features of X. Being in foreign culture, performing and acting, therapies and psychic
growth, religious practices, and zazen meditation--all push us from being X to having X.
That is followed by another diagram that again presents links between culture-education-
adulthood-college but it incorporates the six domains discussed just above. FINALLY there is
a model below of 64 Masks of God dynamics of a new secular global science-core religion
that is emerging, that preserves religious practices that work but sloughs local beliefs and
myths that in history all too often became exuses for mass murder of differing others out of
a mental illness of thinking one’s own things and gods and ways are “right” and all others’
were wrong and worth killing. Religions that think they are right are evil---100% pure evil.
Rightness is just a code word for mass killing.
HOW DO THE ABOVE LINKAGES RELATE TO INNOVATION VIA THEORY POWER? The models
discussed briefly above tell us, roughly, that not all theories are equal and care must be
taken about what theories to trust--care as defined by adulthood-educatedness-etc. above.
TINY SELVES, TINY LIVES versus

GIANT SELVES, GIANT LIVES
MORE THEORIES =
Notice what others miss, Alternatives others lack
= Bigger lives, Bigger selves, in Bigger worlds
Everyone is a theorist, unconsciously enacting theories put in to us as kids while growing up--so most of us are theorists
unaware of the theories in us = blind to our own self contents and ways. From Being unknown theories inside you to
Using theories consciously chosen and installed inside you.
MORE CULTURES ENCOUNTERED =

deeper self understanding and change, expanded repertoire of ways = Bigger lives, Big-
ger selves, in Bigger worlds
Everyone has culture but few encounter with any depth cultures very different and fewer still encounter many cutures very
different = most of us have never encountered our own culture, the repertoires of ways put into us growing up, our own self
contents = most of us when we encounter other cultures/ways, are blocked by the self inspection, self revision, emotional
work of changing the basis of our prides and confidences. First encounters of othernesses reveal to us our own contents.
Europeans’ first years in Japan teach them lots about European-ness, little about Japanese-ness. From Being Me unknow-
ingly to Discovering and Augmenting Me
PRIMARY PERSONAL GROWTH PROCESS =

Having what we used to merely Be = Wielding Consciously
what we used to do\be “Naturally”
Knowing our entire self contents, then using its for conscious purposes, stopping automatic “in us” routines when we know
they will harm or dysfunction is achieved by THE DESPAIR DOORWAY = we cannot get to our fondest goal as WHO we now are
= we stop loving a part of our selves = we stop using something in us as a basis of our pride and confidence and replace it
with something better = GROWTH. From Being X to Having X where X evolves: wants, opinions, relations, deeds.
ADULTHOOD = Replacing Inheriteds with Chosens

COLLEGE = Best in history, contents for replacing happenstance inherited self contents
3 PERIODS OF LIFE = being made, self making, making others
We discover the possibility of becoming adult in college, encounter others whose ways/selves are better than us, but it
takes 3 decades of work to practice new routines replacing our old inherited automatic ones so we reach adulthood after
age 55 usually. Then we are fully self made, routines we chose, not ones we happend to get. From Being Me to Replacing
Me, unconscious routine by unconcious routine.
GOD’S WILL NOT MINE = God as authority outside the self for changing the self = Prayer
as Asking for Self Change from Others’ Viewpoint
Nearly all ancient religions involve at a point of despair, putting your self into the hands of your God not your own self, and
doing HIS will nt your own. Gods are used in these social forms as authorities outside the self for redirecting and changing
the self. You use your self and its contents for purposes of the whole community’s benefit not your own. From Using me
for my own selfish purposes to Using me for the whole community’s purposes.
PERFORMING ARTS--You are the violin and the violinist =
Learning to know your contents, their limits, and how to use them for present aims
Nearly all performing arts training regimes step by step get performers to explore their own routines, inner cultures, atti-
tudes put in them while growing up, then practice projecting and using them for present performing aims. From being X
to using X
What does this mean for you? It means that when you study culture in this book, when you penetrate cultures
new to you, you are practicing the core process of 8 parts of life--living in a larger world than others notice,
finding how little you know about your own self, changing parts of our self in order to achieve our fondest
goals, making our own contents routines we like and chose, managing our own selves from a viewpoint outside
of our own greeds and needs, using deepest parts of us to impact audiences deeply, giving up our own ways in
order to thrive in foreign environments, inventing the utterly new when all we already know fails to solve our
deepest problems. Nearly every deep and powerful part of being human is improved by penetrating cultures
new to you. Vast powers of perception, notice, action, influence, naturally arise from the self reflection, self
change, self wielding, involved in penetrating cultures.
Furthermore, it means that mastering those others parts of life, enables powerful effective penetration of new
cultures. It is a two-way street--culture penetration enables other parts of life and mastering them enables
culture handling.
There is a more worrisome implication--people not good at psychologic growth, at mastering diverse theories to
expand the world they notice, at replacing initial factory settings with better routines throughout life, as get-
ting authority outside of self to manage self better, will be bad at handling cultures of all sorts, from marriage
to leadership to transplanting products to new markets. Culture handling failure implies general personal
weakness and lack of reflective power and growth. Good finance people, most likely are good at finance not
good at people-ing.
1. Being in a foreign-to-us culture pushes us to switch

from being us (doing what comes naturally)
to having/using us (consciously wielding and editing what comes out of us to fit situations).
Stella Adler’s, Stanislavski’s, Lee Strasberg’s, Meisner’s, Viola Spolin’s approaches to turning people into per-
forming actors, included at times all of the following:
You are the violinist playing your self as violin.

Mean what you say; do what you do; be what you are.
Don’t do anything unless something happens that makes you do it

What you do doesn’t depend on you, it depends on the other fellow.
2. Acting & Performing push us to switch

Modern therapies, and theories of psychological development, talk about points where we cannot reach our
fondest goals as who we now are--something we are blocks us--so we our conventional self love and withdraw
love from our whole selves, freeing us up to change parts of us. We learn to have (consciously wield and edit)
parts of our selves, (of our Initial Factory Settings), that we used to merely naturally unthinkingly be.
3. Growing psychologically pushes us to switch

Religious practices like prayer, worship services, meditations (sitting watching our minds at work), and the like
all involve us in viewing our present consciousness state and the entirety of our lives and deaths, not from the
point of view of us, our ego, but from the viewpoint outside all space and time, beyond the cosmos. From that
vantage point our constant worries and fears, anxieties and faults, become insignificant as do most of our self-
ish, petty competitons, status games, and goals. We see how the Immense Beyond can use us for purposes far
better and more venturesome and more beneficial for our overall community that we have been using our
selves.
4. Religious practices push us to switch

Cognitive behavioral therapy, the dominant self repair and rebuilding therapy of our day, involves us in noticing
our automatic responses and routines, noticing what triggers them, noticing better possible responses and rou-
tines, deliberate practice of those new responses and routines, and deliberate practice linking usual triggers
not to our old self’s routines but instead to our preferred new responses and routines. Noticing, switching rou-
tine contents, routine practice, trigger linking practice--repair and rebuild “us”.
5. Therapies push us to switch

to having/using/editing us (consciously wielding and editing what comes out of us to fit situations).
Buddhism calls itself a science of mind and more than any other religion studied the mind’s operations for cen-
turies. Buddhism has meditation regimes that have been the only things found in research capable of lastingly
raising people’s happiness set levels. As such buddhism’s meditation disciplines, particularly zazen as prac-
ticed in India, China, and Japan, involve the following: shutting down messages from around us, sitting in bal-
ance posture, watching our mind at work while counting breaths without responsing to our own mind’s
instructions, doing this till we are thrown int utter despair of ever being happy while being led around by our
own minds (as we emotionally realize our minds generate nothing but long strings of worry. Moksha--liberation
to ecstasy--happens the moment we emotionally let go of tyranny by our own minds--at that moksha moment,
we are flooded, without effort, by overwhelming compassion for all those animate beings now suffering unnec-
essarily because they are trapped by their own thoughts in an ego status maintenance game that generates
endless separation, worry, and self hurting others.
6. Zazen meditation, mind watching, pushes us to switch

to having/using/editing us (consciously wielding and editing what comes out of us to fit situations).
All of the above processes involve some shared dynamics:
1. the Despair Doorway--we stop “being” parts of us when we fail, again and again, at attaining our fond-
est goals as who we now are; no despair, no growth.
2. undoing pride from our investments in old self/culture/performance routines--the years of practice
that made us masterful in executing old routines that are “us” lead us to pride in how masterfully we
are “us”--but that pride prevents improvements in and changes in self contents--to grow we have to
base our pride on something smaller, stripping it from large portions of masterfully executing routines
inside us
3. the cost of noticing, editing, delayed reacting--while replacing old routines inside us by deliberate
practice of replacement better routines we have consciously chosen (from the best in history and in the
contemporary world) we must endure a lot of extra noticing of how we react and what triggers those
reactions, a lot of editing of natural reactions that start to come from us in situations, and a lot of
delaying and slowing down natural reactions from us, so we can notice and edit them out if need be
4. switching from editing out routines to editing in routines from cultures other than the ones that we
were raised in--at first we become upset, aware, worried to find natural routines and reactions in us
have bad natures or consequences or produce negative reactions from others, so we practice mostly
shutting down such responses while we figure out what is safe and good to do; but later we realize this
is a chance to vastly improve the views, responses, and routines inside us, so we actively seek mentors,
role models, figures in biographies from whom to learn better routines
5. resistance from our primary group--close friends and family--cultures-selves-highperformance are all
shared heavily practiced routines that means inside other people are routines for noticing, handling,
and constituting us. When we change the routines that constitute us--they lose investments made in
routines for noticing etc. us--they lose a part of their own selves. They generally do not like this and
resist it--and thereby, become the primary blocks to us changing. This is active, aggressive resistance to
any new routines in us that they do not have routines for noticing, handling, and constituting as us.
Culture as Barrier to Self Growth and Adulthood; Education as Un-culturing. We do not make much of our
selves from zero to 20 years of age. Much more powerful others, mom, dad, siblings, teachers, make us--teach
us the “right” way to do just about everything. We have, without conscious awareness, installed into us, mil-
lions of routines, habitual noticing, habitual responses. We end up 20 years old absolutely filled with stuff we
did not choose consciously and are not generaly aware of. Our initial factory settings are there, operating
inside us, but we do not know what they are, and it take huge amounts of effort to bring such well practiced
routines back into conscious awareness. We seldom do so, unless forced repeatedly.
THE CULTURE--EDUCATION--ADULTHOOD--COLLEGE CONNECTION

We avoid culture, obtusely impose culture, otherwise handle it badly--WHY? Why is it such an emotional thing for us? Culture is sets of routines
we practice and share with particular others--so, it manages us unless we somehow get OUTSIDE of our own selves and self contents = education.
We SCHOOL people to make their brains the same, we TEACH to transfer info, we TRAIN to build skills, we EDUCATE to escape our Initial Factory Settings
and wield our various selves, cultures, performances knowing their weaknesses, biases, flaws, and alternatives. Ability without education = evil.
The Discovering Crisis: EDUCATE = TWO KINDS OF
Own Ways Purpose Higher e --out from PEOPLE:
Adulthood
Despair Bribe Possibility
of Education duco--lead
in Latin A type wields
College without
Doorway in College Education Reality
Lead us educates
culture only
out from people & from inside it,
our Initial people not seeing it,
Factory educate or alternatives
By Un-Loving Child Definition Self’s Possibility Settings people,
Initial of Being Adult reality is to it.
Parts of Us, Bigot of Manage, not gentle.
We Free Them Factory at Age 55+
to CHANGE in Us All Adulthood Settings
improve,
& save the B type wields
cultures that culture only
raised us. from outside it,
Insecure elites seeing its
How We GROW: Sport The considerable
30+ Year
By this
measure
Education: Own Ways do not want strengths &
Having Team investment we Getting their popula-
What We Culture
make in our own Journey there are
Beyond
Self Purify tions educated. flaws from its
routines needs of Self Making few adults
Be Flaw protecting/saving. around us. Self’s IFSs to Suicide They substitute origins, and
schooling & teaching. alternatives
1) Our tendency is to STRENGTHEN cultures when challenged, but making our cultures stronger usually leads to disaster better than it.
2) It is by making US more EDUCATED, that is, by extracting US from the cultures we are unconsciously IN that we avoid disaster A = barbaric
3) WWI--20 million dead extracting Europe from aristocrats; WWII extracting Japan and Germany from too national nationalities, Europe from Christianity B = educated
4) EDUCATEDNESS makes culture use stronger and more effective, strengthening cultures makes cultures self-destroyingly powerful.
Below are a triangle of 256 smaller triangles--256 of the favorite theories of the author of
this book--and an octagon of 8 smaller octagons--a theory of images of organization that
blend to form actual structures and procedures in human institutions. In addition each
model of innovation in this book is a theory of certain variables inter-related in certain ways
that suffice to change history and entire fields with single innovations. So that is three
examples--a diagram of 256 favorite theories used by one person, a diagram of an 8 part the-
ory of another person, and a book of 100 models of innovation. People who master, remem-
ber, more theories, more abstract ones, more diverse ones, more detailed ones, more mult-
level ones, that cover society more comprehensively, live in a bigger world than us and
notice lots that we cannot and and imagine responses and alternative ways-to-go that we
cannot imagine. That is real power for amazement, surprise = innovations.
A more general question for readers to consider--after scanning the 256 and the 8 and the
100 models of innovation in this book is this---
What happens to the feelings, thoughts, actions of a person

who exposes themselves to that much variety, detail,
coverage?
A partial answer to that question is given by the 64 Masks of God dynamics model given at
the end of this chapter.
Woodman
everything
innovation
Van de Ven
final
champions
Robinson Lwein
freeze
kaizen refreeze
EVOLUTION
Barthes Douglas
narrative Derrida symbol Grondona
Maynard deconstructnism culture of
Smith development
7 levels fashion
biologic Piaget development
Goodwin structuralism Yunnus
science of Kegan micro Baron
Gould emergent be-have institution ecology of
evolution forms Mandelbrot transitions development
levels fractals self change
MANAGING DISCONTINUITIES
Weick Greene Greene Greene Runco Kauffman Csikszentmihalyi
Arthur sense information surprise community question non-linear social Tambini
complexity making
design model finding systems judgement etiquette
of ideas based
types insight system participation
non-linearity Greene automata Berger cyber
10 insight Greene culture Schwartz
Greene 128 functions Simonton population Gardner interactions democracy
system matrix darwinian automaton inverted U by
Cohen effects Bryan event
emergent Holland functions types of public Tsaganousian ou
organization horizontal
bucket brigade CREATION spaces meshes
SURPRISE Greene Fiske Ward
extreme
DEMOCRACY
career
Wildavsky Cullen Senge development May cognitive Behm Weiss
Pasmore problem
operators
surprise narrative archtypes Grove courage
goal
Barber created Spreizer outcome Wittman
Stalin types surprises self strong space empowerment intervention political
contradictions typologies canabilization person democracy policy markets
inter-level Greene systems Greene spaces Neustadt coalitions
Schon surprise Bak subcreations the study of
self organ.zd Dahl history as Ross
frame types sizes
reflec- Krugman criticality Arthur error Gutmann conflict’s
Shelling tion Axtel Arendt Ishikawa culture DeToqueville
interlevel order from increasing deliberative alternative
iterated dilemmas instability, random growth returns spaces poli circles democracy spaces
256 THEORIES FOR SEEING PARTS OF THE WORLD OTHERS OMIT

Gould MacCauley Greene Argyis Huczynski Nonaka Vaill/Greene Greene Greene Elam Greene Thagard
free fiction plurified Greene double management compilations JIT manage by JIT Canon innateness connectionist metaphor Greene
Dawkins’s agents technique jobs social gurus events org.ns pschyoanalytic sociality
memes loops Benedikt managing need/seed
Feldman’sdemes career virtuality know econ cyberality disolution existentialism complexity gaps
code Frankl comp self Lave subworlds Greene growth Cilliers org learning
culture of legitimated manage by neural
success Greene Lifton peripheral Tenner movement Greene Albin deconstruc-
Greene’s Gardner self as Greene
Enteman GEC protean partici- technology’s buiding measures of tionism
Parson’s diversity
Fiske’s
managerialism self pation revenge 9 types of theorist
complexity Greene org. learning
as Greene’s
4 elemental Shapiro collaboration
code-action
relation types
Gelehrter 64 org learning creativity surprise
ubiquity types
factors COGNITIVICS virtuality BIOLOGICS modes
POWER Greene social: Greene cognitive:
arch,furn,appa, Greene arch,furn,appa,
TECHNICAL SOCIETIES Campbell
ecological
Parke POPULATIONS
Epstein Axtell Sandoe hubs Smoth discourse cognitive discourse
McGrath Greene Negroponte
participatory globalnext Greene human Brown Arthur’s
autonoma Greene info not agile venture religion participation ecology org & Greene
May authority far from technologies Giddens economy agriculture composition illusions practice industrial niches Greene
equilibrium
power models GEC JIT org.ns centralized addictive structuralism Honneth Toffler intersections combinatorics make culture
niches transplants
computational relationships mind extensions lived praxis computed socialities
critical theory planetary spirit
de-massification clusters
efficacy Hunberman relational Greene dynamics Malone critiques Ashworth cultures Sabel operations
cognitive Parsons Garfinkel Turner marketizations single network of
Pfeffer fluid org.ns Arendt procedural Wallerstein Sperber
science Miliband household Resnick coops Jame-s
power events dimensions action social physics
role
Hochschild from Lahey
world systems fashions social classes Jun de-central- Hofstede culture Greene
Bandura power Sternberg ization Giddens Greene blends solution
self efficacy self awareness emotional work nothing kinds of talk MANAGING EMERGENCE globalization de-localization culture dimensions cultures
MANAGING EXISTENCE Greene Greene Greene Greene MANAGING SOCIETIES

Greene insight
innovation creativity emotional Greene group
Senge Greene Hardin Deming & Taguchi Hammar Greene intelligence movement dynamics Clark Friedson Greene Blesdoe Mohr
Hermet systems global Juran re- as non-linearity dynamics knowledge Greene Mathews
whistle Gladwell knowledge cognition as classes
global quality systems Campbell optima engi. neer Langer networking enterprise
individual architypes variation Gladwell change MbyBal, SAL points bureaucratized cultures routine
liberacy 1000 face hero economies change
invention global performance mindfulness invention collaborate tipping points modes change trend riding professions
structure Greene ecstatic Kano & Cole sociality Greene ecommerce Greene marketing Postrel-Kelly connectedness Illych evolution
Evolutionary small group ism creativity Greene leadership rule mystifications
Baron Engineering Suzuki Norman Schribner Shapiro Peppers Davies Kauffman
Weiskel zen Csiksz. delight quality processware Davenport balances Watt Burt
ecosystem the sublime flow
everyday media knowledge Saturn 1 to 1 anti-fashion structural near Vaill
cognition Greene
Ortney self Reason Vogotsky mind
blends markets
customer
Kotler small worlds holes Starbuck beyond design as
change
emotion error QUALITY social mind extensions SOCIAL TECHNOLOGIES community ubiquity
COMMUNITY
org.n as process
to tend not outcome rest & adventure
PERSON Markus Foa & Foa

effectance Greene resource
MIND Greene
knowledge Greene org
Greene INFLUENCE Goffman
person as
Mumford
city as
ORGANIZATION
Epstein Bock Mandeville Greene Greene Kintsch management social learning Barthes Runco Goffman interfaces Davis museum Berger Arendt
customer theory Calvin fractal causal path macros Flores strippers design as everyday culture Harrison conserved
human good
anomie natures from Arendt satisfaction indexing humor Lillrank crossing Gardner
Sartre darwinian models stars discourse Quinn performance Meindl
library & team
culture game novelty coincidence
project bad elementals well being thoughts romance
cultures structurings moves indexing emergent performance deconstructions
layers founding events
motive Wildavsky being Oliver
customer
dynamics Greene discourse Greene strategy Vaill
high performance
leading Arendt polic
Pye Geertz
structure Bhide decision
personal culture rresponse high hierarchy of
May Tillich Greene satisfaction ‘Wegner matrices Greene
performance
Hedberg Greene theatre Greene’s
manage by certainties March
courage types
Engle 9 anxieties Kierkegaard Fodor transactive
memory Edelman
Keryser evidence Tannen preferred leading =
following state building Weick’s Simon quiet mind
Freud dilemmas Maslow modules meeting moves gender Porter illusion Mintzberg March Fiedler Mintzberg movements loosely coupled bounded least March
deciding garbage cans
hydraulics hierarchy mystifications reflections dynamic core behaviors behaviors plan, position negotiation magic show exchange types system rationality
Theory Literacy: 256 Theories
Television and Hollywood have ended all religions as belief systems and as local practices run
by old village men. Every man, woman, and child on the planet now can see how others
ways of life are worse in some and better in other ways to their own ways. Every man,
woman, and child can see how the more local religions insist they alone are right, good, etc.
the more foolish and defensive they look and the weaker their gods look. Gods that need
people to murder other people having other gods are, pretty weak, apparently unable to
take care of themselves. TV and Hollywood have made absolutes of all sorts, including
absolute rightnesses, ridiculous and laughable, though local religious leaders get angry and
disappointed by this and order killings out of their frustration at no longer being righter than
all others. TV and Hollywood now are extended by the world wide web, so local beliefs that
include absolutes look even more riduculous faster to anyone alive with a cell phone. This
global information access will not be rolled by even by the world’s stupidest dictators--it is
like electricity, cars, phones, vaccines--it is an inevitable subtrate of technology progress.
So theories inside belief systems that say this or that way or god or belief or practice is
righter than all others become, via TV, Hollywood, and the web--laughable and ridiculous, no
longer worthy of respect, though ignorant weak men may kill trying to prevent “loss of right-
ness” they could pretend to in their village as long as, for centuries, it was isolated from all
other beliefs, ways, etc.
What happens? A world wide collapse of beliefs, to zero, while value is still found in reli-
gious practices. Gradually an ecologic, evolutionary, global, secular, science-based new reli-
gions with congregational local reflection practices replaces old beliefs, as the 64 dynamics
below suggest.
Whatever theories you read and accept and apply, will be tested by the huge historic forces
that generate the 64 Masks of God emerging secular religion below. Your theories have to
mitigate global warming, embrace the awe that comes to lives never through gods anymore
but only thru black holes and dark matter and science, have to create respect for and bene-
fit from others having other ways, and so on. Theories that are compatible with the 64
Masks of God below, are safe, effective, and make your world bigger without justifying mak-
ing the actual world smaller via mass killing. What theories can I develop and use? The
ones compatible with the 64 Masks of God dynamics in the table below.
64 Masks of God, the emerging ecologic global evidence-based new religion

Func- Channel 1. handle horror at life feeds on life
tions: Drives: life’s voracity
handle dream is to
individual 2. handle threat of channel sexuality to permit social care and stability
circum- as myth is chaos from eros
stances to peoples 3. handle the ruin of the urge to theft, take by force another’s, must be blunted; big fish eat little
that all overcoming fish = rank games--320 bc Arthasastra by Kautilya
humans
4. handle the urge for mirroring others and making their suffering one’s own
face
compassion
Give Mean- 5. save existence from get us to identify with powers that generate us and all else rather than powers
ing to Tem- worry that separate and distinguish us from all else = body and tribe
porality:
partiality 6. infuse existing with offer daily mind the ability to “not care” not act “not harm” and see/feel/aim
due to calmness of the eternal beyond reacting to present busyness, & to care beyond what localities permit
desire/fear 7. designate safe and map experiences and deliver certain experiences so minds stay capable of car-
via iden-
tify with dangerous states of ing for self and society; tell us what it is safe to believe
generator mind, tell what it is
of partial- safe to believe
ity 8. transport us provide a door for escaping the local so non-local contexts can infuse and
beyonde idea and feel improve the local
of localities in mind,
self, and society
Forge 9. stop waiting for empower people to live fully without waits for something outside to provide
Enduring external saviors power or authorizations to live fully and meet needs now, partial though now
Identity: be
what is left
after disas- 10. identify: I am the via stories, festivals, rites, rituals getting all members of a community to iden-
ter = ego- myth’s hero tify with what transcends differences, ranks, and other localities; define a
less ID “you” there after disaster, beyond body
11. relief from self- “the good” is just doing the union that is really there under apparent differ-
ness ence, their suffering is mine
12. unite opposed get them to identify with something that transcends localities; my most “me”
actors interior part, is exqactly what “they” are--that over there is thou
Furnish 13. share wonders make mind modest before universe’s contents; get consciousness to respect/
Vantage Pt. relate-to the preconditions that make it exist; arouse to awe by out/in/fix
for Adjust- moves; design outer to reveal inners, inner to infuse outer with transcends; fix
ing Person
to Sociiety illusions fostered by consciousness: locality, separateness, ranks
and V.V.: 14. present consistent so society fits with cosmos, so lives, careers, fit with society; adapt and auto-
we created image of cosmos and mate persons’ values/habits to fit cosmos and society via rites
divisions
that intimi- society
date us 15. guide individuals describe, celebrate, and enact self transforms needed to fit people to society
through stages of life and vice versa and society transforms; provide distant detached vantage point
for person/society to see self reflect and design changes
16. define form of ful- romance myth: what has never been seen? your life compelte in death; fulfill-
fillment compatible ment from ending ego existence; drop desire/fear for awe, body so passion
with death becomes compassion
Dynam- Spirit’s 17. spirit as the diver- spirituality does the work of figuring out with diverse others what transcends
ics: Door: Pour sity task, figure out apparent differences and conflicts; once solidarity is achieved spirit tends to
god is soi in en soi what transcends appar- sicken, unless new diversities are incorporated
an ent differences
experi- 18. paradoxes being religious prevents religious experience; god is not god; no thing is sacred
ence because all things are sacred; losing your self gains you a stronger self; judge-
not an ment day is daily for spiritual people but a magic illusin for religious people
entity 19. inauthentic duali- the garden and the exile from it = nomadic warrier male beliefs conquering
ties female agriculture eliefs ago; ethical duality--me against self or “them vs.
mystical unity; Christianity’s error using Aristotle duality so creator/creation
not the same
20. authentic dualities blend requirements of world and rapture both; transcend all and the local
myths that gave you that transcending; doorway and explosive meditation;
dual living: doing local laws while valuing them from beyond them vantage;
conquer desire/fear = awe
Escaping 21. globality reveals actual encounter of the other relativizes beliefs opens door to transcendence
One’s Iden- idolatry of locals in local beliefs gone dead/sterile; each local uses distincts to achieve tran-
tity: being scendence to same “god”/reality of non-distinct-ness
self from
vantage 22. locality reveals recovery of local myths puts you in touch with transcendence found by local
point out- globally relevant tran- myths everywhere
side the scendence
self
23. going out requires to meet the world you must become more interior and sensitive to interior
going in contents; who you are mis-performs when abroad = experience of identity as
prison
24. going in requires finding what is deep inside you requires frames beyond local ones so you can
going out value and spot content not locally adopted; identity blocks global use and life
The Dan- 25. laws of living vs. religions = society fears transformation by its own religious persons so it
gers of laws of thinking defines static ways or lacking causal knowledge it fears going beyond tradi-
Localities tion’s boundaries
Un-
escaped: 26. magic savior in the when religious metaphors are taken literally, people wait for magic entity to
hell is not sky illusion save them from themselves or their situations = live inauthentically while wait-
getting out ing = anti-spiritual lives
of the iden-
tity you 27. non-transcending when religious metaphors are taken literally your eligious identity becomes the
were born you, god, symbols = ego you “which is saved” = an illusion adn the opppsite of spirituality; gods
with idolatry with form are blocks to god
28. unexpressed dei- the nature spirits of female agriculture tribes denied by conquering male war-
ties = demons loosed rior nomads come to moderners as scary threats or excesses because we do not
admit their power, divinity, and ritualize their use
Spirit’s 29. the spiritual pro- having not being--I behold me, my thoughts, my body, my doing, I am not
Method: cess them; educate as bring out what is inside people = beyond ego; yoga as self
find & management: pelvis (species force), eye (turn agression towards self), mind
operate in
all con- (idea and beyond idea of god) = freeing from forces
texts 30. the spiritual ways/ see without desire/fear = way of art; male and female ways = warrior gods kill
beyond the paths female nature gods; salt doll walks into sea = no one there to see it dissolve,
local &
influencing the ego dissolve; follow bliss to transcendence; establishment (nature), dis-
it establishment (fall = nomad invasion of male tribal gods) gods so elite of tribe
shows the way = distates spirit route, routines for non-elite
31. spirituality evolves local image to globa l truth to begter local image = cycle; from recurring
sacred nature universe to good vs. evil with us good, the other evil = tribal
identity wars = war, marxism; from awe at animals, cosmos, motion order , to
existence itself; from plural nature gods to 1 tribal god to creed to new global
eco god needed now
32. spirit’s courage good is people returned after awe encounter and operating beyond local dis-
tinctions and separations; challenge what limits your life = brings death of ego
closer = fulfillment
Errors: Literal- 33. metaphor taken as so meaning of symbols is missed and instead magical beings and doings are
power ism: mak- literal truth believed in, with people waiting to be saved by outside beings = living irre-
from ing sacred sponsibly
the hap-
sym- penstance 34. ethics as how to “the good” as people returned from awe encounter and acting beyond local
bols local sym- live distinctions and separations; aboriginal religions do not hate or see selves
not bols not above neighboring peoples or ways or gods, do not have “mission” to “smite
what the mean-
ings those enemy and enemy gods”
they symbols 35. reify ethnicity the happenstance details of local tribes and locales made “sacred” laqws
point point to because their symbolicc meaning--as pointers to human growth--is missed; the
to locality substitutes itself for the transcendent till local symbols no longer
transport people int the transcendent; religions with early political power
become laws of right ways to live while religions without early political power
are philosophies dividing god into parts and levels and strata
36. symbols as magic god, jesus, etc. taken as entities or worse as people like beings rather than
entities not experiences taken as events in consciousness,experiences; daily end of the world, daily vir-
gin birth, daily promissed land in any true form of religiosity
Magic: 37. failure to handle Copernicus showed that what we experience and perceive is not reality; but
believing in copernicus historic religions today are stuck in pre-Copernican thought and cosmologies
supernatu-
ral divine 38. failure to leave image of god is a block to the transcendent power that “god” symbolized so
beings that defined forms for god people must grow beyond god and beyond any form on the divine
you wait for 39. dated cosmologies childish, ignorant, ridiculous stories of origins read and taken as serious when
to save you,
so you live science’s revelations are much mre mysterious, awesome, true, and religious;
completely people just laugh at stories of god “breathing” on waters, and god, tired, tak-
irresponsi- ing days of rest = not so omnipotent a god afterall
bly waiting 40. solidarity alone instead of transformation of self and culture; magical thinking sees symbols as
for life
rather than from symbol encounter ways to unify people not ways to grow them beyond unity and identity
pioneering
authentic
new ways to
live here,
now
Localities 41. religion as enemy us-them thinking; we and our ways are sacred, others and their ways are hea-
Reified: generator then and must be “smitten; training in “us best” think; training in “our way is
local eth- the 1 right way think; deadly in a global internetted world = out of date mur-
nic things
made derous think
sacred, 42. male gods con- male tribves invaded agricultural peoples, with one “tribal” god, male,
which oth- quering female ones destroying many “nature” gods, female = “the Fall” as males invaded, and
ers lack,
making creating societal neuro- elites of the tribe were put between people and god as a way out of “the Fall”,
them un- ses but Fall is just euphemism for male invasion and 1 tribal god killing off many
sacred, nature gods
killable = 43. forgiveness as if I know I will be forgiven on Sabbath weekly, I can sin more during the week;
wars
moral hazard (sin a lot god is all powerful but yet needs rest on the 7th day=not so powerful afterall;
then get “forgiven”); god is beyond all but is male=not so beyond, perhaps pays taxes; god is all
sloppy thinking knowing but gets surprised and angry=sounds not so smart or wise; god never
graduated from high school so he tortures prostitutes and not the gangsters or
customers who enslave them=god is immoral and uneducated, a bad role
model for kids
44. only our objects each locality makesa door to the transcendant using local materials to repre-
are sacred not yours sent deep interior psychic journeyings; the sacredness of such local objects is
as pointers to transcendant reality beyhond them but literal thinking makes
the symbols not the meaning they point to, sacred
Disempow- 45. interpose an elite error of non-identity of me and god; error of separating creator and creation =
erment: between me and god using Aristotle’s thought
giving
power to 46. “only our tribe/ global media turn such local beliefs taken as “best” into jokes or wars--every-
connect to god is right” ways is one already knows there are 1000s of local ways to god, each with some truth/
the divine dead some distortion; fundamentalists are afraid = the ostrich strategy of “pretend
to magic we are best”, “kill the heathen” and make our tribe true-est by killing off all
being or
elite clergy other tribes = gods so weak they need regular murders to “protect” them or
so each their “sacredness” from the puny criticisms and actions of men; gods needing
person does murder are fatally weak
not relate 47. marriage is ordeal to relationship not partner therefore it prepares for religious consciousness of
or save
them- of sacrificing self to sacrificing ego for relating to transcendent reality beyond all local gods; error
selves, liv- relationship not partner of sacrificing self for partner = idolatry or fundamentalism
ing 48. no salvation from we alone save ourselves, we save meaning, it does not save us, we save god,
irresponsi-
bly outside “waiting for he does not save us; waiting for salvation = pure form of anti-religious life,
Jesus” hoping magic being will take responsibility for us, so we stay as children till we
die
The Use Con- 49. use actual wonders black holes, dark matter, quantum gravity, quantum entanglement, digital sub-
Next temporary given by modern cos- strate generating time and space as emergents, are all more wonderful, mys-
New Materials: mology terious, awesome than any 6000 or 2000 year old myth of world origins (giant
our cos-
Global mos, our snakes, god breathing or pooping on water)--use real mystery that is there not
Reli- social stupid old cosmologies from illiterate shephards thousands of years ago that
gion: dilemmas, are not just jokes
other our global
values/ 50. endless repeats of use each new monkey trial (against Darwin, against stem cell human regenra-
gods as tastes/info monkey trials tion, against re-engineering people for space life when the sun destroys the
my are what earth, against science) to throw people out of magic irresponsibility and into
friends new reli- true awe at a universe creative enough to randeomly invent us (and others?);
not my gion will show us hiding in magic from real life/courage via monkey trial repeats
ene- use
51. bibles, all of them, any use of an old book to tell someone how to act, allows them to avoid facing
mies are evil and thinking their situations, letting some random text passage (of books
sacred only because when they were published everyone around was illiterate
and only priests could read) decide for them = pure irresponsibility;
52. belief itself is pure any system of value or act based in b elief is pure evil as it has no possibility of
evil truth (crap shoot truth only); only experiment tested ideas are safe to believe
because proven replicable in effects; truth must meet the standard of the sci-
ence of the day or it is ethnic-group magic imposed on people wanting magic
solutions not human invented earned responsible ones
Apply the 53. our life’s contents the new emerging religion must start with the globality of each of us, our per-
Masks of as global doors to won- sonal exposure to diversity around the global nad thru history and how differ-
God: diver- der ence opens us to wonder; = not enclose us in “we are best” lies and
sity of orig-
ina, aim, exaggerations and defensive maneuvers;
belief, 54. one new global one wonderful reality diversely viewed and mistaken as “ours alone” in peo-
ways is a commonsense: one ples
primary
new mate- eternity diversely
rial the viewed
new reli- 55. religion as how myths in religions are stories telling journeys of struggle out of which “better”
gion will be people do psychology characters or heros emerge--journeys of self transformation; today we have
built from
before the age of sci- mentors, therapists who do this and increasingly, clergy do it too as science
ence replaces belief being more powerful than belief in solving
56. develop the per- of practices and images, distortions and biases, from each local religion, and
sonal global repertoire refigure these materials into a global, ecologic, evidence based new religion
all the world celebrates and enhances together
Spot & 57. restore sacredness male invasion of agricuoture societyes distored belief by denying sacredness of
Handle to nature natural forces, like sex, which in modern world, unacknowledged, operates as
Unmet demonic forces in people; the fall myths as euphemisms for past wars and now
Spiritual
Needs: ecologically dangerous
dead magi- 58. restore self the wonder of “there is nothing to wait for” and “you can save yourself now”;
cal literal- responsibility stop making people wait for authentic life, as they wait for a magic outside
ist religions
have left being to “save” them (from themselves);
spirit 59. develop respect & love and care are negotiated, not automatic, in the new emerging religion, as
unfostered using diversity differing frames become moral by rehearsing concretely, their limited views
for genera- and origins and cooperating with other viewsw to negotiate experiments test-
tions, so
people ing combinations of their respective contents
seek won- 60. invent new culture trying to live in any culture not global, ecologic, evidence based is hopeless
der not foster old ones and leads already to despair; only yet to be built new cultures will unleash
hope and get people beyond fears/desires; we must invent the new culture of
the global not borrow, jerry rig old local ones
Not Find 61. not find but invent no past religion will connect us to awe anymore--we all have already grown
butInvent our own new path to beyond them all, we are global, ecologic, evidence not belief based in our
the Next awe commonsense; when we stop hiding in old symbols taken literally, we see the
Religion:
local con- puny-ness of the divisions/ego selfnesses of our ways of living and LIVE
grega- 62. stop waiting for instead actively invent it ourselves now, so we live fully, informed by wonders
tional the new global, eco, from our science-based actual cosmology, re-inventing umanness via stem
science
already evidence-based reli- cells, reforming bodies for space life when our sun dies, and discovering that it
exists, gion to emerge is discoveries that are what makes us human not pasts
wonders of 63. the new religion all tribal laws are silly as science has found laws across all tribes = basis for a
science already exists: its the- global ecoogic new common practice of deciding what is safe to believe = sci-
inspire
local ology is science, its ence is how we today decide what it is safe to believe--is she a witch, do an
morality practice is therapy, experiment, not look up in a 2000 year old book
changes raves, concerts
64. the new religion global quality-related movements Q of earth, Q of conflict, Q of production,
already exists: its mis- plus new techn ology movements are the new global eco evidence religion’s
sion is 11 global quality practices at work: it lacks only Sabbath congregational forms, but even that is
movements meshing present in Saturday night youth raves and Sunday evening NGO meetings

THE BECOME THEORIST MODEL OF INNOVATION
the implementation
questions
HOW DO YOU DO THIS? This model of innovation, like the previous two in this book, is a land you enter,
inhabit, and explore. Innovations happen as you explore, without you having to
intend them or plan them. They are a simple byproduct of seeing enormous
diverse vistas others cannot see, and you responding in ways no one else imag-
ines. Of course, spotting, and entering these new lands requires wide ranging
deep transformations of self, of deeply rooted unconscious processes and ways
operating inside you. That is not something many men on their way to quar-
terly “earnings” are good at or aware of or can tolerate. So not a lot of such
people innovate--rather they generate Innovation Noises.
It is not reading models and theories that increases your repertoire, it is delib-
erate practice applying them to situations--finding what in situation X corre-
sponds to each variable in each model/theory. Repeated practice of that, for
periods of ten or more years, suffice to pack hundreds of models and theories
into your mind whose details you can actually recall and apply. This enormously
expands the land you see, move around in, and explore. It turns those explora-
tion steps, automatically, into innovations.
The easiest example to see of this is someone in Japan working for prize win-
ning quality companies there, mastering the quality circle programs, who then
comes back to the USA and gets assigned to distribute a new software technol-
ogy across General Motors’ workforce. He strips statistics out of the Japan cir-
cles he experienced, substitutes knowledge modeling from artificial
intelligence software, and bingo, Knowledge Based Systems Circles, a new
faster, less risky, less expensive way to transfer high technologies to large US
workforces--winning him the Baldrige Award for him and Xerox. He occupied a
foreign land with foreign ways and came back habituated to those ways, natu-
rally, without thought or effort using them where they fit US needs better than
traditional US ways (elite expensive delaying Phds delivering overly costly ver-
sions of new technologies in the US). The innovation was effortless, automatic
result of the other world he occupied even when returned to the US. This is a
simple example of this Become Theories Model of Innovation. It is also an
example of the Culture Crossing Model of Innovation, though for that other
details are needed, presented in another chapter of this book).
WHAT ARE THE MAJOR This is not a short cut to quarterly earnings method. It takes years of self trans-
OBSTACLES YOU ENCOUN- formation, not superficial changes but deep changes in the inner workings of
TER? minds. Few “men” can bother with such patient long term emotional interior
work. They prefer smashing some enemies or personal bombast displays--any-
thing to get them to their nirvana--”mommy mommy look at me”. IF you enter
such an OTHER WORLD via building up a personal repertoire of diverse theories,
you will differ in myriad ways from all around you all the time--easily isolating
you and reducing your social power to get others mobilized around your better
insights and ideas. So a real effort for social skill and connection has to accom-
pany your mastery of many theories--to balance differing with acceptance.
WHY DO MANY NEVER It amazes me, all the time, how the vast majority of people with 50+ year old
ATTEMPT IT? bodies whom I meet, occupy those bodies with 12 year old minds--fully using
and trusting dumb local bigot opinions from their hometowns, decades after
such ideas were useful. They dilligently update their work task contents while
leaving their personal self contents dated and dangerous. With no adults in the
room to work with, I spend a lot of time being a nursrey school teacher to 50
year olds and arrogant 30 year olds--all of whom have 12 year old minds. The
vast majority of people find the automaticity and ease of wielding smame old
views, values, and ways from their childhoods a bribe that keeps them, lifelong,
from updating their selves and the ways of those selves. The result--50 year old
bodies occupied by 12 year old minds, trusting opinions and habits that did not
even work very well 40 years ago when they were 12.
26. Christensen’s Disrupt Model of Innovation.

The truth is professors at business school generally follow business trends a decade or two
later, teaching how to make Silicon Valleys in “entrepreneurship” courses in the early 1990s,
two decades after Silicon Valley started its rapid growth phase. If you want yesterday well
presented go to your top ten business school professor! Christensen is a good example of
this. He writes business history, culling from his own history, some generalizations gotten by
abstracting. He studies the history of the telecommunications industry and names three
kinds of customer--overshot ones, undershot ones, and non-ones--plus regulation changes
understood by their effects on motivation to enter a market and ability to enter a market.
He replaces the old diffusion of innovation theory about pioneer customers passing on new
ideas/products/technologies to more conservative main stream customers. He talks about
innovations that disrupt markets, that displace markets, and that sustain markets. An inno-
vation disrupts a market when it comes with a new business model so that existing big firms
in the market who try to cram it into old business models fail. An innovation displaces oth-
ers in a market when it offers fundamentally new value propositions to all or many customer
segments--it does a job customers want better than existing prior ideas/products/technolo-
gies.
What is Christensen doing? He is assimilating the history of big firms failing due to new tech-
nologies arising--Xerox defeated by Canon, Kodak defeated by Japanese digital camera
firms, IBM defeated by rising personal computer firms--to traditional business-professor
speak--little quad diagrams with transition paths among quads and signals of when transi-
tions are about to happen. What he leaves out is immense. Indeed, what he leaves out is
far more powerful and interesting than what his theory includes. It is nice that we have the
history of technologies and markets written up by business school professors like Chris-
tensen, but when they miss the boat, assimilate what happened to the five cultures of busi-
ness, we get little insight. In the case of Christensen’s disruptive innovation theory, we get,
basically, overshoot, undershoot, and nonconsumer, plus regulation effects on motive and
ability. That is, by my counting, five names of roles typically found in the history of any new
technology that ruined big firms in the past. He may call it “a theory” but it is history, pure
and simple, with roles of role players given names. That may be theory in his eyes, but not
in my eyes. I object not only because he talks about theory so much in his books as if he has
anxiety about whether people will take it seriously, but also because he assimilates what
happened in history to the five cultures traditional to business, missing much.
Consider the summary below of his theory but thinking about the following:
1. digital culture clashing with analog culture--within firms, within nations (east and
west coast), within industries, what causes this and what solves it?
2. spin offs clashing with canabilizations--how does a dominant firm based on an old
profitable technology compete with itself effectively using rising new
entrant technologies?
3. product ecosystems--when does a new innovation generate an entire new industry
of add on products and input modules so that missing its boat hurts hugely
financially?.

@
'
$$)$3A*-
*

#

"

0

/
0 ' !

&

&'
1

%
"
&# %
'
B787"
"

C,
,
4!5&
&

-

!&
'
89:7

.!!

&

&

.

8997%
'
%'
&

'

;'<!
=

!% !

'*

&'+

%&

&'

,

&
4!
" +

&
'&
,4!
2
5
,
&'

&
67', 3

/%&

&'

0

!!
'

(
!

&,

!

!

$!

&'

&

%

&'

!
'
!*

''+

!

)

*

&

0 /'

&
*)

?

,
, /

'!
!
&
&
'

&, /
''

!

&,

,.' '!

'

5

!

,

,!& '

'
'

!'
&'

,.

,!&

!'

!'>
,
'!

;
<

Ask yourself as you read the summary below, does it answer well the above three questions?
WHEN WILL INNOVATION WILL LEAD TO EMERGENCE OF NEW COMPANIES OR NEW

BUSINESS MODELS?
Note: This theory offers itself as an alternative to old diffusion theories of hot ideas diffusing
through economies and firms from “lead” and “pioneer” users to less ven-
turesome ones.
1. when overshooting exists!--a company overshoots by getting ahead of its cus-

tomers in functions/features/sophistication, existing products are more than
good enough
RESULT: become vulnerable to low-end new competitors from new entrants--”let’s sell them
the cheap simple stuff they need”
RESULT: become vulnerable to modularizations from existing competitors--”let’s break up
this monster into smaller, cheaper, bit-sized pieces that customers can assem-
ble as they need”
SIGNAL: innovation faster than customer use patterns and life change; overshooting causes
commoditization, customers balk at paying more for new functions, learning
cost complaints; functionality and reliability done customers clamor for ease
of use = less features,
FROM WHOM: most overshot customers are targeted by low end disruptions “give me some-
thing simple and less costly”; specialists replace integrated behemoths, stan-
dards evolve that define minimal functions for new low end offerings; a
business model that makes money in a different way that market leaders do;
displacements create specializations at modularity points via attacking main
stream market with parasitic insertions (pruning network access points, prun-
ing function sets, etc.); standards lowering barriers to entry; when standards
about how components combine appear, when theory less important for hir-
ing; conservation of integration (integration evolve up or down value chain
not disappearing)
2. when undershooting exists!--not enough features for customers so they are

willing to pay more for more, existing products are not good enough for cus-
tomer jobs-needing-doing
RESULT: become vulnerable to moderate and radical sustaining innovations from market lead-
ers
SIGNAL: reviews complaining about all industry offerings, consumer high complaint loads/
issues, “if only” comments, customizing bought to upgrade what products fail
to do, customers willing to pay premium prices for added functionality, system
companies more successful that specialist ones
FROM WHOM: lead, pioneer, intense users can be picked off by elite customized versions of a
technology/product; elite versions can suddenly become popular and wide-
spread threatening main markets; radical sustaining innovations from inte-
grated behemoths, coordinate changes in every product dimension
3. when unserved potential consumers exist!--people priced out, accessed out,

trained out of use of a product type to do a particular job for them
RESULT: become vulnerable to disruptive innovation, because the new innovation competes
not against established firms/customers but against unserved potential cus-
tomers it brings into product use for getting a particular job done
RESULT: emergence of products reducing access costs or ability needed to use a product costs
or learning costs or financial costs (convenience, customization, low price)
RESULT: emergence of products that do a job more easily or fit doing it into existing way of
life without disruptive personal routine changes, no priority or behavior
change requirements
SIGNAL: high rates of growth not large market size; products that target marginal customer
groups, products that replace hiring expertise from outside, products with
high initial price that yet are taken up by marginal markets well = meet a
need missed by market leader firms/products
FROM WHOM: new entrants come but are too small to be seen as threat by biggies in the mar-
ket and they compete not for present customers but for non-consumers
unserved by existing industry standards and minimal offerings; often new
entrants have new business model aimed at those nonconsumers
4. when rules of the game change!--new regulations, market entry rules/prices,

changes in access to capital and trade
RESULT: if changes lower barriers to innovation, threats from new market entrants
RESULT: if changes raise barriers to innovation, threats from new market entrants, from
larger unserved potential customer sets.
FROM WHOM: motivation to change and ability to change respond to regulatory signals
5. when there exist asymmetries of ability or motivation to offer products/ser-

vices
RESULT: cramming of disruptive tech into sustaining tech forms and processes of established
firms and markets--making it fit existing big customers/markets misses its dis-
ruptive potentials--cramming into non-fitting business model because of
refusal to adopt new business model, especially for main core market
RESULT: entrants grow and thrive up market from low market base, incumbents flee up mar-
ket from mid-market base--because incumbents seek premium prices up mar-
ket,
SIGNAL: spending money fixing deficiencies, expense and trouble integrating an acquisition,
persuading customers to put up with behavior changes they do not want,
focus on core is sign of flight, asymmetric motive turns into later asymmetric
skill
SIGNAL: asymmetry of motivation is signaled by firm doing something that another firm does
not want to do; asymmetry of ability is firm does something another firm is
incapable of
COUNTER SIGNAL: when flight is impossible/unattractive; when entrant does not come up
with new business model or unique skills so gets co-opt
This is a theory of failure--of dangers big firms face and generally fail to handle (includ-
ing all firms who paid Prof. Christsensen for consults) not a theory of what arises to
endanger them. It has a strange viewpoint unlike all other models in this book--how can
we protect old big things from the new? This is the ponderous elitist East Coast religion
of business doing things as is usual for it--the very anti-thesis of views that foster innova-
tion. In that sense this model is sick--a violation of the rest of this book. I include it
because it is the most bought by American firms (they must be utterly cowardly and stu-
pid to do this). Jill Lapore, writing in The New Yorker, notes an air of alarm and terror
about start-ups widespread in big old firms--who do view them as economic “terrorists”.
In the research upon which Christensen based his theory--the firms that “succeeded” by his
definition are nearly all gone and the ones unfortunately “disrupted” are all still thriving.
Apparently his own data violate his theory1 He predicted, in writing, the demise of the
iPhone! Got that one wrong! Lapore writes: “Christensen’s sources are often dubious and
his logic questionable.” Christensen’s own disruption-based investment fund lasted a year
before going bust. Again, my excuse for including this model is its harful idea of “disrupting”
endorses autistic nasty attack modes of innovation, hides the real digital tech basis of industry tech
changes today, and utterly fails to predict who wins competitive battles. It came 30 years after
Microsoft and intel and after the disk drive data it got entirely wrong about such old disruptions. Yet
this debased view and theory are everywhere in the media and have even permeated raw young
autistic minds in Silicon Vallley, damaging innovation capabilties there. This theory is a disease.
27. Perkin’s Search, Psyche, Social Model of

Invention.
This is a conference in inventing that turned into a book and a theory of invention. The the-
ory uses an old model, made popular by Herbert Simon, of searching idea spaces for good
ideas and good combinations of ideas. It is nice to see psychology and other social science
professors learning and applying ideas from the hard sciences and engineering 30 years later.
If the search space is all possible combinations of relevant ideas, that is, trillions of idea
combinations, it is too huge to be searched completely so inventing and discovering involves
ruling out large areas, and otherwise reducing what must be searched to a few “interesting”
part of the overall space. Reducing safely--that is, without omitting the eventual solution
idea combination--requires skill, theory, experience, judgement, and luck. The overall the-
ory sees inventing coming from three factors--search, psyche, and society. Inventing is
largely intellectual search, done by people whose minds enable such searching, supported by
social forms and institutions directed at doing such searching well. Inventing is individual
minds searching, enabled by certain psyche traits of those individuals, enabled by certain
social supports and institutions.
This gives us three theatres to operate in to foster invention in an organization:
1. how an individual mind searches

2. what individual mind searches well
3. what social processes and institutions enable that individual mind to search
well.
An organization can assist individual minds, that is, improve how they search, via intellec-
tual tactics. An organization can spot the types of individuals good at doing long mental
searches. An organization can provide socially the resources, conditions, and institutions
that enable such individuals to search intellectually well. Searching and exploring are good
overall images for creativity in business because the space of possible new products/tech-
nologies/ideas is enormous, growing exponentially every day. You have to see it is intellec-
tual territory, one that grows daily. Your firm has to “cover” that territory, in various ways.
First, you have to rule out uninteresting portions of it, because it is too huge to actually sur-
vey in detail. You need theory, experience, and judgement to do that safely so you do not
rule out eventual solutions of great power. Second, you have to search intelligently and
efficiently and insightfully the portions remaining after ruling out uninteresting areas. Bal-
ancing expanding search spaces with reducing/pruning them goes on several different times
during any one invention process. Searches can get rutted and unconsciously constrained by
past search effort histories, so expanding search spaces is sometimes needed. Searches can
get lost in endless possibilities without bringing any near enough to prototype stage to learn
about workability. Searches need to be pruned in this sort of case. Executives have a
responsibility to see that the organization is covering all intellectual search space that is out
there to be explored--yet that the searching done over it is efficient and convergent. They
have to expand and reduce search spaces dynamically over the course of managing many
invention processes in their firms.
1. Factors in search:
a. persistence
b. look in the right places--clues
c. questioning assumptions about where to look
d. efficient coverage of search spaces
2. Search for what:

a. finding needed function among many possible idea combinations
b. finding workable achievement of needed function among many possible idea combinations
c. finding fatal anomalies or side-effects among components of workable achieved idea com-
binations
d. finding solutions to anomalies and side-effects among components of workable achieved
idea combinations
3. Traits of successful searches:

a. long persistent searches over years not months
b. fractal granularity to insights--smaller insights within bigger ones on all size scales--not one
big eureka moment where everything fits suddenly together
c. reverse searching--searching for a thing to do a purpose or function, or, searching for a
purpose that a found thing can perform, finding a new purpose for existing
inventions to perform
d. chance is not a factor--the appearance of chance as a factor is an illusion--someone search-

ing with definite criteria and purpose “notices” by “chance”, but only
because of those criteria
e. theory defines basic constraints but does not get one close to a solution; it lays down
boundary conditions
f. styles of search--sheer chance (unintended exposure to pure chance), cultivated chance
(intentional exposure to pure chance), systematized chance (intentional
planned exposure to chance), fair bet (prototypes of good bets are tried and
discarded or modified), good bet (principles or theory used for good bet pro-
totype), safe bet (formal principles lead to nearly sure bet);
g. first and last search styles are rare in actual invention histories;
h. logic used for working out likely implications, implications that challenge the obvious,
implications based on subtle cues--heuristic plausible reasoning
j. after theory and experience narrow possibilities, the remaining smaller search space is sys-
tematically or automatically searched for good bets
k. transform search from searching on lumpy geographies, where small steps produce sharp
drops in needed functioning or sharp rises, to smooth ones where small steps
in one direction move result continually toward needed optimum of function-
ing
l. TRIZ innovation operators--30 standard mental operations generate 95% of all patents--
combining smaller inventions into a big one using standard innovation opera-
tors
m. balance search expansion with search compression in adaptive work process of inventor
4. Psyche
a. inventors of mere inventions versus inventors of new ways of inventing (Edison)
b. intelligence, ingenuity, articulation (because lots of selling of ideas must be done by inven-
tors)
c. encoding the unfamiliar in terms of the familiar and reverse, recoding the familiar to
accommodate the unfamiliar =role of analogy and visual figure
d. expertise in their field of inquiry, sense of medium, mental models within medium,
e. learn what you need as you go along, in inventing process
f. aesthetics, humor, playfulness; remarkable persistence; extreme sociability as technologies
become more complex and interact more inventing becomes more social
5. Social
a. the brilliant individual workshop = Edison; the sustained corporate lab of many bright peo-
ple = R&D labs today
b. the balance of return time versus return amount--risk management by creatives and by
resource controllers
c. the balance between following orders and skunkwork deliberate violations hidden away for
months or years till fruition
d. invention by lone inventors, yes; inventors by large numbers of different roles interacting,
yes;
6. Invention is what kind of creativity?

a. science as breaking down complexity; inventing as adding up simple things to get complex
behavior/results; science as solving via ideal models, inventing as solving by
injecting realities; massive search in science and technology versus limited
search//variants in arts (Wrights revise more than novelists do)
b. invention as new forms; design as putting existing forms to fit certain constraints
c. not statistical methods nor logical-math methods but heuristics--for spotting good bets
7. Common technical heuristics in inventing

a. parse search spaces, tackling functions as if independent of each others
b. unparse--violate traditional divisions and boundaries
c. balance backward with forward reasoning
d. think beyond how nature does things
e. compress search spaces via theory, metaphors, mental models
f. systematize search ones search spaces have been made small via theory, metaphor, and
mental models
g. re-represent the problem in many ways
h. compete with oneself by deliberately choosing a different path than your preferred path
i. seek building blocks that combine to inventions needed
j. fuse functions in devices whose parts perform multiple functions in different contexts that
are within the device and its operations
*.
@

$$)$
"4

&'"
&#'
B787"
"
C,
,
"4

-"?
A
%
-

%
0?

%

F
$)$$?
&%
' $)$$?
")"
!?
&F 0
1&

- "G

$?
F

$!

!

%&?

8H!&

2
BH! /-"
! &

F
- F

&.F
/
+F
*A4-" &!'F -"
*
'%D

% E!!%

%&
%

2%

%

0

>

%+%
&

..!.

&

'%
4$
$)$1 -" $
&

*&'
&'

F
)

'
&
?
&F .
?
$1 /&.!!
$)$$
-

!
F

%% &'

'

&

F
!
'F
& .&
&
&
, &

&.%
"4-"
A*?%

%'
%

&%&%&F
.

>

'
-
?
%!.&

%

+
%

k. seek anomalies and conflicts and trade-offs and resolve them

l. create large number of chances for small successes to keep motivation going
m. exaptation--reuse what works in different contexts
n. turn discrete processes into continuous ones and vice versa
8. Common social heuristics in inventing

a. combine diverse in contents/size crafts in one lab so technical means questions can be
quickly answered keeping focus on conceptual problems
b. continuous funding of people with demonstrated creativity--eliminateg management
supervision as long as they continue to create
c. create deliberate slack--for hidden projects and skunkwork efforts that are off the radar of
evaluation or comment by any others not involved directly
d. blend different disciplines at several levels from wandering between lab executives to peo-
ple of different disciplines eating together to reports to other labs of own lab
results/goals/needs
e. design, inventions, art, and science should be of equal standing and not sequentially
related.
Comparing Christensen’s Disruption Model

with Perkin’s Invention Model.
Christensen’s model is basic history of the telecommunication history’s evolution, amplified
by histories of other fields and technologies, resulting in five core concepts--overshoot,
undershoot, non-consumer, regulating motive, regulating ability. Perkin’s model is a basic
history of actual disruptive inventions, resulting in seven core concepts--psyches for search,
social support for search, heuristics of searching, particularly heuristics for managing search
spaces (expanding, reducing, etc.), types of search, standard innovation operators, lone
genius labs (Edison) vs. corporate crowds of bright people labs. Both are histories turned by
generalization (from abstraction) into theory. The flavor of the models is very different
however, Christensen’s model sells to fears of executives, who worry about radical new
entrants undermining their core businesses. Perkin’s model sells to confident executives,
who worry about developing the full radicality of baby ideas now all around them in their
firms and labs.
Christensen’s model directs attention to sets of customers in existing markets (including non-
customers)--because anything less than a perfect fit to supporting the needs of those cus-
tomers gives room for radical entrants and disruptive innovations. Perkin’s model directs
attention to search as what innovating and inventing at core really are--long, persistent,
risky searches of immense idea combination spaces--because covering search spaces with a
balance of comprehensiveness and focus on interesting parts is hard and what produces rad-
ical disruptive innovations. The lack in Christensen’s model is how to come up with the dis-
ruptive ideas, on a technical level--he assumes that because he is a counselor for scared
executives, holding their trembling hands, telling them “all will be okay” if they do not over-
shoot, undershoot, tolerate non-consumers, and lose motivation or ability as regulations
change. The lack in Perkin’s model is anything about what needs to go after out of the zil-
lion needs always out there in customers and lives. The two models, when combined, com-
plement each other nicely--Christensen helping with spotting needs to go after, Perkin’s
helping with how to go after invention of means to meeting those needs.
28. Hipple’s Democratic Innovation Model.

The overall probability of success of new product innovations is around 25% for all market
types from consumer to military hardware. The primary cause of that high failure rate is
poor fit to user needs. Missing entirely or mis-reading of user needs is epidemic. The cause
of missing or mis-reading needs is the stickyness of user information about products--it is
often tacit, implicit, unconsciously embodied in procedures, talked about in idiomatic lore
and the lingo of a community of shared practices. The compiling of inexplicit knowledge
into explicit product specs is fraught with difficulty--no one has a good technique for doing
it. Because this compiling is hard to do well, as user need info grows more important in
markets, the source of innovation itself must shift to users themselves doing the innovating,
somehow connected to suppliers via toolkits suppliers furnish, events suppliers sponsor,
forums suppliers maintain, or other enablers letting lead user innovators to show their dis-
coveries to each other and pick each other’s brains for ideas.
Critical to this is the idea of communities of practice--where information is shared implicitly

in war stories among close friends. These cross company boundaries easily but transferring
the knowledge of these communities within companies across professions is nearly impossi-
ble (at best, very slow, errorful, and expensive). Hipple’s data show that drastic disruptive
innovations come more from inventions done without pay by lead users of a product than
from within firm improvements in present products and processes. This directly contradicts
Christensen’s data and theory about drastic disruptive innovations coming from overshot,
undershot, or unserved customers.
Hipple says companies have to search for lead user inventors in the leading edges of their
target markets and in more advanced analog markets (where similar products must meet
more stringent requirements and constraints--example airline brakes compared to auto
brakes, the source of ABS systems for car braking). Pyramiding is the primary search tech-
nique--asking the best users you know who the best users, most inventive users they know
are. When you find lead users, either in your target market or in an advanced analog mar-
ket, you create systems for user-invented-designs to become your products. This can involve
forums, events, design toolkits and other enablers that allow lead users to tinker and invent
and proclaim proudly their successes. Lead users will then invent improvements, replace-
ments for, or new uses for existing products that all are enabled by more robust tacit user
knowledge of needs than companies on their own can ever obtain. This greatly reduces risk
of new product failure.
The single core of this phenomenon and theory is this--you can never know who the inventive
lead users actually are and where they are. They are distributed with great randomness and
cloaked with all sorts of misleading traits. The wider and more available your tools and sup-
ports for fostering user tinkering and invention with your products, the more space for
searching our lead user inventors you will have, and that means the more lead user inven-
tions you can bring into the company for commercialization. GE tweaking its MRI software
so specially designated lead users could tweak it themselves created decades of sustained
competitive advantage for them over competitors depending instead on their own labs. It is
the stickyness of user need info that makes inside company “lab” invention less often a hit
compared to lead user invention. Actual data comparing the two consistently found more
successful and radical and profitable and disruptive invention from lead users.
The Stickyness Argument

1. new product success rates are a terrible 25% in general
2. high failure rate is caused by poor fit to user needs
3. poor fit is caused by stickyness of user need info--it is tacit, latent, implicit
4. compiling tacit, latent info into explicit form is hard, errorful, slow, and expensive
5. therefore invention and innovation are more and more coming directly from lead users,
not company labs
6. therefore the more radical, disruptive, and profitable inventions from from lead user
inventions captured by firms, not from within firm labs.
7. THE DENIAL FACTOR--there is a widespread myth in manufacturers that they invented all
their disruptive drastic innovations, when really it was nearly always lead
users who did this inventing--the paradigm is “we do it in our labs” but the
reality is “our lead users do it in their backyards and workbenches”.
Communities of Practice
1. a community that crosses company boundaries because they share a practice, and its
latent info
2. their latent knowledge transfers between companies well due to the community of fellow
practitioners and their get togethers
3. their latent knowledge transfers within firms hardly at all, due to differences in profession,
lingo of professions, frameworks, beliefs, and latent routines different in dif-
ferent professions
Not Customers but Lead User Inventors listening to customers is not the same as finding lead user
inventors and listening to their inventions
1. customers are not the source of drastic, disruptive, highly profitable innovations because
they are unable to communicate their latent knowledge of needs well to sup-
plier firms
2. lead users are the source of drastic, disruptive, highly profitable innovations because they
invent and their inventions communicate well because these inventions are
not latent, vague, tacit
3. customers who want a function the delivery/invention of which would be disruptive of a
supplier tend not to communicate it to them = bad info gotten by suppliers
hiding customer needs
4. lead user inventors are in the target market for any product BUT they are also in advanced
analog markets in totally different industries so studying customers in an
industry will miss the most important and radical lead users and their inven-
tions
Not a Few Lead Users Inventors but Wide Networks of Lead User Inventors
1. key inventions come from unpredictable lead users so you have to connect with them all
and pole them all for inventions on their mind or that are underway or already
done by them
2. focussing resources on a few lead users will miss the creativity in the entire network of
them
Finding Lead User Inventors

1. two types--in your target market; in advanced analog markets
2. find them both via pyramiding--asking known lead user inventors who are others they
know, asking them who are others--lead user inventors are alike and find each
other out
Bringing Lead User Inventions into the Firm support your lead users in their inventing by var-
ious means
1. furnish toolkits for end user designing
2. furnish events connecting end user inventors
3. furnish and maintain forums for end user inventor exchanges
The Trend within the Trends

1. the cost of tools for inventing--building prototypes and testing them--are dropping in cost
radically (companies can invent toolkits for lead user inventors, thereby
greatly increasing speed of inventing and number of inventions to consider for
commercialization)
2. the learning cost, complexity, of tools for inventing--is dropping drastically
3. the fun of inventing--less time building, more time conceptualizing and testing and refin-
ing--is increasing radically
4. the result--more and more users will invent bolder and bolder improvements, replace-
ments, and new uses for products
$-*"2E$5 0#E$

'"
'

%%

& .! &

&' &' ** A
+

&
0"
!%

'!

%

' !

' ! ! . I""

&, & & & % /

% &%
.!,

#
&

&

'
! .
%&
%

!%!

%!

%

'
,
E$5 0# * $"?

'

&.

&

&

,#

.!

EA, "

"" 0
0 "
"

"20 / D
'
*
!

4 2
+' '
* -"

+
*" 4$# %
'
+
,
"#$

%
%
&
-
'!' &'
1
'

&'& ' &

4 +
" 0
&

$

A

!

-* "

%
%

J.
4
@
0

'
!

%

%

$$)$ %

' H?
" /
"
0

-"
0
"
A I* G $)$
$
0"E$5 0# /

&.&

EI""
0"
A"$""
$)$"

!!&
,
Comparing Hipple’s Lead User Innovation

Democratization Theory with Christensen’s
Disruptive Innovation Theory and with Per-
kin’s Search Supports Theory.
As was said above, Christensen emphasizes looking at overshoot, undershoot, non-consuming
customer types, and looking at changes in ability and motive to enter markets when regula-
tions change. His is a theory of fear--what misfit needs are going to let new entrants ruin my
business/market. Perkin’s emphasizes coming up with technical complexes, products, that
meet such needs. The two theories, Christensen and Perkins, mesh nicely--a theory of
unmet need types plus a theory of how to invent means to meet such needs. Where does
Hipple’s theory come in?
Christensen presents a theory of need types, Perkins a theory of ways to invent means to
meet needs, and Hipple, presents a theory that one set of people intimately knows needs
because they are users, and intimately knows means because they invent improvements,
replacements, and new uses for products--lead users. Hipple has data showing that the
most drastic, disruptive, and profitable innovations come from lead user inventions. So the
three theories nicely dovetail--a theory of types of needs, a theory of means to meet needs,
and a theory of finding a special set of people combining latent need knowledge with latent
solving knowledge--lead user inventors. In truth, I presented these three innovation theo-
ries first, in this ordering, because I already knew they dovetailed nicely. Together they
form a theory of drastic innovation--in needs existing firms train themselves to ignore, using
means radically different than existing means, invented by the most radical users of prod-
ucts. Drasticness from ignoring need types, from searching radical idea spaces, from finding
the most radical users of products--these are theories of the “origins of drasticness” in
innovation.
29. John Seely Brown’s Social Life of Infor-

mation Model of Innovation.
This is a theory about flows, where ideas flow and do not flow, where funds flow and do not
flow, where people flow and do not flow, and where technologies flow and do not flow. It is
all about flows and what enables and hinders them. It is also about stickyness--certain types
of knowledge are sticky, and do not flow, and other types of knowledge are not sticky, and
flow easily. This is also a kind of counter theory--saying that much that is done in face-to-
face form will not be automated, digitized, computerized or done as well by any alternative
media. It warns that elearning may have to become a second class second rate system of
instruction delivery, with people trained face-to-face getting superior salaries and respect
from their older form of learning. It identifies what it is about face-to-face-ness that makes
for more learning and innovation from encounters than the same encounters done mediated
by some internet, intranet, or other conglomeration of devices. It works out a long standing
Brown theme, while managing Xerox PARC, to invent new work practices, study existing work
practices, investigate emerging work practices, and invent tools for all three. The tandem--
social practices with technical enablements--is what counts, not either alone. Many device
inventions fail because they did not take into account social practices around old tools and
new practices that emerged from use of the new device invention. Brown calls his theory
“the social life of information” because he emphasizes information technologies and how the
social practices of handling information enable and limit what device inventions work and
fail.
Much learning takes place among people sharing practices, because tacit knowledge can be
exchanged there, people share and observe each other’s routines. If you force people in a
practice to articulate what they know and how things work, you get tiny fractions of what
they know, because articulation is poorly done and hard to do well. Much learning takes
place between practices, by coming across communities of practice and hanging out there,
mastering their lingo and jokes, their values and weightings of things. Making it legitimate
for people to snoop, to be where they are not allowed, to hang out where they are novices
and ignorant and “in the way”, are major ways to foster learning and innovation.
Innovation from Finding Homes

1. flows of people, of funds, of ideas, of technologies among potential homes--ventures; a home is where huge
intensity of passion catches something and makes it change the world (a coincidence of
desire, ability, opportunity)
2. trying to make your organization a home for all people, funds, ideas, technologies does not
work
3. instead expose your organization to all the flows of people, funds, ideas, and technologies
around hoping to become the home of some of them
4. norms for leaky relations, idea theft support, between venture flows enable homes to be
found; norms for hoarding ideas, funds, persons, technologies prevent flows
and home finding
Stickyness of Ideas and Knowledge

1. communities of practice spread across ventures and ideas flow within communities of prac-
tice well because ideas can stay tacit, half embedded within practice routines
2. ideas do not flow across professions and departments inside a venture, because the ideas
have to be reinvented and recontexted for each profession they cross
3. therefore, you innovate by enabling flows across ventures in communities of practice,
spotting tacit ideas there for more explicit capture and treatment
4. therefore, you innovate by setting up machineries to explicitize tacit ideas from communi-
ties of practice, and translate them across each profession boundary within
your venture
A Science of Practices
1. study existing work practices, their fit to existing tools and tools, newly invented, to be
introduced later
2. invent new work practices, the problems they solve that are unsolved in existing practices,
and what device inventions would enable the new invented practices
3. study emergent new work practices, and invent tools to enable them
4. study the social life of information--the social practices surrounding a device or technology
or idea embodying device that are necessary to make it work well in practice
= have value.
Limits of the Virtual

1. eLearning is great but eSystems lack the snooping, the peripheral participation in commu-
nities of practice, where much of the most important learning takes place
2. so learning/degrees will split into a lower value/salary eLearning layer and a higher value/
salary face-to-face learning layer
3. the importance of leaky systems, snooping, peripheral participation in communities of
practice, being where you are not allowed for learning, the cognitive wealth
of mess.
What You Innovate

1. you innovate a function (changing how it is done and replacing it with a grander more pow-
erful or better directed new function)
2. you innovate tools now supporting that function (you improve or replace those tools with
new tools for the same old function or for a new function replacing it)
3. you innovate social practices supporting using those tools for doing that function now (you
support those existing practices better or replace them and support those replacement
practices)
4. you innovate new functions disclosed while innovating an existing one (you innovate by
spotting such new functions, entooling them, installing them)
5. you innovate emergent functions appearing after your innovations above are installed (you
watch what emerges from installing new functions, tools, practices spotting
new functions)
6. you innovate emergent social practices appearing after your innovations above are
installed (you watch what emerges spotting
new emergent practices).
K'/!@- 524

$"-
%*% .
-%
)%
-$0$#

%
4

%
*
0

,
*

E!

2
&

)

E!

-!?
A
0

' 2
'?
!, @

)$"
*
E!%

2&
*

)

& !.@
>
'!
.! ,
30. Hargadon’s Network Hero (or Intellec-

tual Space) Model of Innovation.
Professor Hargadon is a myth-buster. He attacks the heroic lone individual myth and goes
over the history of invention and innovation showing how complicated networks of people all
working on similar goals and aims, together generated the conditions that allowed each of
many members to invent parts of the final overall invention that history remembers. His-
tory tends to pick out the last guy with his last little additional idea, as “the inventor”,
ignoring decades of similar patents, devices, demonstrations, labs, and people. Invention
and innovation are grossly misunderstood and current organizations are grossly misallocating
resources to them, because the heroic individual myths hold too much power and distort
reality today, Hargadon maintains. Hargadon’s renderings of famous inventions--the light
bulb, for example--using original sources at the time shows a host of people occupying
together a single shared intellectual space where ideas are embodied in practices, group
lore, objects, tools, and personalities. Breakthrough innovations occur after huge amounts
of quotidian preparatory subcreations of work style and work tool, life style and life tool.
The subcreations theory of creativity comes to play here, though Hargadon is unaware of it.
If a host of diverse people across decades, sharing one intellectual space, exchange publish-
ings, opinions in conversations, education and mentorship, objects and practices, tools and
discoveries, with most of the ideational content latent and tacit, embedded in tools, prac-
tices, and other objects, and if all those people individual and collectively invent work prac-
tices and tools, life practices and tools, then any one “idea” is exchanged, found,
discovered, used, applied only when a constellation of events and objects and persons get
together--because ideas are not explicit in this whole system. Hargadon distinguishes labs
that really are a single genius served by underlings (the mythology Edison created of his lab)
from real labs, where equals appoint one to be the “mythic hero who talks to the press and
represents us”. He shows us Edison and his staff creating the mythic lone genius story “Edi-
son” for visitors and media--who lap the myth up, missing the collaboration-among-equals
that really got all of Edison’s inventing done.
Hargadon’s other major theme is the future is recombinant--strictly. It emerges as combina-

tions of past things. In this view, Hargadon is seeing an analogy between how natural selec-
tion functions in the universe to “invent” animals including human beings, and how
innovation occurs in labs and economies. The acceleration of innovation is natural--each
new innovation added to the world exponentially expands the number of possible idea com-
binations, some of which might be future new ideas and innovations. If any innovation is
just the combining of some past existing things, then the reliability, understand-ability of
past things enables innovations to work and be understood well. Whenever, in history,
inventors and innovators got too futuric in their expressions and inventions, communication
failure caused their new stuff to never get into reality. Recognizing how the new comes
from the past, fully and honestly, deflates egos and makes inventing less “groovy” but it also
makes it simpler, cheaper, more reliable, and easier to explain to markets and sponsors.
The myth of “novelty as the ground of invention and innovation” hurts inventing and innovat-
ing just as the myth of the lone inventor genius hurts inventing and innovation. We have
two dangerous myths, widely believed today, that distort innovation and reduce its worth.
The deviance group trade-off is a major part of innovation, distorted by the two myths, of
the heroic lone inventor and of novelty as ground of inventing. Inventions and innovations
start off as ideas, deviant ideas. The first barrier is social pressure to conform. Only when
social supports make some individual comfortable continuing to deviate with their idea, do
such ideas end up later as innovations. Groups that share deviant ideas make each member
of the group confident enough to fight back against conformist social pressures from the
world as it is. So many of the famous lone artists, scientists, and inventors in history were
members of an initial small group that later dispersed. So the same group ended up doing
two distinct innovation support functions--as a small initial group enabling some individuals
to together resist social conformist pressures against their initial deviant idea, and two, that
same small group dispersed later, serving as promoters of each others’ steps with that initial
deviant idea. So the impressionist painters were a small group then a dispersed group, not
just powerful lone artists. The scientific basis for the importance of initial group “inven-
tors” is Asch’s experiments on how any group, small or large, imposes its views on lone indi-
vidual members, unless some one other person within the group supports the lone deviator
initially--then group pressure to conform disappears and loses all its power. Collectivity fos-
ters deviant thinking instead of hindering it! Managers today fail to realize how groups can
be used to foster deviation instead of conformity. That is because managers today see “the
organization” “the company” as the supporting deviance collective--this is false, it does not
work, Hargadon says. It is collectives within such large organizations, small tightly knit ones
of intense motivation and shared values--that split the big organization terribly--that sup-
port idea deviance and innovation. Most top managers rule out such disruptive smaller col-
lectives within their big company collective. It is this initial collective, small to support
idea deviance, dispersed to promote the innovation done with the deviant idea, that lives
with and through the idea and its embodiments to turn it into an impact, an innovation.
Idea + community = innovation. Thusly, IBM turned the personal computer into a collective’s
deviant idea whereas Apple by trying to limit community embodiment via proprietary sys-
tems, lost the idea, the innovation, and the market. Thusly, Farnsworth, the “inventor” of
TV lost the invention, while Sarnoff at RCA turned the deviant idea of TV into a community
that lived the idea and turned out numerous things the idea needed in order to impact real-
ity--programming, actors, broadcast media, stations, licenses, regulations, and much else.
Again and again inventions die because of failed building of communities that carry the ideas
to the world through various trials and stages.
Hargadon goes further and more boldly--not only are collectives the first embodiments of
deviant ideas, because lone inventors get overwhelmed by social pressures to conform--but
pairs, complementary pairs are the first inventors of all deviant ideas. These pairs usually
have a outgoing component, a person who sells well, and a technical component, a person
who designs well. If you go back through the history of invention you keep finding such
partners of people remembered as lone inventors. It is almost always pairs with a deviant
idea, small initial collectives doing the deviant idea, and dispersed forms of those same
small initial collectives rode the ideas through phases and embodiments turning eventually
in user communities inventing next versions of the initial embodied deviant idea. Not only
are inventors not alone but they start as pair, going to small collectives, going to dispersed
forms of those initial small collectives. Research has been done on the roles necessary in
these pairs and initial small collectives that give birth to deviant ideas that turn into inven-
tions. Three roles have been found necessary (Ancona and Caldwell of MIT): ambassadors
(represent the team to the outside, sell), coordinators (who keep work flowing and evolving,
keeping individual efforts blending not conflicting), scouts (who scan environments for ideas
and resources and opportunities).
Dangerous False Myths

1. the myth of the lone heroic genius inventor--Edison embodies this error, Edison was a pair,
in a small collective that did the inventing with Edison the mouthpiece, the
pompous rep salesman
2. the myth of the novelty ground of invention--instead what is true is inventors combine the
past to generate the new
3. the myth that groups destroy deviant ideas--instead groups within groups, one other who
supports a deviant idea, wipes out all the social conformity power of a larger
group the idea is in
4. the myth that inventions are technical--inventions are technical ideas that pairs sell/
develop till small collectives elaborate and implement till the collectives dis-
perse to sell and develop the idea.
Innovation Practices
1. capturing good ideas--idea snapshots via collections of products, reading all about an idea
or product area,
2. keeping ideas alive--ideas embedded in objects in libraries, indexing people not databases
3. new uses for old ideas--expose people intense on a use/need to many old ideas, expose
one old idea to many intense need/use people
4. testing good ideas quickly--a real embodiment of an idea is rapidly improvable, the idea
form is not so improvable
5. a culture of error--celebrating and revelling in swimming in error, flaw, fault, and dismay-
ing surprise, sharing one’s suffering, helping each other out of error
6. new resources for hit growing ideas--not fixed budgets so one subgroup’s win takes
resources from all other subgroups, resources grow for ideas that grow, so win
win not win lose
7. top management and idea finders/developers share the same culture and work/lifestyles--
when executive culture differs from idea generator cultures, ideas fail to
socialize with leaders = Xerox PARC’s failure of digital culture in employees
missed by analog culture of executives
8. do not ask the same people to focus and explore--combine different types and types of
groups instead
9. using diversity uses it up, turns it into homogeneity--use diversity then re-grow it so it can
later be used again
10. make margins and marginal work and lifestyles viable--make staying on peripheries and
boundaries viable, learn to reward excellent boundary spanning and snooping
Eight Rules of Technology Brokering

1. the future is here around us--visit the many other worlds within our world for technologies
emerge along with their own individual worlds of practices and cultures
2. analogy trumps invention--untangle existing functions/devices from present contexts of
use and origin via analogy seeing new contexts and uses for them
3. sit across worlds not in worlds = be always uncomfortable--staying on the steep part of the
learning curve because you are not an expert in any of the 20 areas you learn
in is painful
4. connectivity kills innovation--the virtue of isolation, the need for boundaries, the need for
secrecy at time and selling ideas later, sharing self limits as it produces homo-
geneity = nothing to share
5. find intellectual communities that your ideas have value in--span boundaries but contrib-
ute where your outsider ideas are found to have value
6. socialize your mavericks--structure so that mavericks pick up social supporters instead of
staying isolated and alone
7. value of a person from seeing connections and making unusual linkages, rather than from
being master of one area
8. relax guards on old intellectual property a little to buy “rip, mix. burn” culture of brico-
lage among old ideas now.
4@ / 4 $)$"?

$0- A4? 8,!
'
%
8,

>

%

B,
%

B, '
.'>
@

&
L,

L,.'

+

&
%
'

%
&
%% $0 G
.

!
'
6,

A4? 4$)$"?

D
% '

0

3,

$ '& 0

'
?

,
?
0
%
0'

%
-! *"*"
*"*"
0 4$ #A
'
B787"
" %
$"
$$)$ &'"#/"E"$#?
*"? $I? E$5 0#
8,
( 8,&%

%
- 5? 8,
!

&!
8,&!%'%
B,.

B,
B,'

B,!%

L,!
&
%

%

L,

L,%

?

6,
.'*%2

'% L,

!>
!

6,
D
.'>&

& &

!

6,
.
'%

3,>&
3,

.'

M,'!
&
!
M,
''
.>
:,
:,

.%.!
N,. N,
'>
!
,
9,

'
%

'
87,.

!.
&
Comparing Brown’s Social Life of Informa-

tion Theory with Hargadon’s Intellectual
Space Theory of Innovation.
Brown’s theory presents innovation as dealing with, inventing, handling, pieces of reality.
That means some technical functioning is affected but it also means some social practices
around that functioning is affected. This is his main point--that social practices are vital
parts of innovation and innovations. By omitting or slighting or delaying treatment of them,
innovations are made to fail. Innovation is all too often all too technical--nerdy, toys for
boys. Hipple corrects myths that make innovation purely cognitive and purely done by lon-
ers. He emphasizes that networks of people sharing intellectual spaces do inventing and
innovating. He emphasizes how time and time again inventors who were caught up in the
myth of the lone genius creator, failed to innovate while competitors of theirs succeeded by
seeing the need to enlist lots of partners in an expanding circle around the technicalities of
inventing. Both Brown and Hipple see inventing and innovation as social, essentially social
in nature. Brown presents the target of what gets innovated as social and Hipple empha-
sizes the doer, what invents and innovates is social.
31. Stefik (and Brown)’s Radicality Model of

Innovation.
Mark Stefik is a Xerox PARC researcher who occasionally writes books. He is concerned with
PARC’s invention of a kind of research between basic research and applied (product develop-
ment) research, which he calls “radical innovation”. Basic research goes on in universities,
and applied research goes on in product development labs, while radical research goes on in
some corporate R&D labs. Basic research seeks what is possible, without regard to applica-
tion. Applied research seeks what is needed, a way to meet that need. Radical research
seeks what is problematic. It follows a problem across disciplinary boundaries, wherever it
leads.
He also distinguishes theory driven innovation, based on changing frameworks, from data
driven innovation, based on anomalies, from method driven innovation, based on new tools,
from need driven research based on necessity being the mother of invention. He sees labs
that do radical innovation combining artists and scientists, who are patron driven, with
designers and engineers who are client driven. There are two distinct cultures here--patron
driven cultures can be long term and visionary for they operate within the tolerance and
patience limits of their patron who tends to be rather venturesome and visionary himself.
Client driven cultures tend to be short term and concrete, pressed by real needs within real
windows of opportunity.
He presents a collection of heuristics for inventing, the front end of innovation. He also pre-
sents heuristics for organizing to invent, creating an organization that invents.
We can amplify Stefik’s theory with work by John Seely Brown from the same Xerox PARC.
Brown brings social life of information themes into play to help define “radical” innovation
between basic and applied. He also brings culture clashes to bear showing how many indus-
try practices come from past successes and growth that insure irrelevance to what is now
emerging and new. The past is enemy to the emergent new. Letting go of success is so
counter-intuitive and anti-pride and anti-male but it is essential for innovation.
Kinds of Research
1. basic research--in universities--what is possible
2. radical innovation--in corporate R&D labs--what is problematic
3. applied research--in product development labs--what is needed
Kinds of Innovation
1. theory driven innovation--change frameworks, see new realities
2. data driven innovation--spot and understand anomalies
3. method driven innovation--apply new tools, change scales of operating using the tools
4. need driven innovation--necessity is the mother of invention
The Radical Research Mix

1. seeds with needs; patron patient support with client impatient demand
2. four creative occupations combined--artists, scientists, designers, engineers
3. mix client with patron cultures, mix art with science, design with engineering, art with
design, science with engineering, art with engineering, science with design
Invention Heuristics
1. de-rut
2. try opposites
3. play
4. imagine yourself immersed in the device, molecule, situation
5. talk it out
6. take a break
7. demystify your self
8. fail fast and often--soak value from failures
9. divide and conquer
10. generate and test
Organizing for Invention Heuristics

1. inhabit niche markets, look at the world as they see it from within
2. shut down hassles and interruptions = pulsed systems, mostly isolation, easy 1 to 1 consul-
tation between anyones, harder group gatherings
3. seek stars--any special intensity that changes whomever interacts with it
4. mix fields
5. inhabit edges and borders not centers
6. tune group skill mixes as people and tasks evolve
7. keep things always unfamiliar--people unfamiliar, ideas unfamiliar, break up successes
8. invent future invevitables and inhabit them to image steps to them, along the way; make
the future a room of tangibles people can use and inhabit while working on
increments to that
Radical Innovation
1. research new work practices as well as new technologies as well as new products as well as
new ideas
2. innovation is everywhere, learn to spot it and gather it and learn from it--especially learn
from local innovation at customer sites where your boundary overlaps the
customer boundary
3. co-produce innovations--invent technology or product then invent partnerships throughout
organizations and between them that support, evolve, and develop the inno-
vation
4. co-product the innovation and new business models and new organization practice models-
-all three as a trio that go together--they all have to mesh and grow together
5. harvest local innovation--the anthropology of work process--study to find how people at
corporate boundaries intersect and innovate, bypassing mandated procedures
and manuals
6. practice and develop knowledge compilation capabilities--to compile from tacit to explicit,
to compile from explicit to tacit,
Clash of Cultures of Innovation

1. the culture of decreasing returns to scale versus the culture of increasing returns to scale-
-profitability that is immense comes from market share increase for network
info economies
2. the culture of strategy as entrenchment in industry norms versus the culture of strategy as
revolutionary overthrow of industry norms--bottom up strategy formed by
entire workforces not elite managements = ask your local innovators to revo-
lutionize their own management, layer by layer, annually
3. the culture of great technology versus the culture of great architecture of technology to
technology allowed interconnections--the latter outperforms the former enor-
mously
4. the culture of war and sport images of business versus the culture of win-win games of
business--focus on “the competitor” causes win-lose game play, focus on “the
growth frontier” invites all to take different bites appropriate for their
endowment of ability and motivation
5. the culture of net present value investing versus the culture of investing in parallel lines of
attack “options”--if you are willing to kill off an option, investing in plural
alternatives keeps you flexibly able to ride surprising bursts of growth from
non-linearities in technology and the economy\
6. the culture of outsource everything versus the culture of outsource the shallow stuff--the
IBM pc illustrates outsourcing the core and losing the financial benefits of
being in the market
7. the culture of customer service versus the culture of customer emergence--huge firms
have died serving well customers while new techs by new entrants firms revo-
lutionarily invented new customers and new needs from existing customers, a
business must simultaneously be one org to serve existing customers and
another to find and invent service for emergent customers
8. the culture of “the industry’s way or no way” versus the culture of undoing compromises
in value forced on customers by agreed whole industry practices and norms
9. the culture of choosing to compete via leveraging core competences versus the culture of
competing via competency evolution--use the past in new contexts to gener-
ate new abilities
10. the culture of general vague increase in innovativity versus the culture of defeating in
innovations a particular innovative competitor--measurable innovation
improvement campaigns
11. the culture of being your firm’s highly specialized competencies versus the culture of
leveraging and combining your specialized competencies--how pharmaceuti-
cal firms did not follow Xerox, Kodak, and IBM into major failure as technolo-
gies changed
12. the culture of inventing new forms of work, new work practices versus the culture of
inventing new products and technologies--products and technologies without
supporting new invented work practices fail in the market.

.@$4"* #A-4-"

'
$)$$4"
&
-0
'

8,

8,8,.

B,

DB,'
B,
L,L,'L,

6,.

6,.&.6,

3,'
' '@3,'
'3,'
'
"

"
# ) $ $

$ "0 G

$ G -/ ,

8,

4 )$ - $$)$#

& "

" 8,!?
% ,

B, !!

$ 8,
%% ,
L,

.
B, &

6, +
B,

L,
,&

! , ,

3,.
%
&

L,

,
6

M,
%
'

,
3
&

M,

&

6,! :,

%!& &

N, ,

& %!

3,

&

M, .!

&

8BE$0-""4
/** 0"0
5

&O5
O5
&
O
4"A
0")$
$ A
0")$

0")$
$0
0")$
*"$ $ I

*!

Comparing Brown’s Social Life of Info

Theory with Hargadon’s Intellectual Space
Theory with Stefik’s Radical Innovation
Theory.
Brown dealt with what gets invented or innovated, it is social he insists (technology plus sur-
rounding social practices it depends on). Hipple dealt with who does inventing and innovat-
ing, they are social, done by pairs then small collectives that disperse later. Stefik deals
with inventing and innovation coming from social mixing. What is invented is social, who
invents is social, and how they invent is social, via socially mixing all sorts of things. There
is something very subtle in this idea--creativity comes from violating borders and bound-
aries--that is, it depends on having borders and boundaries there to be violated. If, there-
fore, you connect things better and better, more and more, you eventually wipe out
practical import of borders and boundaries, losing them practically, so creativity and invent-
ing stop, entirely, killed off by homogeneity fostered when connections got made. Innova-
tion requires violating borders and later, re-erecting them so others later can violate them in
order to again invent. These three theories, taken together, constitute a single theory of
how: what gets invented, who does the inventing, and how inventing gets done--all three,
are social. As such they cover rather well the social dimensions of creating and invention.
32. Wheelwright’s Technology Lives Model

of Innovation.
This is a huge program of studying the history of dozens of technologies and reporting gener-
alizations across the cases in those histories. Dozens of articles in dozens of publications
across a period of 20 years are involved in this work. If understanding the history of various
technologies, revolutionary and not, is good preparation for understanding the present of
technologies, then Wheelwright’s work will stand and be of value. If, however, technolo-
gies, their evolution, and their markets and users continually inject new dynamics not seen
or as salient in prior technology history, then this work will be of little worth.
The information technology revolution is one example of how “another new technology”
turned out to be far different, changing basic rules of economics, for example (from
decreasing returns to scale to increasing returns to scale). Was information technology the
last such new technology--far from it. Stem cells will dwarf information technology--chal-
lenging the continued existence of death itself. No professor is going to help us when the
apparently new turns out to be revolutionarily new. In the mean time, when the apparently
new is not newer in implications than information technology was, Wheelwrights 13 dimen-
sions are great--a succinct set of issues to understand in order to determine the importance
of any new technology.
An interesting version of this comes from Japan’s role as a late developer of many technolo-
gies--letting American and European firms invest and invent, then running away with the
profits from global markets as the Japanese find new technical means to do the same prod-
ucts, and perfect processes and new forms of market for the products. Canon versus Xerox
in copy machines is a good example. Canon, unlike IBM and Kodak, when competing with
Xerox, did not copy Xerox’s business model and did not copy Xerox’s product model and did
not copy Xerox’s technology model. It did not lease machines (it sold small machines), did
not sell big machines via an exclusive sales force (it sold small machines in retail channels of
others), it did not aim for much revenue from tech support, maintenance, and upgrades (it
invented more reliable basic versions of the key technologies, reducing tech support, main-
tenance, and upgrade costs). IBM and Kodak, copied all of Xerox’s models and were
defeated by Xerox countermeasures; Canon defeated Xerox steadily in larger and larger
product, market, technology forms. That a huge, mature, player like Xerox, could be
dethroned easily in every area of competition by a foreign firm nibbling away on the edges,
put fear in all large established businesses. The combination of new technology with new
business model with new distribution model overwhelmed because established players, like
Xerox, cannot be two entirely different firms at the same time. They have a hard time com-
peting with themselves in order to out-compete others who are competing with them as
well. They keep assimilating everything to their existing huge “proven” models of product,
of market, of distribution, of technology. This lesson has been seen and learned again and
again, yet, year after year, new firms are falling (Kodak in the early 2000s barely holding on
as digital cameras wipe out all Kodak stood for for a century).
Wheelwright is concerned with what any new technology “is”. What is it that makes new
technologies so treacherous for existing firms? What is it that causes big giant firms to go
under, just a decade after, missing the boat of some new technology? How can smart well-
informed people be so overwhelmed by new technologies? From whence do new technolo-
gies get this power to humiliate and befuddle major enterprises? Wheelwright’s answer,
across dozens of books and articles is the 13 dimensions below. These are the power of
technology to obfuscate, confuse, undermine, subvert, revolutionize, hide, surprise, and
destroy. Understand these 13 and you have nothing to fear from new technology--miss even
a nuance of any of these 13 and your giant enterprise in a decade can be destroyed by any of
a dozen new technologies already emerging in the world today.
Wheelwright’s 13 dimensions divide into a few obvious ones and a lot of unobvious ones the
meaning of which has already destroyed dozens of huge corporations worldwide. The fairly
obvious ones are technical functions, how new technologies enact functions that older ones
did not, product functions, how new technologies enable products to attain performances
they could not attain with older technologies, product demand/supply, how products embod-
ying new technologies market differently, and competitors for attention, how new technolo-
gies in products compete for our attention and attention of media impacting funding and
careers and all sorts of things by their sheer salience or lack thereof. The remaining dimen-
sions are not obvious and each of the remaining dimensions has destroyed huge corporations
all by itself in our recent past. That makes these dimensions “interesting” especially if it is
your big global corporation that one of them is now destroying.
Believe it or not, old work practices affected by new technologies are all too often ignored
and new work practices that new technologies give rise to or enable are also all too often
missed. Many large firms notice new technologies and cultivate them without good effects,
because they assimilate new technologies to their old existing work practices or worse, to
their old existing business models (trying to make money the same way with the new tech-
nology as they did with their old ones). New technologies affect the systems nature of prod-
ucts, that is, they change what products stand on their own and which become inter-
dependent on other products--the same with technologies, a new technology may set up or
end inter-dependencies with other technologies around a product. Networking is the posi-
tive feedbacks that make the already big grow faster than the small--the rich get richer--fast
starts win, second place becomes as bad a last place. Many a company lost everything in
new industries and markets as they thought being second was okay--IBM gave away the PC
without intending to do so, and the Japanese have lost out in information technology market
after market due to network feedbacks making their slow start ups fatal. Technologies that
are new, often come from very abstract operations performed on functions done by older
technologies, so that a whole sequence of new technologies for such abstract functions come
one after the others. You have to be careful that your new technology is not treated as long
term when its replacement is already emerging. Similarly, new technologies turn into tools
or application areas for other new technologies so that looking at how a new technology
interacts with old existing ones, misses lots of powerful relationships. Architecture, modu-
larity, and abstraction are scale effects of new technologies that many established firms get
wrong--to their detriment. Executives miss architecture effects because they act and think
too boxedly, independently, alone, trusting their sole “great” individual brains. Japanese
excel at architecture effects because they get low level people who work with new technol-
ogies and their customers around the table and devolve authority much lower in their organi-
zations than their Western competitors. The Japanese model of gentle consultative
leadership achieves far greater breadth of consultation and detail of advice than Western
“transcendent god” commanders on top of hierarchies pounding their breasts, King Kong-
like, in demonstrations of superiority. Executives miss modularity effects similarly--they are
too remote from the “low level” people who know and work with modules every day. Exec-
utives miss levels of abstraction effects, also, but for different reasons--they lack mental
training and intellectuality--given the executive summaries they consume--anything more
abstract than “mental tripe” confuses them.
The culture of authority--executives and owners--and the culture of innovators--researchers

and inventors--usually are different and venture businesses make a transition, often with
venture capital “help” (force really), from the culture of innovators to the culture of author-
ity. Ventures thrive, to a point, when the culture of authority and the culture of innovators
are the same--when executives are Ph.d educated researchers or professors. Growth, how-
ever, eventually forces business decisions these “engineer” types fail at, rather badly in
most cases. But then, forced by venture capitalists, in many cases, ventures split with
authority having a “management” culture ruling generators having a “innovator” culture.
This destroys more ventures than it helps. The miracle is ventures whose culture, ways of
operating, and structures are innovative and into which fit “authorities” from management
culture. The “atmosphere” and “organization” thereby save the authorities from missing
and messing up handling of Wheelwright’s 13 dimensions.
How to Determine the Importance of a New Technology

13 Dimensions that Must be Separately Assessed
THE SOCIAL LIFE OF INNOVATIONS
1. TECHNICAL FUNCTIONS The Technology Doing Technical Functions

What technical constraints limiting prior art are lifted?
What new technical constraints are inherent in the new technology and its practice?
What is the ratio of lifted constraints to imposed ones?
2. PRODUCT FUNCTIONS The Product Doing Functions Because of the Technology In it

How and how much does the technology as embodied and supported by needed ancillaries in
the product, enhance the functioning of the product?
How and how much do the ancillaries necessary for embodying the technology in the product
reduce or limit it impact of product functioning?
What is the ratio of functioning added versus functioning missed?
3. WORK PRACTICES The Business Practices Enhanced or Detrimented Because of Embodying

the Technology in a Product
What previously in place work practices are displaced or weakened by the innovation?
What new invented work practices are needed by the innovation? are generated by it? are
generate-able by it?
What is the ratio of good practices lost versus new better practices gained?
THE FINANCIAL LIFE OF INNOVATIONS
4. BUSINESS MODEL The Business Model Enabled or Destroyed by Embodying the Technology
in a Product inside Relevant New Work Practices
What is the business model for how payment is made (what is sold) and how products are
marketed/distributed that the innovation comes into? How and how much
does the innovation harm it or undermine it?
What alternative business model(s) does the innovation enable beyond the present model in
performance for key customer sets?
What is the ratio of benefits from the better business model the innovation enables over the
erosion of the prior business model the innovation causes?
5. PRODUCT DEMAND/SUPPLY Demand Supply Impacts of the Product with the New Technol-
ogy Inside it
Does the product with this innovation have greater demand that before it for any reason?
Does the product with this innovation have easier, cheaper, faster, higher quality, more reli-
able or otherwise better supply for any reason?
What is the ratio of better demand over better supply achieved with the innovation? What is
the total market expansion possible-likely with the innovation in the product?
THE RELATIONAL LIFE OF INNOVATIONS
6. SYSTEMS The Systems Nature of the Innovation and the Products It Affects
Does the product, reconfigured by this innovation in some ways, become more isolated, inde-
pendent, autonomous, self standing, having reduced dependencies and link-
ages with other products and services? Do these further isolations enhance
the product and its future prospects/
Does the product, reconfigured by this innovation in some ways, become more social, inter-
dependent, dependent, meshed with other products and services? Do these
further inter-dependencies enhance the product and its future prospects?
spawn add-on products/services as new niche product inventions? reconfigure
up-till-now independent self standing products/services into inter-dependent
systems more powerful/sell-able than before the innovation/
What is the ratio of benefit from further isolation to benefit from further inter-dependency?
7. NETWORKS The Network Nature of the Innovation and the Products It Affects
Does the product with the innovation “lock in” users/customers with positive feedback from
successful sales--user learning as it is adopted, learning invested during use,
network benefits of each user having many other users of the same product
(exchanges etc.), scale economies of production, knownness as it is more
adopted, other product/service supports attracted as it sells more?
Do the network effects listed above for the product with the innovation constitute a barrier
to initial trying that hinder or lessen sales and familiarity with the product?
What is the ratio of the network benefits over the try barriers of the product with the innova-
tion?
THE TECHNICAL LIFE OF INNOVATIONS
8. TECHNOLOGY LIFESPAN The Replacement of the Technology the Innovation Came From
(the S-curve image causing performance plateaus the Japanese march past
easily)
What abstract change in technology functioninig did the new technology produce compared
to past art?
What current tools, techniques, people, methods enabled the discovery of this present tech-
nology?
What changes have recently started in those tools, techniques, people, and methods that
might generate a further technology beyond this present one?
What is the likelihood that the current technology will itself be replaced by something better
within 3 years? 6 years? 9 years?
What is our commitment and capability for perfecting the present technology so it goes far
beyond any initial “S” curve expectations we develop that is performance is
plateauing?
What is the ratio of the benefit of not seeking early plateaus in the technology’s performance
to the detriment of having to master a new replacing technology for it soon?
9. TECHNOLOGY AS TOOL The Technology Itself Becomes a Tool Transforming Other Technol-
ogies and How They are Used
What new ways of handling and new directions of handling of other technologies does this
particular new technology enable?
What existing other technologies are interesting ways of handling and interesting directions
for handling this new one?
What is the ratio of benefits of using this technology as a tool for handling others over bene-
fits of other technologies for handling this one?
THE SCALE EFFECTS OF INNOVATIONS
10. ARCHITECTURE EFFECTS The Technology Ushers in New Architectures of Products and
Technology Use in Them (New architectures hidden at first in new entrant
firms and underbelly new entrant customers so ignored by established firms
till process/product skill builds up to unassailable levels)
What radical change in product composition, configuration, functioning does the technology
usher in?
What errors, costs, flaws, risks from un-optimized many new configured component subas-
semblies does the radical change in the product ushered in by the technology
cause?
What is the ratio of benefits of new architecture over costs of un-optimized new configura-
tion aspects?
11. MODULARITY EFFECTS The Technology Changes Existing Modularity Points or Ushers in
New Ones Beyond Those Available in the Past
What components of the products the technology enables become more tightly integrated
and inseparable?
What components become more self standing and autonomous in operation?
What old modules disappear as a result?
What new modules become possible as a result?
What is the ratio of benefits from new modules over costs of losing old modularities?
12. ABSTRACTION LAYERS The Technology is the Base of a Hierarchy of Layers Riding on It,
Between Which Evolve Layers of Abstraction in Sandwich Form
What is the sandwich of layers--from general technology to specific benefits from product
functioning experience by users in their work practices--your technology
forms of base of?
What are the alternatives at each layer from which suppliers/customers choose?
What are the abstractions of functioning/performance between each pair of layers that, if
achieved, make use of any of the alternatives below, easy and economical?
What abstractions of function and abstraction of performance does your particular technology
give rise to between what layers? what existing abstraction layers? what new
to be invented ones?
What is the ratio of benefits from fitting your technology into some already existing layer of
abstractions to ratio of benefits from inventing your own layer of abstraction
using your technology?
THE SALIENCE OF INNOVATIONS
13. COMPETITORS FOR ATTENTION The Technology Happens to Occur When Major Attention
Distractor Other Developments/Innovations are Nearby and Present or Not
What major changes, threats, accomplishments from other recently developed/invented new
technologies are now ongoing and receiving attention?
What major changes, threats, accomplishments from this particular new technology are there
and how do they stand up to and compete with those of other on-going new
technologies around?
What is the ratio of attention attracted/attract-able for this particular technology given com-
petition for attention with other recent on-going ones?
A glance at the model summary above shows Wheelwright focussing on 13 separate issues
that must be understood and decided in handling/reacting-to any new technology. The ide-
alism in Wheelwright’s model is assuming any one new technology emerges into this world
fully formed. In reality this never happens. It is all vague, nascent, incipient, innuendo,
intuition. No one is sure of anything about the new technology as it sloughs its trappings of
birth. Implications that business professors will confidently conclude ten years later, are
nowhere to be seen as the technology first appears. Everyone is scrambling to figure it out-
-all at the same time. For one thing--will it work at all? All new technologies come sub-
optimized--barely able to function at humanly needed levels of performance. Often new
technologies are many orders of magnitude from useful performance when born. No one
known which of a million fatal flaws may appear. Of course we humans have a history of
10,000 prior technologies, just as vague and unclear and suboptimal when born that human
beat into wonderful levels of performance, over decades of subsequent use. However,
these is an even bigger history of 100,000 other technologies that got similarly beaten but
never attained useful levels of functioning. It is a risk and Wheelwright’s thirteen dimen-
sions are great as focal points--they are the best questions to ask, but answer to many of
these questions will be nearly impossible--they will be hard risky, uncertain judgement calls
made when all sorts of key data are missing or not yet imagined. Do not get too excited
about the above questions till you find how hard or easy it is to get answers to these ques-
tions.
5!
@4$ #A *"$
*'!O 0+'
+
+
2
!' &'

+
&'

'
'
.+

-
/$
+

%
+&.&'
!

0

.
*

+&' $$ A F

**" --
.

!
!

4$ #A
.
!
-- * -"

&

'

'

!&' $$

$ F
&
'
!

'

'
&

'
,

'
33. Arthur’s Increasing Returns to Scale

“New Economics” of Innovation.
These are the famous network effects--where a product/service gets value by being widely
adopted, for example. If everyone has it, then I can exchange with others, learn what to
buy from others, get help when bugs appear from others, and the like. If, to the contrary, I
buy an unpopular product version, I lose these network benefits. The tragedy is all products
can have these network effects but traditional corporations ignored this possibility till infor-
mation technology taught them new ways to think.
Sources of Increasing Returns to Adoption

1. BUYING BUYS IMPROVEMENTS more adoption creates more use creates more learning cre-
ates product improvements
2. BUYING BUYS COMPATIBILITY more people buying a product produces network benefits
like exchanges with them, getting help from them
3. BUYING BUYS ECONOMIES more adoption create larger scale production creates low cost,
greater reliability
4. BUYING BUYS INFORMATION more adoption creates more information about a product
creates easier buying and easier use
5. BUYING BUYS ADD-ON SUPPORTS more adoption creates add-ons that ease and enhance
use and expand functioning and functioning scope
Sources of Lock In
1. COST OF UNLEARNING if learning to use a new technology is costly, then unlearning those
built habits and learning new habits for a new version/technology will prevent
defection
2. COST OF LOST USER SUPPORTS if the product is already widespread with people near me
as users I have local support sources beyond formal company supports I would
lose with defection
3. COST OF NOTICING ALTERNATIVES if nearly everyone uses or sells the product I now use
then the idea of alternatives may be hard to find embodiment of, so nothing
to defect to
4. COST OF OPPOSING DEFENDERS OF THE MARKET LEADER all those selling add-ons to the
dominant product/service resist consumer efforts to defect--they support
actively continuation of the dominance till the dominator invades their add-on
turf (Microsoft--it pays to support Microsoft till Microsoft eats your application
by internalizing their own version of it)
Effects of Increasing Returns and Early Lock In

1. VAPOR WARE--if the dominant supplier announces a “new version” even if it does not
exist, knowing it is “planned” or “coming” is enough to prevent defection to
alternatives
2. PATH DEPENDENCE--the best technology in performance rarely wins, instead small acciden-
tal factors at start determine who temporarily gets seen as “ahead” producing
ultimate victory
3. UNPREDICTABLE FUTURES--if adoption of competing technologies is a self organizing non-
linear growth process sensitive to initial random conditions then it will never
be predictable which technology will win
4. SPEED OF GROWTH TRUMPS EVERYTHING--increasing returns means market success is

entirely a race--whoever gets seen as ahead become ahead, and whoever gets
ahead stays ahead and gets even more ahead--speed is everything
5. NICHES CANABILIZED BY KEYSTONE SPECIES the dominant product that all depend on as
add-ons makes wealth possible till it studies its own add ons and incorporates
their functioning within itself, one by one
General Complexity Theory Operators At Work in This Theory

1. BUTTERFLY EFFECT differences in initial conditions of competing technologies too small
to be measured determine randomly who wins--slight initial differences are
everything
2. PATH DEPENDENCE the order in which slight things happen to emerging technologies mat-
ters, determining outcome
3. PATH ACCIDENTS slight happenings/influences along the path of evolution tilt the trajec-
tory of the technology market system to different attractors, end points
4. CONSISTENT INPUTS NOT EQUAL CONSISTENT OUTCOMES the same or similar inputs usu-
ally produce the same or similar outputs but some inputs, not determinable,
instead product sudden whole system outcome avalanches of great change
5. TUNING PARAMETERS in non-linear technology competition/market systems, interactions
can be tuned by adjusting overall connectedness of things in the system, over-
all diversity of things in the system, and overall distributedness of initiative
taking in the system--interventions in local parts of the system, however,
powerful, tend to dampen out with little effect on overall system trajectory
and endpoint achieved.
I could add lots more concepts to the above model but it is better to be succinct. This model
is small and simple but extremely powerful. By itself it nearly overthrows all of traditional
economics. It proves, the mathematical version of it, that real economies achieve multiple
unpredictable “clearing prices” that is, equilibria. So most of classical economics is wrong
and the more economies are competing technology systems, the more classical economics,
classical economists, and managers trained by them in MBA programs will have deadly sui-
cidal intuitions from that training. Consider, for example, two network enabled competing
technology systems. Which wins? The Arthur theory says no one will predict that now and,
more importantly, no one ever will be able to predict it as well. You as a manager have to
watch the evolution of technology systems very very carefully all the time and make major
adjustments and responses suddenly with great speed at the few points, tipping points,
along the path of development where non-linearities give small inputs whole system chang-
ing powers.
"

@$

''
"
/'# /

$ $$)$3A*- '

'
)11 *
/
/
"
/ *

1 '
+& A
1

"

' '
! ' &

&' .

!
' '

&
.
& % . !.

!. ' '
>
% &.%
& 2
* 2
!, , &

'
! / 0

!

&
&' '
.
%
. '&%
&
'

'% )

!
.
&

*

,
'
%
3

!
&, $
>

F
1
'
E'

" &

'
&

&

"
/

.

&
F

-

0

&

& .

/'
/' $
&
/'
/'
'

++
&'
00$ 5

'
$
**" 1
1 .&' !
1
1

' $!
% ''% , *

&
*,
&
!
2
D

&
'
' &

',
!.% !

'

!
&
D

&

% ' &'
'

.

'

,
/'

& !

/'
.!.,

&
&.
$-
'
1
1 /

% '
!
'
.

+&
&' &

B77N+9%
!

! $&

' &
, 5

&

'

' D

&

,

%
,
%
,
Comparing Wheelwright’s Technology Lives

Theory with Arthur’s Increasing Returns to
Scale “New Economics” Theory.
Wheelwright proposes 13 dimensions that determine the importance of a new technology.
Arthur proposes specific reasons for first mover advantage, rich get richer technology mar-
kets. In effect, Arthur elaborates mostly one of Wheelwright’s 13 dimensions--Network
effects. Information technologies are subject to increasing returns to scale network
effects, because the value of the product is increased the more people who use it. This
might seem limited to information technologies--computers and cellular communications--
however bioinformatics, systems biology, and tissue engineering are equally information
technology--using the computer put in each cell by natural selection, a quite sophisticated
computer only small parts of which we understand (junk DNA having been found to be a kind
of control statement, affecting when and where genes transcribing specific proteins are
turned on and off). Information technology re-interpretations of the major physical sci-
ences, and all sorts of engineering fields is well underway. So saying that Arthur’s theory
applies only to network effects of information technologies is not restricting its scope and
import all that much. Wheelwright’s theory is not specific to information intensive products
and technologies, while Arthur’s pertains to mostly them.
34. Burgelman’s Technology Tipping Points

Model of Innovation.
This is a theory of the non-linearity of doing business and managing it. It considers strategic
inflection points (Rene Thom’s catastrophe points, in the lingo of non-linear system dynam-
ics), where a non-linear system can evole toward totally different outcome types (attractors
in state space, in the lingo of non-linear system dynamics). At such points even the slightest
difference in conditions tilts the destiny of the entire system in entirely different outcome
directions. But how can a company distinguish such inflection points from identical seeming
millions of others where even large differences on inputs get dampened down into no dis-
cernible effects at all on system outcome. Most points are of the latter sort--they show how
non-linear systems resist and ignore most input changes, responding in a major way to a very
very few input types at specific inflection points, which points do not come with glaring
obvious neon signs telling one and all the “be careful whatever you do here will alter forever
the destiny of this system you are in”.
The first reliable indication that a strategic inflection point has been reached usually comes
from the guts of the organization--ordinary employees engaging other ordinary employees.
Intel, for example, two years before management recognized Japanese mastery of the DRAM
market, had consistent reports from Intel engineers visiting Japan, that Japanese DRAM com-
pany engineers were somehow no longer timid or afraid, they were very confident and
related differently in subtle ways to visiting Intel engineers. If, however, any management
tried to make policy based on such nascent, emotive, partial, information, chaos would
likely result. It is employees “outside company culture” who sense such inflection points--
they are not blinded by loyalty, conformity, and company internal dialogs. How do you know
when you are at a strategic inflection point for technologies, products, and markets? How
do you know when you are in the vicinity of a “tipping point” (using Malcolm Gladwell’s
term).
Another source of indicators of inflection points comes from changed actions, that are made
by mid level decision makers, without any formal change in policy. They use leeway already
allocated to them to tilt operations in one direction not others, based on hunches of what
will produce best profits and outcomes. Often they cannot articulate in so many words
what they sensed and why they tilted as they did. If, however, the corporation and its man-
agers notice such tiltings and gather together such tilters and listen to them all--overall pat-
terns emerge that hint that “an inflection point is near”. This is a second source--done
tiltings of decisions that, understood after the fact, reveal an overall pattern.
Identifying a Technology Tipping Point

1. recognize growing divergence between the company’s formal strategy and what mid-level
people are actually doing and decidings = strategy dissonance
2. for each such gap, ask whether it indicates a tipping point
3. seeing the pattern in the diverging doings and choosings and naming it as a tipping point--
what is tipping? how?
4. start up broad debate among all functions and all levels, emphasizing listening to the data
latent in people’s intiutions and recent choices
5. use the bubble of extra resources from good times to spot strategic dissonance and start
new initiatives based on it before they are financially “justified” or “neces-
sary”
6. thoroughly consider unanticipated discovery and invention, being willing to use it to shut
down a strategy or start up a new strategy, rather than finding it irritating
because it does not fit existing strategies
7. strong bottom up debates and strong top down debates, is necessary, separately institu-
tionalized and brought into dialog so emergent dissonance get noticed and
interpreted
Sources of Strategic Dissonance

1. SUCCESS KILLS divergence between basis of competition in the industry and the firm’s dis-
tinctive competencies--competencies are becoming less effective over time
2. WORD DEED GAP divergence between corporate strategy and strategic actions done (man-
agers tend to repeat company history doing “what worked” for others
recently)
Principles for Technology Tipping Point Identification

1. by letting mid-level people start initiatives that do not fit current strategy executives get
to evaluate embodied ideas, where impacts on customers, practices, and the
finding of entirely new customers can better be assessed and felt---artifacts
produce deeper consideration than ideas
2. resources available for unplanned things
3. accumulation of unplanned initiatives = neutral traits accumulated in natural selection,
expands chan ces to survive when environments change drastically
4. tuning mutation rates--more diversity when possible tipping points are found, less diversity
when tipping point has already been identified
Natural Selection Outside the Company, Natural Selection Inside the Company
1. companies, technologies, and products compete to survive outside the company--genera-
tion, combination, selection, reproduction
2. ventures, initiatives, technologies, products compete to survive inside the company--gen-
eration, combination, selection, reproduction
3. inside the company natural selection generates strategies to “fit” “survive” in the envi-
ronments around the company outside
4. outside the company natural selection among firms, technologies, products generates sur-
viving firms, technologies, and products
5. companies “tune” the amount of mutation (variation) to fit stable environments around
them or chaotic environments around them
Robust Natural Selection

1. in real natural selection, adaptive traits are not selected, rather neutral traits are not
killed off and therefore accumulate
INSIDE: accumulate initiatives not planned; OUTSIDE: firms/products/techs accumulate looking
fine that will die of quickly when environment changes
2. when environments shift significantly some of these neutral traits turn out adaptive and
others harmful--the ratio determines survival, but more neutrals accumulated
give more chances to adapt
INSIDE: strategic dissonances causes new strategy that kills off some neutrals; OUTSIDE: appar-
ent success is always relative to environment
3. in real natural selection, there is lamarcian inheritance of traits via RNA complexes, learn-
ing is transferred genetically as RNA cycles in cells and in cultures across gen-
erations
INSIDE: learning strategy and culture blinds firms; OUTSIDE: learning what “works” what “sells”
blinds firms to environmental dependencies
4. in real natural selection, organisms choose environments, not just passively endure them,
and they choose environment they can thrive in
INSIDE: if companies are diverse internal cultures = homes for diverse ideas; OUTSIDE: choosing
competitors = choosing environments/customers
5. in real natural selection, organizisms make environments, and inherit made environments/
cultures from parents and prior organisms
INSIDE: slack resources allow initiatives to make supports; OUTSIDE: tight traditions/cultures
rule out emergent new customer types
6. in real natural selection organisms tune the amount of variation/mutation they have. the
amount of connectedness/isolation they have, and the degree to which initia-
tive taking of various sorts is distributed throughout
INSIDE: managements tune diversity/connection/patchings inside; OUTSIDE: regulators/standards
tune diversity/connection/patchines outside in industry.
Corporate Genetic Algorithm for Finding Technology Tipping Points

1. all levels all functions of organization hear impressions of others and offer interpretations
to make sense of them all
2. interpretations compete for attention and belief and support
3. discussion tune level of mutation/diversity in interpretations offered, knowing past suc-
cesses and past company values/views block futures needed, are dangerous
4. within company natural selection of strategies; outside company natural selection of firms,
products, technologies by customers, markets
5. product/technology launches as probes of reality--seeking from feedback data and reac-
tions of competitors hints as to tipping points nearby
6. soaking all failures for learning value.
8,
%
%

'
% &

%
%
M, ! !.

B, %

%
! &
& ,&'

%
' '
&

%!

''1 %
%

'!

'
.
,#! & &

%
. &

&

%
%

/,
&
&
#* ?**"$A+*/ A2"#

1

),0$00
!
.,
I

*

-, '

$ $ 0
.
&

$

'.

0

-" +*"0 45

&.
$ /
PE A054$$)"$ $4$#

4
4#

?
0

# 0$ $
"$ *

*
&'

$

%

-

# *
$* $$0

"0
";

$)

1
%
#> /
* $$ 0
"#

$

2

# 0 $ ?
$

% $

"

E
E
$
0

$" "
*
$ 0 $$

* $$
$
A"

$

# " "
" " 2
*$

$
?

5

5

0
$ $
$$ "
A

A
#*
$

$ 0
$
-) $
$ E " %
)
0
#A

" $
4
$ * "
) '
" #
$-
)

,
0$ %
0 4

*
%

$
)
$
%
$ 4
$ ) ,
$
,
$
4
)

4 *
#

$

0 $

O<

"#
-
"
$

$

)

/@

4

"
$ $4"-" "
/
$
**$#
* 2
2 $ +
5" "

* 0
$
*"
/
" $
1 &
/ "
)"

4 #%
-" / #
# 0 " $
*$
$ 4 A " E
0
"

# E

0 5 "
$)

#% $
5O
$
/ # -"
4

4 +0
$
$) # +5
$

/

"#$
$

" $
"
* $
** 4
$

0 4

0

#+
"
2 $#
- A4
$
4
0*%
$

$ "#

I
""
"
4%2
"$

E
4 0$
"

" $$ )#

*
$
$)$

4

"

#5

"
$)"$ $

$ #$#

$ 0

5 5
-"
/$ "$$
$
"
?5
"#4 -"0)"

0
#* )"

$
0
$ */ 02

$#

$ "

0
* 0 $

** $0

4
# $
3,
;< L,

$
4$#
$
"$
'
0

/

J

H *"+ "1

)

& 4$#$)"$ $
;
<

*

;
<

'

*0//5$ -$$2
*

,

) ? $54 $$"$ ,

' $$$04

!
&

1

%

'!

6,
'

%
%
%

'

%
%
&

0,

&
!

!

!

'
Comparing Wheelwright’s Technology Lives

Theory with Arthur’s Increasing Returns to
Scale “New Economics” Theory with Burgel-
man’s Technology Tipping Points Theory.
The three theories taken together form a nice overall mesh. They all concern non-linear
dynamics in technology markets. Wheelwright categorizes all the types of trickiness to take
into account, anticipate, spot, and analyze; Arthur elaborates one of those--network
effects--especially found in information intensive technologies in good detail; Burgelman
elaborates Arthur’s model by extending consideration to how to find the tipping point in non-
linear dynamics like the network dynamics that Arthur treats. Innovation is a matter of spot-
ting and handling non-linearities--exponential collapses and growths. In a world of linear
predictable trends, much preferred by humans, bursts reality which in general is not linear,
not predictable, and unconcerned with human limitations and preferences. Innovation is
non-linearity bursting into our linear minds and mindsets. Once this is admitted and real-
ized, much can be done and improved.
35. Bower’s Strategy Constipation Model of

Innovation.
What appears to be a problem handling technology change is not. Big established firms han-
dle technology well even superbly nearly all the time--they fail in adapting strategy to the
power of nascent technologies. They assimilate new technologies first to their most impor-
tant existing customers, who are usually uninterested in them; they assimilate new technol-
ogies second to their existing business models, where the new technologies perform
averagely or poorly; they assimilate new technologies to their existing strategies, where the
new technologies have no or low priority. It is not failure to come up with, predict, or han-
dle new technologies but failure to adapt business models and strategies for the powers
latent in new technologies when those technologies are applied to new customers or to
invent new customers or to marginal customers not central to the companies core custom-
ers, markets, and strategies. Two forces are at work--people copy what “works” in large
firms till everything is too simple, a copy of whatever was the largest and most lucrative
recent success--and--people focus themselves and adapt themselves to what “works”, which
always is something in the recent past, thereby foreclosing adaptation to the emergent
future.
A corollary of this theory is this--total quality by emphasizing listening to customers destroys

the ability of companies to respond correctly to emerging new technologies and emergent
new product architectures in their industry. Customer focus kills. Total quality kills cre-
ativity and in return, perhaps “in revenge”, creative new entrant firms kills big established
ones using creativity. Creativity eventually kills total quality firms. It is dangerous to listen
to your existing customers! It is, of course, also essential. In truth, you have to perfectly
listen to existing customers while examining constantly marginal and non-customers for
homes they may furnish to new emergent technologies and architectures, allowing new
entrants to grow up capabilities unseen in market under-bellies, that they later deploy into
the core of large established markets to destroy large companies.
A second corollary of this this is this--firms anticipate an S curve plateau of performance

obtainable with current technologies and this becomes as self fulfilling prophesy so firms cut
off perfecting existing technologies far too soon, missing orders of magnitude of future per-
formance increases technologically possible to obtain. This means firms, getting antsy
about new emergent technologies and new market entrant firms, may kill themselves by per-
fecting existing technologies their main customers have and want, while under-investing in
new emergent technologies, and while paradoxically, failing to perfect enough their existing
technologies. In other words firms may attain the worst of both worlds--not investing in
challenging marginal new entrant technologies because they first appear marginal, and not
perfecting their existing technologies enough in their rush to switch to emergent new
entrant ones so they will no be blind sided by the future.
Behind this are two political considerations--top managers do not decide strategies (and
technologies) but rather merely take orders from investors and core customers of the firm,
passing what they want onto leaders inside the firm--and--resource allocation to new strate-
gies and technologies is not made by top managers but by mid level managers who endorse
or indirectly de-emphasize commands from “on high”. The major error is this--believing
strategy and technology decisions are made by top executives at all. Here the snobbisms
and hero worship of monarchies in Europe, the class system snobberies of Europe, repeat in
worshipping CEOs and other executives, as if they determined important things. This is a
gross exaggeration. The myth of the heroic god-like “leader” “fuhrer” “CEO” destroys firms,
by missing how core customers fix strategy inside firms that supply them and by missing how
middle level managers make key technology and strategy decisions, later attributed,
wrongly, to “leaders” “fuhrers” and “CEOs”.
When firms are misled by the myth of the heroic leader, they fail to allocate resources to
technologies that cannot find application in mainstream markets, but that later invade
them, because they think their leaders are allocating resources when their leaders are actu-
ally incapable of re-allocations and instead pass on, unchanged, demands from core custom-
ers the firm now depends on for revenues. If firms admit that core existing customers
dictate strategy and technology commitments of the firm, they resist this dictatorship and
add allocations for emergent new entrant technologies only saleable to the peripheries of
current markets or to customers not in current markets at all.
Successful transitions to entirely new technologies come to established firms when core cus-
tomers of their present mainstream markets demand them. They fail to appear when such
customers do not see or demand them.
Four distinctions are critical--established firms versus entrant firms, improvement trajectory
sustaining innovations versus improvement trajectory disrupting innovations (leaps not incre-
ments). Established firms lead development and use of trajectory sustaining innovations,
with entrant firms copying them. Sustaining innovations are popular with existing main-
stream customers, but disruptive innovations are not popular with such customers. Mastery
of trajectory sustaining innovations did not offer protection from disruptive innovations,
because new entrants offering disruptive innovations offered to first new customer types
and later core customer types technologies with steeper trajectories of improvement than
sustaining innovations had. Why did leading firms fail, again and again, when attacked by
entrant firms with new technologies that the older firms already knew about or had devel-
oped a little? Competition within leading firms in an industry for resources resulted in
improvements in sustaining technologies always defeating projects to develop disruptive
technologies--because sustaining innovations served the main customers of the firm while
disruptive ones, at first, served only marginal customers or non-customers. Serving your
core customers kills when facing disruptive technologies embodied in new entrant firms.
1. first versions of all disruptive technologies were developed at established

firms
2. senior managers almost never initiated this development of disruptive tech-
nologies at established firms
3. off the shelf components were used for these initial disruptive technology
prototypes
4. marketing, when presenting disruptive technology prototypes to customers,
presented to core leading customers
5. core leading customers were only interested in progress along existing trajec-
tories so they had no interest in the disruptive techs
6. initial sales forecasts of disruptive technologies were therefore very low (the
products were simpler and lower in performance)
7. disruptive technologies therefore not being supported by good sales fore-
casts, got few or no resources
8. when new disruptive techs began to be sold established firms responded with
a slew of new models of sustaining techs
9. established firms emphasized competing with each other, not with new
entrant firms
10. frustrated engineers for established firms, angrily left them and formed new
entrant firms around the disruptive un-resourced techs
11. established firm customers were uninterested so these engineers had to find
new customers, often themselves new entrant firms based on other disruptive
technologies in other markets/products
12. new entrant ventures sold their disruptive tech products to whoever would
buy them hitting by happenstance firms new entrant firms in other markets that
would overthrow leaders in those other markets later
13. established market customers eventually bought the disruptive tech prod-
ucts, when basic volume and performance parameters were met, because they
found them simpler, more reliable, cheaper, faster, and architecturally easier to
evolve with
14. manufacturing cost and design experience of new entrants selling to new
customers and marginal ones, became the base of superiority that prevented
established firms, wheeling out competitors based on the same disruptive techs,
from gaining a foothold
15. the “rational” decision, in allocating resources to technology projects pro-
posed by mid managers, was always to further trajectories for established cus-
tomers (big payback, little risk, easy distribution), the rational decision is never
“support the disruptive tech with uncertain market and customers”
16. hypothetical not-yet-existent customers could not articulate specific specs
and performances needed; while established customers could specify in great
detail traits and performances needed = less risk
17. disruptive technologies had a steeper performance improvement trajectory

than established ones had as demanded from core customers
18. creating organizationally distinct units and fully protecting and endorsing
ruthless competition between these new units and the main stream of the firm
itself--this strategy allows a few firms to do sustaining and disruptive techs both
well
19. Extreme technical risks are easier for established firms to face than market
(can it be sold) risks.
20. Individuals inside established firms are capable of very innovative behavior
compared to resource allocation processes in these firms--
Individuals inside established firms grasped not only the new disruptive tech but
also its new customer types and growth prospects but the managers they
reported to allocated resources based on commands of core customers, not
interested in disruptive techs.
Remember, “disruptive technologies” is a code word, it means “Japanese competition”.
A final note on modules and architectures. Information technologies--the computer type

and the bio-systems type--are all about information density and information transmission
capacity. Over time information densities increase so more information stays in smaller
areas and cheaper materials; over time information transmission capacity increases so areas
and devices can exchange more information or more modalities of information in the same
amounts of space and time. These directions of evolution naturally imply modularity
changes and architecture changes. Business school professors and their books tend to be
quite counter-intuitive and sloppy in terminology, misusing “modules” and “architectures”
especially. Basically, incremental innovations do not change what modules are in a product
and do not change how modules relates to other modules. Mid-level “module” innovations,
change either what modules are in a product or transform a set of components into a module
by standardizing interfaces from and to that module to the rest of the product, including, to
other modules. Architecture innovations, change how existing modules relate to each
other, often by drastically changing parameters of one module that greatly affect other mod-
ules by greatly changing the part of their working environment that that module constitutes.
Also architecture innovations are ones where relations between modules change because a
disruptive performance trajectory of steeper growth in performance gets installed in one or
more modules, along the road of increasing information density of information transmission.
Why are architecture innovations hard to established companies to survive?
The answer is technology architecture, that is, between module relations, are mirrored in
organizational form, as subsystem teams and relations among subsystem teams. As a
design’s early stage fluctuations dampen down into a standard architecture, subsystem team
arrangements congeal into a fixed pattern that, by being stable across several generations of
new products, involve people in automating routines, losing conscious awareness of them
and their rationales at formation. This means that channels between subsystem teams, fil-
ters applied to what gets asked and answered in channels, and habitual problem solving rou-
tines used, get repeated, routine-ized, and made unconscious and fast and automatic.
When architecture changes, often, the configuration of subsystem teams used for the prior
architecture faces the problem of doing the new architecture. The filters--what they ask
and answer--do not fit this task and their routine problem solving approaches do not fit their
new problems. For these reasons, architecture changes are much longer, harder, and more
errorful for established firms to handle than other smaller scale innovations. Big organiza-
tions are not nimble at recognizing when their routine organizational arrangements are prob-
lematic and not nimble at reconfiguring themselves organizationally even when the need to
do so is recognized. Architecture innovations tend to kill off established firms.
$"$)? /!@4$ #A-

"--
-

0

&

,

%
, !
%
J'

H ""$ &
&,
$! I$# "#
!
%
*" 0

&'%
.!
/
& /

!
&
J&'
!

&

!.
H .
!'%

.

. ! ,

, ""$ 0
!
P
'.

'% " /$ 0

&'!
"
0
!

!
0
450"*"E ?
&'

%
!
8,
,
!

&

%
, B,

!
&

,

!

L,

'

,

!'/!

!
""$

%!
&

, /$
/ 6,

!'%
/ 40

&
*"
$#$" 0

'

,

,
3, $? , 4* -
G-

!

'

% &,!

'
- "
$$)$?

& '

8,
0" .
J '
, *"-$# 0 %

I$#
!

--"$# '

H JD
. 'H

B,

.

,'
!
% J

!'

,'

!

H

, '>!',

.

4 "-
,
- "
L,

?
0
0$->

!

>'

'

'

!
!
%%
,

,
36. Nevens, Lee, and Jurvetson’s Silicon

Valley Introjection Model of Innovation.
We do not have any examples of companies wildly succeeding at disruptive innovation alone.
All we have are the example of Japan, dozens of firms in dozens of industries disrupting glo-
bal markets with higher quality lower cost periphery nibbling new entrant products and the
example of Silicon Valley firms in the US copying their human resource, technology, and mar-
ket development approaches in throwing disruptive technologies of their own around the
globe. Call this generation 1, Japan, and generation 2, Silicon Valley. Of course this is a
vast over-simplification, ignoring Taiwan, Korea, and later nations, and Route 128, Silicon
Castles in England and the South of France, and ignoring the world’s continual export leader,
Germany. If currency current values and likely future value trajectories are taken into
account, the German examples far outshine US examples, though not East Asian ones. The
New York Stock Exchange listings, taken in currency neutral “basket of currencies” terms has
barely been a profitable investment over the last high growth high tech 20 years. Only in
dollar terms do they look like good investments. So we have almost no examples of firms
outside of shining national economy or tech valley “cluster” contexts playing the disruptive
innovation game successfully. Firms are not enough!
So what is it that tech valleys add beyond what individual firms can do for disrupting with
innovation? Why do nearly all tech valleys fail and why does one continue to dominate glo-
bally? Why was MIT able to do mini-computers in a circle around Route 128 but not much
else later? Why did Stanford, financially, beat the pants off of MIT in spawning spin offs that
redirected global evolution and wealth? These are important questions, but there are more
important ones.
After a corporation hires all the Harvard, Stanford, etc. professor-consultants on innovation,
and quad diagrams nearly everything in the known universe, simplifying armies of Power-
Point slides till they are so utterly banal that even top executives can follow their grammar,
in between drools, nearly nothing will happen to their innovations and the disruptiveness of
them and their ability to weather disruptive techs from surprising new new entrant firms.
After all that futile effort to be groovy, dress up executive minds with up-to-date tripe, and
bandy trendy buzzwords about the workplace, to the quiet sounds of iron carts carting off
hundreds of millions of dollars into Cayman Island accounts of the CEO and his good buddies
on the board of directors, companies are left with only one hope--either become Silicon Val-
ley companies by moving lock stock and barrel everything there, or, next best thing, to turn
themselves internally in Silicon Valley as best they may. Strangely, the latter can be done
and works well. All it requires, that is difficult, is a profound serious grasp of what made
the first Silicon Valley work well.
So the name of this theory has a two-fold meaning--introjecting your entire firm into the
actual Silicon Valley, or, failing that, introject all of Silicon Valley’s actual dynamics into your
firms interior as how your firm is organized and operates.
Both meanings--joining and introjection Silicon Valley--have some near fatal barriers. First,
there is the danger of becoming Xerox--that is, becoming two incompatible cultures. For
the problem is established firms with major markets and customers and sales volumes doing
the nimble new entrant Silicon Valley thing. You cannot do major established markets that
way. So you are splitting the firm into two parts, two cultures, two systems, and most likely
you will get the result that Xerox got--all the right technologies and ideas developed and no
profits from them, as the bombastic monkey-like blue suit status-seeking snobs on the East
Coast culture misunderstand, misread, delay, and assimilate to commodity market values the
humble, nerd-like, T-shirt, riches-seeking egalitarian rebels on the West coast culture. Sec-
ond, as Bower’s Strategy Constipation theory made clear above, if you are driven by cus-
tomer priorities your customers will drive you to resource trajectory sustaining innovations
over trajectory disrupting ones. What can you do?
Consider Research and Development labs, Xerox PARC, and other examples. They are much
like little Silicon Valleys. When they mesh well with mainstream businesses it is because
they lack disruptive results so their trajectory sustaining results fit well the mainstream
business and its customers--most labs are solidly in this camp, disrupting nothing. When
such labs disrupt mainstream executives and businesses because they do product disruptive
innovations, they do not fit well the established mainstream parts of the business. The ten-
sion, well documented in decades of research on managing research labs in businesses, is
always there because trajectory sustaining and trajectory disrupting cultures, results,
resource allocations do not get along. What to do? Bower’s theory already presented the
answer, in principle: you consciously tilt the resource allocation strategy so that a major
portion of it is always off limits to the mainstream customers of the firm and their needs--
you deny the fast, dumb, simple paybacks minor improvements for them offer. You do some
such improvements always but deny others for the sake of a major portion of all resource
allocations going to your own internal Silicon Valley. Second, you invest in culture bridges
between the two contending cultures that disrupters and sustainers maintain. Such culture
bridges, most properly, should be discussed in the final sections of this book, but here I will
outline a few dimensions, enough to flesh out this particular theory of innovation.
Consider a research and development lab with, say, fifty ongoing project teams in it. Sup-
pose the company these people were in changed them from researchers into venture
founders by funding, not projects, but independent competing companies. Employees
whose ventures got funding would work building their own particular funded venture;
employees whose ventures did not receive funding would disappear and those employees
would be among first hires of the ventures whose funding got approved. Now suppose
instead of one central all powerful venture funder, there was a population of venture
funders, within this one corporation. Each such venture funder would be its own venture
capital firm, within the firm, whose business unit profits were the money it got from all the
ventures it funded and got stock options from. In the beginning each wealthy, hefty in rev-
enues, established business of the one parent corporation would set up its own venture fund
firm within the corporation. These would compete to spot the best venture proposals from
the populations of former R&D projects, now turned into competing venture business propos-
als. With a population of funders, venture proposals not funded by one would have some-
place else with a different view on the world to try again. This is a picture of some of the
initial incremental steps that a company could take to transform its present R&D lab into a
Silicon Valley “within the firm”. In truth, there are some complicating issues, mainly involv-
ing splitting the entire company into an established core business half and a silicon valley
within half--meshing these two cultures and balancing resourcing between them involved
some important complications dealt with below. Another complication is each established
core business of the corporation needs a traditional research and development lab and its
functions, so we would not “transform” an R&D lab into a valley of ventures, so much as,
“extend” it into that. Firms do something near this already but with one fatal flaw--they
resource fitting ventures, ones that support established trajectory sustaining business they
already get lots of revenue from, lots more than non-fitting disruptive ventures. In my sce-
nario, they would grow into funding fitting innovations and disruptive ones, equally.
Here it is enough to note that such a transformation is natural, easy, and a way to get big
established firms to resource trajectory disruptive and sustaining innovations equally, pre-
venting new entrants from wiping out the entire business someday. Included in this ultimate
scenario is the within-firm venture capital firms, happening to fund disruptive venture pro-
posals within the firm, that compete with and eventually wipe out some core established
businesses of the “other half” of the company. This is exactly the result we want--a venture
created by the company and owned by the company (in toto or in part) that is the winner
that defeats the old established business of the firm. The future wins but the company,
because it created, funded, and owns a major share of that future, gets rich too; rich
enough to pay for loss of its core business. Profitable self cannibalization! That is our goal.
NEW BUSINESS MODELS FROM CONTINUAL ENDLESS LOWERING OF INTERACTION

COSTS
1. Roughly half of all labor costs are interaction costs, labor costs are roughly
75% of total costs in a developed economy: searching, monitoring, coordinating
2. computing and telecommunications innovations have led to a precipitous drop
in interaction costs (slashed to 1/20th of former levels)
3. drastic and continuing drop in interaction costs leads to constant evolution to
new business models and constant evolution of disruptive architectural level
product and technology innovations
4. placing an order with an outside supplier now costs 5% of what it did 20 years
ago for most businesses
5. having a huge variety of suppliers around you in Silicon Valley allows full
immediate exploitation of new low levels for interaction costs, equals rapid
instant installation of new business models
6. among these new business models--no bricks no mortar manufacturing,
reverse markets, service and info integration into supply chains
7. in effect, Silicon Valley has invented technical means to run businesses as
Japanese quality theories define it, as horizontal value-adding processes
stretched across functions within firms and across functions between firms
8. falling interaction costs mean lots of functions in the past done inside firms
for “coordination”, “monitoring”, or “finding” reasons no longer need to be
done inside firms
9. falling interaction costs means firms with needs can advertise costlessly on
the net and collect bids from all sorts of supplier possibilities, instead of the old
model of suppliers finding customers via advertising; this equals market revers-
ing
10. info and software products are more profitable for later items sold than for
earlier ones to profits increase by scale rather than decreasing by scale as in
classical economics; this is one “network effect” where selling more makes it
easier to sell still more
11. new business models from using network effects include spending for third
parties to support your products giving profits to them because their selling of
your products increases the value of you selling your products too (Intel funding
peripherals for processors)
12. instead of profits, selling to more customers increases value more and raises
capital gains more
13. emergence of standards, defines what a new function/product must inter-
face with, input into, to add value to millions of customers, equals ready market
estimates of good accuracy for entirely new firms, products, and technologies--if
they can talk to millions, and if the functions are useful, then people will buy =
the power of standards to take uncertainty out of brand new technologies and
products
THE NEW SCARCITY, NEW ECONOMICS OF NETWORK EFFECTS

14. instead of capital, labor, and land being scare economic resources, we have
investment opportunities, management talent, and attention of customers being
scare economic resources
15. example: $5 million to build a prototype product from a PhD dissertation,
$15 million in one year spent to build and test a ready-to-ship version of the
product tested with a couple of early salesmen on a few pioneer customers, $40
million for 18 months spent ramp up to 3 target types of customers to assess
total sale volumes likely; result: $20 million annual revenue, positive cash flow,
IPO valuing them at $400 million 3 years from start in Phd. lab
16. venture capital firms now seeking $200 million initial investments for new
internet start ups, assuming $150 million is for building market share to get net-
work effect high value for initial customers
17. global shortage of 1 million skilled engineers for developing products, manu-
facturing them, marketing and selling them by 2005 = one MAJOR value of Sili-
con Valley, namely, lots of talent nearby and personally assessable, daily
18. the “talent overstock” strategy is growing--hiring not for positions but
because of skill sets, creating special projects to attract and keep them as more
solid roles for them emergence from firm evolution
19. growth of Silicon Valley has made “getting attention” of people and firms
there, more difficult so buy up by famous name companies like Microsoft and
Cisco of many new ventures yearly allows attention that Microsoft and Cisco
have to be spread on new venture products
20. the celebrity CEO, Branson-like stunts, are another way to get “mind share”
and media share for new start ups
21. contingent labor at both ends, top and bottom, is growing as stock options
lure executives away while part time and outsourcing erode full time entry level
employ benefits and wages
22. Japan’s keiretsu mix of large firms, finance firms, trading firms, venture
firms, feeder universities is possibly where Silicon Valley is evolving
23. focus on innovation product invention, building large scale infrastructures,
managing customer relations in segments but not all three is growing among
businesses as low interaction costs make aggregating all these functions in one
firm a lose of focus and excellent execution
THE IDEA-THAT-CHANGES-THE-WORLD ENTREPRENEURS

24. Silicon Valley entrepreneurs create and maintain lots of close personal rela-
tions with diverse people throughout their lives
25. Silicon Valley entrepreneurs have immense passion about their ideas--the
expect to change the world with their ideas--wealth creations is purely side
effect in their lives
26. Connectedness is a way of life in Silicon Valley
27. Entrepreneurs first and foremost have to convince their first employee-co-
owners of the venture that the venture will succeed--any weakness and good
quality employees will not be attracted
28. Controlling your market is more important than controlling your company so
sharing ownership with partners, venture investors should not become a stum-
bling block
29. Spreading equity among suppliers, customers, employees, advisors is a way
to spread risk--to incent many parties to help the venture succeed; seeking
advice from everyone is a second way to spread risk by creating a community of
common thought where isolated critics are no longer around to complain from
isolation because they were brought in by early requests for advice and guid-
ance
30. Lack of management experience is a key to early success of ventures--it
makes for egalitarian consensus based consultation with everyone
31. Venture management teams supply vision, drive, and some key skills while
enveloped in venture capitalists, accountants, and board members who actively
guide in more traditional management techniques as needed
32. CEO charisma and initial technical team talent draw attention, funding, and
employees--also working conditions that emphasize total openness to all valued
contributions anyone can make--Silicon Valley ventures recruit the skills they
need NOW
33. Alliances with other firms are sought out, and innovation ideas from them
are welcomed and used (no not-invented-here-ism); support firms have experi-
ence from supporting many and diverse ventures
34. R&D done by buying small firms developing the idea = Cisco’s outsourcing
research model
35. Everybody and everything in Silicon Valley is optimized for speed--because
being large early, having share early, creates exponential network effects = top
unassailable value for customers
36. Customers as innovation partners, co-inventing, customers a beta-testers,
37. Silicon Valley itself adds mindshare; alliances with its famous firms, adds
mindshare; selling to its firms as customers, adds mindshare; plus venture fund-
ing often mostly spend on one initial huge marketing campaign in major media to
get mindshare = nobodies become global somebodies in two years
FOUR TYPES OF SILICON VALLEY ENTREPRENEUR

1. visioneers--Yahoo--the company is a community fulfilling a particular ambi-
tious vision--changing the world in one important way, even if it takes decades
and lifetimes
2. acquirers--Cisco--the company is an ultimate function supported by a vision
that evolves as component skills/techs/products in the form of acquired ven-
tures join “the collective” to implement the current evolved vision for achiev-
ing the ultimate function of the firm
3. redirector--Sun under McNealy--the company’s initial direction and achieve-
ments have to be viewed differently and used as sheer resources all of which
must be redirected as opportunities appear, disappear, and evolve
4. serial entrepreneur--Jim Clark--a person who has started up a sequence of
successful ventures so that even the announcement of a new “current interest”
is enough to draw people, funds, and customers (even though none of them
knows what the product is).
FOUR PRINCIPLES OF VENTURE FOUNDING SUCCESS

1. not knowing it cannot be done--necessary lack of experience and lack of
judgement, flawed commonsense
2. time compression--time to billion dollars market capitalization--HP 50 years,

Microsoft 15 years, Yahoo 2 years, Netzero 9 months = Metcalfe’s Law--the value
of a network grows with the square of the number of nodes
3. partnership easy from focus--start ups are extremely focussed so you know
what your threats and potentials with them are, whereas partnering with
“Microsoft” is vague and very very dangerous--it is undefined
4. the end of retail and distribution--non-commercial “buyer services” on the
web will analyze and track value from multiple suppliers of product types for
each consumer, customized to that consumer’s criteria--Amazon is out of date--
intermediaries are un-needed.
SILICON VALLEY MICROCOSMS WITHIN YOUR FIRM

1. establish angel funding from all wealthy people associated with the firm of
venture ideas inside the firm
2. establish venture-growth-experienced venture capital within your firm to
grow partially proven idea ventures to network scale
3. split the entire company into a venture half equal to a core established busi-
ness half or split the workforce/workweek into half a week everyone working for
the established business and the other half everyone working for the venture
half
4. split all board, executive, management positions into precisely equal venture
halves and established core halves so the two cultures cannot dominate each
other at any management meeting or level
5. pluralize angel funders and venture capital funders so ventures rejected by
some are picked up by others, often--do not centralize predicting the future and
do not consense around one prediction and one predictor
6. resource core business sustaining innovations and core business disrupting
innovations exactly equally at all times and levels
7. incent venture founders with “control” “ownership” “power” “patient fund-
ing” rather than petty established business monkey tokens like salary increases,
rank increases, and other old stuff
8. evolve to all the above as endpoint by a limited term, say 10 year, march to
the above from standard R&D initial conditions--that is, grow via planned steps
your current populations of R&D “projects” into a population of full ownership
empowered venture founders, replacing projects.
A SILICON VALLEY MICROCOSM WITHIN YOUR FIRM

Be a Keiretsu of Firms that Compete with Themselves
Central single established A population of plural diverse
funders never core business
one venture funders and a popula-
work--they bias tion of plural diverse ventures
corporate
towards helping established R&D lab
venture valley
plus usual R&D labs.
core business one venture four
established core. two
corporate
A established
core business
three
R&D lab
two
venture valley
venture five A
Arrows are Now imagine
Population internal investment corporate venture valley
Population afirms
set of related
sharing
flows; R&D lab
of ventureonefunder reversed they
three venture six
of a population
venture funders,
of
Diverse ventureinternalfunder are income

flows from
Diverse ventures,
R&D labs, so
and
Venture two research but Ventures thegether,set have, to-

their own
mostly from Silicon Valley in
Funders ventureinternal
funder successful venture valley venture valley
venture seven
& and amidst them.
three venture one
Competition
ventures. R&D Labs
among plural venture valley venture valley
external
venture funder venture two venture eight A policy of resourcing a fixed
within firm one ratio of trajectory sustaining
venture funders and trajectory disrupting
who keep profits venture
external venture valley venture valley
funder venture three venture nine innovations.
from their invest- two
ments, essential. A formal fixed policy of evolving all possible R&D A policy of creating the new
Outside funder ventureexternal projects into funded ventures and of getting half entrants that conquer your
funder
competition helps three of all revenues, eventually, from both ventures and existing established businesses.
keep funding established lines of business.
honest.
A POLICY OF SELF-CANNIBALISM
You Be the New Entrant that Conquers Your Established Businesses
37. Greene’s Niches Riding Niches Model of

Innovation.
It turns out that reproducing all of Silicon Valley inside your own firm is doing more work
than is necessary to generate and handle disruptive innovation well. There is something
much simpler and faster that works as well.
If I am a new entrant firm, with a disruptive technology (I think, not yet big enough to dis-
rupt anyone), who am I going to sell to? Established firms will not even hear me out--my new
approach product does not fit their expectations or performance levels (and because my
sales are virtually none at start, my process learning is nil and my costs are high per prod-
uct). I sell, in fact, to anyone at all who will buy? Who are these “anyones”? If I am alone,
in a valley in Nepal, they are sheep herders, nomadic goatsmen, and the like. If, however, I
am in Silicon Valley, they are firms just like me, new entrants, without wealth or a track
record, trying to sell to anyone at all. In other words, nearly all the power and impressive
growth and towering profits and personal stock options fortunes that draw out attention to
disruptive innovator firms, comes not from the exponential growth any one of those firms
and its products produce, but from the fact that each of those new entrant firms is selling to
new entrants, some of whom turn out to attain exponential growth. Any one new entrant of
great success and growth is “riding” other new entrants of great success and growth, who, in
turn, are “riding” still other new entrants of great success and growth. If I sell to anyone at
all, and half of all those “anyones” are new entrants just like me, and a tenth of those new
entrants turn out to have decent growth and a thirtieth of them turn out to have stupendous
exponential growth, then just by keeping the loyalty of my first nobody customers, I will
“ride” my mix of luck to great growth and eventual sales volumes. This is the niches riding
niches theory of disruptive growth. It is very very simple, powerful as an explanation, and
has stark implications for how to succeed via disruptive innovations.
There is important background for this theory. Information technologies, like computers
with telecommunications, like system biology, have at least one open-ended dimension of
continual, never-ending development: increasing density of info storage and increasing
capacity of info transmission. These two increase in principle forever, in reality, for
decades and possibly a century or more. We can imagine quark level computing following
mere quantum computing, and Higgs boson computing following quark computing, until info
gets stored in the planc-constant-determined smallest possible physical entity in exist-
ence. This makes information technologies quite a bit different than other technologies.
Having an open-ended dimension of continual development means that there is a powerful
motive, with practical rewards, for continual invention of entirely new generations of stor-
age and transmission of info. So nothing particularly entrepreneurial is needed--the nature
of the technology itself allows anyone not rewarded by present arrangements to go beyond
them into greater density and capacity. The old, fat, wealthy, established guys get attacked
by young, lean, poor, wanna-be guys--endlessly.
Add to this ubiquity and device dissolution--information is appearing in and around all other
objects and events in our world (ubiquity), and, information is leaving the foreground and
dissolving into everything as an assumed self-organizing self-explaining self-managing nature
to all objects and events (device dissolution)--and you can see how zillions of devices, ser-
vices, events, and products, all at the same time, undergo disruptive transformation as each
new generation of info density and info transmission capacity arrives.
What this means for innovation is this--my firm sells a disruptive technology--to whom--to
those other new entrant firms around me who also are selling their own disruptive technolo-
gies--all of us in one or two generations of info density and info capacity improvement. If I
sell to customers, a most of whom die out but a few of whom grow explosively exponentially,
their vast speed of growth will pull my and my product into immense volumes, revenues, and
wealth generation. It is the growth of my customers that propels my exponential growth,
more than my own exponential powers on my own. This is the core of this theory of innova-
tion--wanna be disrupters selling to wanna be disrupters--each riding to immense growth
because some of its customers achieve immense growth. You ride to immense growth, not
generate it, in this theory.
This theory does not say that people plan this. New entrants cannot sell to big established
firms--their initial products do not have the reliability, standardization, low commodity-like
learning costs, and high performances they demand--so they sell to “whomever they can”,
which, in the close proximity of actual Silicon Valley’s includes a lot of firms just like them-
selves, doing the next generational improvement in info density and capacity. Some of
these “whomevers” do not die out but hit exponential growth, hence, buy from us exponen-
tially. New entrants happen onto this and much later, a generation or two later, realize they
can focus on these sorts of new entrant customers, trying from the start to predict which
will hit it big and become exponentially growing customers of what they produce.
If you think about disruptive disk drive innovations--they disrupted because they sold, expo-
nentially, to a new disruptive form of computer--desktop PCs at first, then laptop PCs.
Niches riding niches to disruption!
The Accidental Model

1. develop one’s own innovation--from the next generation of more info density
and capacity
2. sell to whoever will buy--firms around your own, in a Silicon Valley
3. by happenstance those customers are new entrant innovators like yourself
4. while most of your first customers die off, notice those few that grow expo-
nentially, and keep selling to them, riding them to exponential sales growth for
your firm.
The Deliberate Model

1. develop one’s own innovation--from the next generation of more info density
and capacity
2. sell to new entrant firms like yourself--choose the ones you predict (and
smart others that you consult predict) have the best chance to not die off soon
and to grow exponentially
3. keep selling to whoever will buy--noticing the ones that are new entrants that
are not dying off rapidly, notice any showing slight signs of exponential growth,
and bind yourself forever to them as they grow.
Some Key Principles

1. one major type of decision is which generation of new info density/capacity
to locate your innovation in and to sell to
2. predicting which of your new entrant customers will die soon and which will
hang around and which will zoom into high growth is not done individually--your
consult your heart out and combine the best advice from the best sources with
you making the final call
3. if you are physically located within a Silicon Valley jammed with new entrant
firms like yours, then finding first customers with real chances for exponential
growth is made inexpensive, fast, likely, and easy
4. your decision about which generation of info density/capacity to be in and sell
to relates to predicting which of your new entrant first customers may zoom into
high growth--understanding idea quality and venture capacity to realize the idea
in reality is vital.
5. selling to big established firms is a paradox--they are slower to sell to because
big, with little attention to newcomers like you; they are faster to achieve big
volumes with because they can early on place single big orders that it would
take dozens of small new entrant customers to add up to (note the danger of
signing early giant orders, out of happiness, that your small new entrant cannot
actually deliver!)
6. it takes financial staying power to sell to new entrant “whoevers” like your-
self--each is small and can initially place only small orders--it takes time for
their own exponential growth to move from horizontal slopes to vertical slopes
of growth--time requires money for your firm to stay in the game of supplying
them.
The Two Roads

1. THE HARD WAY--Achieve disruptive exponential growth by leading the pack
yourself--selling to firms that do not themselves grow disruptively and exponen-
tially
2. THE EASY WAY--Achieve disruptive exponential growth by following the pack
yourself--selling to firms that themselves grow disruptively and exponentially.
The point of this theory is that all the earlier more complicated theories about disruptive
innovation confuse readers with too many trees and not enough forest. Yes, everything the
earlier theories say is somewhat true, but some truths are much more powerful and central
than others, given particular goals you have. The point of the niche riding theory is locate
yourself dually--within proper generations of info density/capacity increases, and within
whoever’s to sell to that have the chance to grow disruptively and exponentially themselves.
Innovative Thinking Practices

A host of professors, consultants, lab managers, and assorted business leaders have written
up how to think innovatively, creatively, and the like. Their work presumes that most people
do not know how to do such thinking. Their work also maintains that everything that a busi-
ness is and wants--reliable performance, low variation in products, excellent execution of
procedures--stamps out creativity so “thinking” and “doing” creativity require undoing
everything that businesses are and want. Creativity is sort of a giant general anti-campaign-
-be all you can be then be the opposite of all that. The theories of innovation presented
above have shown that large ponderous established firms have little or no trouble thinking
creatively enough to come up with disrputive innovations--the same ones that eventually
destroy them when in the hands of new entrant firms (often staffed by disgruntled employ-
#@
#"54 $#

4$0
#"54
4$ #A
* -"
-$$
E
A$#
*5"

!

!
' 4$5
$"$-" $

4* -"

,
/""5
#"54
-A
4$5
$"$4
!
#"5$#
I*$$ A

!'

"# " A
/# ) 4$
-" $"$-"
0--0

97R "#$
-"#"54
*"*

!

%

0

! .
! !
&

+ E*""$$
' ! A"$5
, $"$@
*"0+-"
A
I*$0/A $#
4 "2
** "-A"
"
MAKE NON-SENSE
22. Make mind to mind people paired with person to person people “leaders”
people who have the idea power to persuade skilled others that a crackpot sounding idea is
actually a practical revolution we can do are usually too harsh and self confi-
dent to be good at negotiation and persuading less talented others
such people have to be matched with socially smooth persuaders who talk “people to people”
not “mind to mind”.
23. Choose idea breakthru types that are big enough to make the greater likeli-
hood of failure worth the cost
modest possible successes are as hard to get as enormous successes--so investing in the lat-
ter, given both are most likely to produce failure, is best
24. Puncture the “culture of reasonableness”

there are a host of cultures about what is reasonable, commonsense, likely, growing, trendy,
popular, needed
all of these are habits of mind shared by many people and media
being embedded in these cultures greatly reduces alternatives you consider and alternatives
you can imagine
getting outside these common cultures allows greatly expanded alternatives and generally
much bolder and more revolutionary goals to be imagined
exercises like--what is the dumbest possible product we could invent--what is the worst sell-
ing idea in all history--what is the least attractive X type product possible to
product, break assumptions
BREAK PATTERNS SYSTEMATICALLY

25. Brainstorm people first, frameworks second, later ideas
what is the strangest group of people you can get together next Tuesday morning?
what is the strangest way to get these people “together”?
what are the strangest, most kinky frameworks for applying to your topic?
where can we get versions of those kinky frameworks to bring to Tuesday morning’s meeting?
what frameworks does each source come up with applying to topic X
what ideas does each framework produce when applied to topic X
this outperforms usual brainstorming
26. Reverse Worst Practices--assumption busting probes

opposites are not opposite in our experience, only in logic, so surveying worst practices, then
reversing them, will reveal best practice dimensions not hithertofore realized
reverse common preferences and priorities--what about a slowest X instead of fastest? what
about a biased X instead of a fair X?
brainstorm bad ideas regularly, then group and analyze and test prototypes of them
find good uses for dumb useless ideas; doing impossibly dumb ideas protects you from initial
competition
ISOLATE FROM SUCCESS

27. Eliminate scrutiny, limelight, evaluations, surveillance, second guessing, ill-
informed audiences
being around others increases arousal which narrows focus and attention--missing inciden-
tals, serrendips, anomalies, opportunistic chances
isolation is critical--large organization have omnipresent surveillance--a huge audience react-
ing to what everyone else does, often with minimal or ill-intentioned contexts
just the hassle of responding to ill-informed reactions by ignorant others makes people
reduce visibility and deeds and their contributions
use managers as distraction buffers, intrusion sponges, who absorb environment and intru-
sion, keeping the team isolated enough to create
create phony public projects paired with real hidden projects so that you can distract distrac-
tors with phony issues you have with your public phony project avoiding intru-
sion into your real one
28. Structure for long, intense, continuations of one mood, one love, one vision,
one direction--completely without distractions for months
hassles and distractions kill imagination
innovation requires long sustained different imaginings with their feelings and associations
richly undisturbed
powerful forms of isolation have to be invented as our world exposes all, automatically, to
more connections and irrelevant messages
the courage to detach--no email, no phoning, no friends, no meetings at all for six months
stretches, for 18 month stretches, for 3 year stretches
all innovators and inventors in history have been powerfully detached from “the normal envi-
ronment” and “pop culture”
29. Established success products/services blind people, both suppliers and cus-
tomers, from better alternatives--they freeze imagination
the successful core products blind both those supplying them and those buying them from
better alternatives because slight concrete improvements in what they have
are easier and more powerful to imagine and easier to have confidence to
obtain/invent
look to the margins for feedback on new ideas, never survey mainstreams for such feedback
a corollary--never allow marketing to survey about a new idea--they will survey your current
core customers who do not want revolution but simple specific extensions of
what they now have
30. The Zen of Innovation--change the world, love making a specific change in
the world, all else follows
talk of money and systems for money destroy the chance to get money
ignoring the target and ego-less-ly proceeding through the steps of pulling string, allows auto-
matic hitting of archery targets in zen
31. Develop, store, and richly apply complete dangerous levels of naivete
you learn just enough about what others have done to ignore all that and take a different
route
hire people with deep formal training in entirely irrelevant fields--they will have powerful
cognition types but no biases or ruts about your area needing innovation
if you must study the literature, from the beginning, study each piece to articulate exactly all
of its stupidities, ruttednesses, biases, timidities, and inadequacies--study till
contempt
hire metaphors--people with a technique in an unconnected field that might strangely be
applied to your own field
32. All Successes Fail

people copy “what works” till everyone has the same approach till drastic environment
changes change what works and not enough variety is there to respond adap-
tively in time
successes cause people to worship all they did as “right” and “competent” including mostly
bad with some good, grossly distorting what actually “worked”
successes cause people to attribute outcome to traits inherent in them--out of anxiety they
cannot repeat success--but success was never caused by any inherent traits
Dashiel Hammet has it right--winning the Nobel Prize for literature does absolutely nothing to
help you write your next word
randomize next career assignments so people get assigned to things they are not aimed at or
competent at or interested in--careening careers--for freshness of context
and mindfulness recovery
inject true randomness in deciding and choosing--to break with latent past rut effects--cari-
bou bone cracks to choose directions to hunt in work because directions not
based on past successes
back to basics campaigns produce innovation because you cannot go back to the past and its
basics, instead you “play out” present latencies safely in the pretend past you
collectively “remember” that is “reconstitute”
ESTABLISH VIOLATION/CONFORMITY RHYTHMS

33. Change Ultimates
replace management functions delivered by a fixed expensive social class of elite people with
them delivered by different work teams, specialized in each function, who
consult to others needed the management function they have specialized in
WHY because fixed social class managers have to always “look” managerial
even when their functioning is not needed
the self enhancement bias--people value more products if they believed they supervised
those creating them = managers think they add value even when they are
lessening value
sell innovations by showing how similar they are to the past--sell their lack of innovativity
hold the problem constant and vary solutions or vice versa hold the solution constant and
vary the problems--balance rigidity with flexibility
plan for the replacement of absolutely every thing and every assumption about doing busi-
ness--assume all is provisional and evolves
find the key things and do them only and very very well--do not dissipate by doing the mar-
ginal and the core in importance with equal resources or emphasis
practice enduring horribleness--innovating is touch, it is uncomfortable, it usually produces
nothing but failure--love that and you will love inventing lifelong, love the
toughness of it
learn to fail faster (more) not to fail less (more slowly)
open is good and closed is good but they have strictly appropriate seasons--learn their sea-
sons and stick to them
"#$G$
2$"#$G$
$$
0)
-8,

2
.
B,

! .%

4 #$ - L,

.
!+ 54AE?
6,.

!
%%
"*"$? 3,& 8,

8,

. 0)"AM,B-8 ** A$#

:,
&!'+

N,
& $)$$#
'@
'! 9,

O
B,
87,.!
88,!&
2

' B, &

!%
&

8B,'

$$$8L,
!

%
86, ' && &

&&O

&!

,
@

0"#$G
B3*, A54 -
%

BM , -"
5
$ %
*

" % & ' , 0

B:

,

E
/" , &
!

$

- '

3
B N 5

, '
8
,

M

'

B9

,
%

4 N7R

8 - '%
5" & L7, !

-
* , &

& $0
8:

L8

"4, &'

,.
2
L A

"
8N -
B ,
4 '

& '
&
, &

+
+=

%

89 , .

B7 ,

>

B8 ,
$$)/A +
B
B , / 0$#$ '
BL 6, %
$"#$G$
B
54$4"#$G$
8,&

!

B,.

+
L, !
' &

>'

,
39. Schwartz’s Mental Practices of Inventors

Schwartz goes through the lives and invention processes behind specific inventions of a num-
ber of the world’s greatest inventors. Perhaps his overall insights is that inventing is path
dependent--patterns establish themselves emergently early on in an inventor’s thinking and
life and inventors go back to these patterns again and again, in diverse contexts, to come up
with strings of inventions. It is almost as if an inventor comes across one idea and spends a
lifetime searching out contexts in which it achieves surprising, powerful, and useful func-
tioning.
Inventions are not what we commonly suppose in several very important ways. First, they
are not one. Most inventions are a series of 20 or 50 clever new ideas added to each other in
sequence till good performance of some sort is achieved. Second, most inventors who
invent many things actually apply the same basic pattern of functioning to many diverse
scales and domains of needs. They are not very original in terms of differing from them-
selves or evolving beyond their previous ideas. Third, inventing is a way of life, or, more
accurately, a different place to live, a place on the border between what now is and what
could be--inventors populate this border all day everyday because they like the freshness of
building a new world under their very feet each day. Fourth, the sum total of strange
unique background experiences in the life of any inventor determine nearly all that they
later invent--huge deep emotive personal connections play major roles in inventor imagina-
tion and areas of life they choose to work in and transform. It is the lives of inventors that
invent, not the minds of them. Fifth, inventions that succeed differ from inventions that
fail in that they take, from the very beginning stages of problem defining, into account
human behaviors that sustain present bad ways and human behaviors that will change when
new ways are installed--inventing devices is mostly about inventing handling or channeling of
human reactions. Sixty, ignorance of a field helps and improves inventing in it, but only
because utter conviction that something will work comes to that field from another outside
field where something absolutely does work and its has strong analogs in the other field that
the inventor is ignorant of--ignorance protects the morale of the inventor by shielding him
from too much knowledge of obstacles and conviction that something works in another field
helps inventor morale by giving him total conviction that it will work in his chosen field of
applying it. Seventh, inventions like the light bulb were enormous multi-dimensional sys-
tems and their inventors had a genius for getting prototypes of such enormous systems
installed--huge feats of passion turning into persuasion and investment. Inventions are a
spell cast by individuals of enormous confidence and passion about changing the world.
Eighth, thinking outside the box, can be less effective than thinking inside the box, if “the
box”, the absolutely necessary conditions/traits a solution/invention must have, are articu-
lated carefully and fully--for this articulation makes evident what the unnecessary additional
constraints are that our minds unconscious add for us, hindering a solution.
An example of the eighth point above is this--a public library systems is dying for lack of pub-
lic funds to support it. Restate this carefully--a taxpayer supported institution that lends
books and serves as a reading room lacks taxpayer support to continue. Let us vary “lends”-
-that copies books, that sells books, that sells copies, that buys and sells books. Let us vary
“reading room”--writing room, discussing room, critiquing room, dramatic reading room,
group composing room. We have 4 variations in “lending” and 4 variations in “reading”.
That makes 24 variations, when combining them 2, then 3, then 4, then 5 at a time. If a
library system charges for theses variations, makes money by them, then lack of taxpayer
support may become irrelevant.
Inventing is Path Dependent

there is a long path of idea generating that leads to each individual invention
inventors invent all the time--continually throughout all their lives--it is a way of life not a
job
for most inventors, one significant pattern emerges early in their work and it gets repeated in
diverse contexts throughout all their work, making all their inventions “simi-
lar” (the cylinder rotates while marks are put on it--used for many of Edison’s
inventions--telegraph cylinder with stylus, phonograph cylinder with stylus
inventors exhibit great stubbornness in the way they accumulate many diverse new ideas
from many sources and fields to make one “initial idea” or “vision” work out
in reality
necessity is the mother of invention but just as much invention is the mother of necessity--
inventors have solutions and seek problems to solve with them and vice versa,
seek solutions for problems they have
typically, an initial idea or happenstance encountered side-effect is first embodied with slight
or terrible performance so many ideas have to be added to get its perfor-
mance up to useful levels
many of the biggest inventions in history, by the most famous inventors (Bell and the tele-
phone), were prepared for by years of special unique experiences in the life
of the inventor (teaching deaf kids for Bell, biting plates in order to hear, due
to his own partial deafness, etc.)--not new thoughts but old experiences that
related to the problem at hand to be solved/invented
most big inventions are one idea, solving an initial problem but creating a new problem,
whose solution then opens another new problem, till the inventor has solved a
whole series of 50 problems before getting his final “invention”
most inventors tinker--they embody ideas rather than just contemplating them
most inventors read voraciously, do not watch TV, detach in other ways from popular culture,
and hyperfocus on problems for months and years at a time, usually several
they alternate among
What Inventors Do
verbalizing a problem--saying it aloud to yourself--is a ways to focus, overcome distraction--
discuss aloud the problem with yourself by forcing articulation in words forces
clarity about unclarities
inventors do not study what others are doing and have done and usually are surprised later to
find others were doing very nearly the same thing (but from different frame-
works)
inventors take an idea that works in one context and spread it around, applying it to diverse
entirely different contexts
inventors see the flaw and fault in everything that now exists and imagine improvements
inventors dream up something that people do not know they want or need (Walkman or Seg-
way)
inventors reframe a previously unsolvable problem, using inventive ideas to imagine a possi-
ble version, usually with terrible initial performance, then adding years of
other ideas to get out of it usable performance levels
finally, inventors happen upon strange anomalous phenomena and instead of going by, they
ponder what use could be made of them
the Silicon Valley and Japan error--engineers running things = not thinking carefully about
defining the problem = not seeing the role of human behavior in making things
problematic = they continually produce and make solutions that people do not
use and find helpful; example of opposite--slot machine cap for drug taking to
motivate “compliance”
invention as a language game--take “subscribe” to what? magazines, why not drugs? why not
vending machines? why not potential boyfriends? why not home furnishings?
The Process of Inventing

first, understand a problem or opportunity behaviorally not just technically = align your
inventions with universal strong behavioral forces “superforces” like the
drive to gamble
(example: not terrorism, not security, but consumer confidence = pay ordinary citizens to
view security camera footage and report anomalies for professional deeper
investigation--digital piecework patent = how to get millions to volunteer part
time to do a task on the net 24/7)
second, map who benefits from the problem and who would benefits from the solution, to see
if the ratio allows a winning invention = use focus groups, trials of those who
would use an idea/invention
third, if you define the problem in a creative way no one else uses, then you tend to invent a
new category there are no direct competitors in
fourth, see the system nature of problems; example, Priceline on the web = airlines if they
markdown seat prices undermine all seat prices = invent a way for consumers
to input what they are willing to trade-off in order to get the price they want
fifth, prepare and execute your counterattack against those who benefit from continuation of
the problem
Traits of Inventing
hire people who think for a living--marketers, doctors, scientists, artists, poets, writers--good
creativity and verbal skills, not just engineers and programmers
make your own luck by looking hard for clues, embracing and investigating deeply odd occur-
rences that you come across = react deliberately/systematically to random
events
anomalies get thought about--then inventors move on through years of context changes--then
suddenly one next context change causes that distant past anomaly to become
an “insight”
lack of familiarity with a field is essential--if you know the obstacles you will never start
once you discover a principle that works, however partially, trust that 50 more new ideas will
get it to work well enough to be useful and important
Algorithms of Inventing
start with something that works, learn why and how it works, reapply it to entirely different
domain and problem
find or create open scientific questions, see what new tools/data would help, invent new
technologies that produce those tools, that make the scientists able to dis-
cover things in the new data
define the barrier (Wright brothers did wind tunnel, simulations, to detect exact barrier that
barred others), then surmount it
watch someone else define a barrier, anticipate that they will solve/surmount it, anticipate
what the next barrier will be that appears after they surmount the first one,
invent way around that second barrier
would-be inventors fail to invent mostly because they are not absolutely convince something
is possible, so they fail to explore thoroughly enough to find means to do it =
self fulfilling doubt
visualizing a need, a problem, a solution, an invention undoes subtle limits and ruts in word-
ings and forces different concretenesses than articulation forces = unschool-
ing because schools verbalize too early and too much never getting past
verbiage to building and experimenting (schools teach formalisms--equations-
-first cuz they are easiest, knowing something is different than knowing the
name for it
transform “I failed 10,000 times” to “I learned 10,000 things that do not work” = soak fail-
ures for their lasting value, indirect specs of what eventually will work
automate failures to: speed it up, expand number of failures, and expand diversity of fail-
ures = more learning faster; automate testing of ideas in embodied for = fast
feedback and testing of ideas so faster moving onto better ideas: failure tol-
erances = ability to delay gratification, an inventor trait
getting the idea effectively into and installed in society requires many technical and social
and explanation/demonstration inventions (Edison electrifying JPMorgan’s
home street) “the light bulb” as a system of wires, generators, laws, not a sin-
gle object; Ford, the car as a system
breeding emergent technologies--systemsbio with nanotech for example
Inventing via Principle Problem Solving (Nalebuff and Ayres)

Four problem solving tools:
For solution searches:
how would someone without time and resource constraints solve something--then make
that more efficient via subsidiary inventions
invent ways to internalize negative externalities--make people feel the cost of delayed or ex-
locale side-effects, so personal benefit becomes benefits to others
For problem searches:
translation--find a powerful effect working somewhere and imagine/explore where else
that same sort of mechanism/effect could produce benefits
symmetry breaking--find a polarity one pole of which is “always” and “obvious” better
than the other and imagine the other pole instead (example: pay return tolls when
departing instead of returning = save time) = changing the default, the meaning of
silence or inaction (organ donation automatic unless you fill in a card refusing it)
A Method for Translating Solutions
1. find a solution that works powerfully in some domain
2. write down the principles that make that solution work in that domain
3. express what that is particular to that domain that makes the solution work and what
that is not particular to that domain that makes it work
4. apply those principles to some other domain, taking into account differences in traits of
the domain
(example: rewinding videotapes when returning them does not happen so rewind when
borrowing--the principle--prevent a form of shirking)
A Method for Symmetry Breaking

1. break existing practice into small component steps
2. write simple declarative sentences for each component
3. speak the sentences aloud stressing different key words in them
3. imagine what would result if such stressed components in each declarative sentence were
reversed
Example: auction: an item is put up for sale, auctioneer mentions higher price looking for
bids, auctioneer stops when higher price gets no bids
an item is put up for purchase not sale, a right to buy an item is put up for sale, not the item
itself; etc.
The Principled Problem Solving Method of Inventing

1. write down the necessary components of any solutions--this makes it easier to spot and
reject false constraints
2. spot and reject false constraints--ones beyond the necessary components of any solution
3. use the necessary components to generate possible solutions
4. once we find a false constraint that hinders solution in one domain, look for that same
false constraint hindering us in other domains
!@
$)$$#@*"
4"A-$$)$
54$)$"0
8, ' & %
%!

B,
!.

L,.!

8
$ !.

$ 0
' 6,!
"
8,
* 3, ! >
$)
40
! $

*
M,
! & B,
%!! $ -

'

. 2

#
8,
.
!
!
37

&'
% .
B, '
'
& L,
'

&
. & &' ,
! =

L, '! ! & :,

'

' &

&'

6,

.

37

&
! ' 8 '
&'
,
6 .

.

N,

? 3, ' .!

&
&
%.%, !
'
3, & ' & & '

!
!.

' !

. &

!
!

'

M,
&

= &
' 3
:, )
7

' 2
N,

$)$$#*"
8, & &
' =

'>

!

. &
%
% J
$)$$# $ &

&'
'

!
/# "#$G$
54 5 $ A
B, ! &
> & " $0 45 4A
**?
$" 54 4
8,

L, &
!'
$"-$)$$#?
B737

&

'
,
6, '
&>

8,&

&

!&%
&!
'! !

'
B,
&
!

%
% %

' ' 3,.!

&

>

&
'

!
L,

'

' ' '
B,&

'

.
&

&!

D
37

$)$$# #"4 B77

&
6,

8,!

!.%'

!.

.'
B,

D
%
!%

D
37

!'

.%
!
B77

3,
&!

!

!
L,

'&

&

L,&

. 6,
% & &' % !

&'
= !

37 B77

.
&

&
3,
8777
18777

M,
%
'
!.

' /
!
!
+ '.

% :,
B77

'

'

!'% N,&B

!

6, &

.

&
M,

'% .

>

'

!

I
!

'
& '
'
A
'

! '
!. $)$$# '

!
:,

)$#

?,

' !
D

&,

% !'

%
.' +&
*&?,
>
!'

N,
.

&
% , ''
!.>

&.
>

'.

&
,
40. Wind and Crook’s Managing Mental Mod-

els Inventively Model of Innovation.
The key here is what, exactly, is a mental model. It is stuff we unconsciously learn while
growing up somewhere--that is, culture. It is rigid abstract commitments that enforce
themselves automatically across all sorts of cases, that is, ideologies. It is the limitations in
thinking that males have, females have, young people have, old people have, Americans
have, French have, in short, it is the neuroses of each category of people in the world. It is
the analog mindset of the US East coast and the digital mindset of the US West coast--that is,
it is technology paradigms and generations. Indeed, you can substitute “a fixed way of
thinking that someone has” for mental model and all the sentences of Wind and Crook make
perfect sense. They use the term cosmically broad and wide, so feel free to substitute, cul-
ture, ideology, paradigm, way of seeing the world, neurotic fixation, and other such words
when considering their theory.
In addition to the flaw of using “mental models” to mean any fixed mental contents whatso-
ever, Wind and Crook have another flaw in their use of mental models--they repeat a com-
mon undergraduate student error of constantly suggesting that merely by “changing mental
models” problems can be turned into opportunities. Let’s see inner city neighborhoods as
“developing markets” for example, and invest in their growth! Undergraduate college stu-
dents excel in this error--changing frameworks changes reality! It does not. There is the
not inconsiderable matter of necessary sweat. Turning a change in idea into a change in
reality takes anywhere from years to decades to centuries. It is tough going and not for the
faint hearted. Books that use language to excite us about how “changing mental models,
changes problem into opportunity” end up sounding like naive college undergraduates.
Many businessmen, apparently perpetually depressed by the monkey hierarchy dynamics and
pitifully small salaries of their conditions of employ, lust for easy paths to change and
growth--I do not have to do anything real or hard, all I have to do, according to Wind and
Crook’s book, is change my mental models! Yipee!!!! This sells because the world is full of
fools but selling never was a testament to validity or quality--as cigarettes, french fries, and
speeches of political candidates have proved for centuries.
I prefer the word “framework” for a similarly broad swath of meanings and phenomena. I
also often use the word “theory” because all people are theorists--what they are able to see,
and able to name, and able to take action about is determined by theories they have inside
them, operating to influence their seeing, naming, and doing, but that they themselves are
not aware that they have. We all are stuffed with theories by parents, teachers, friends,
media, history from growing up somewhere and some time--unconsciously picking up theo-
ries everyday without realizing it.
Managing your own mental models (cultures, frameworks) is what Wind and Crook’s theory is
all about. However, since they never really own up to the breadth of phenomena they refer
to with their preferred term “mental models”, their principles, methods, rules, and findings
are quite a bit inconsistent, partial, and incomplete. They do not really show how and when
to handle “culture”. They do not really show how and when to handle “ideology”. They do
not really show how and when to handle “neurosis”. I think they got captured by the rheto-
ric of general publishing to the businessman market--they bandy about their word “mental
model’ as if it meant something, knowing that businessmen are too stupid to make fine dis-
tinctions and too lazy to care to get any idea just right and exact. They perhaps are right
about this, unfortunately. My best MBAs when teaching at the University of Chicago Grad
School of Business were always philosophy or literature majors--they ran rings around the
greedy little economics and business undergrad majors--because they were able to think,
articulate, and therefore, imagine.
Managing your own mental models is powerful stuff. It starts with deciding at about age 20,
to become an adult someday. If you decide at about age 20 to become an adult someday,
you have a chance to actually become adult at around age 45 or 50. That is, you have the
chance to notice all the stuff inside you that you did not consciously choose while growing
up, and switch it with better stuff from the best in history and in the contemporary world.
To accomplish this switch takes most people who do it about 20 years or a little more--so you
have to start out undoing “who you are” and “what your nation, gender, era, parents, col-
lege made you” as soon as possible, generally at about age 20, halfway through undergradu-
ate school. For most people this means that while building their career they also are
building a new self. After, however, age 45 or 50, when nearly all that was put inside them
while growing up has been noticed and extirpated, replaced with better stuff, you have the
possibility for great leadership. People who know themselves thoroughly, because they have
built themselves consciously, undoing how environments and happenstances of birth built
them, can know others well and influence them by spotting their specific lacks of adultness-
-routines controlling them that they are not themselves aware of. All that I just discussed in
this paragraph and in the paragraph above, is part of education theory, and I and others have
dealt with it thoroughly in books on educatedness. Here I mentioned it because, surpris-
ingly to some, educatedness is a primary determinant of top leadership ability, in terms of
self knowing, and educatedness is a primary preparation for being innovative, because it
involves finding, acknowledging, and changing mental models inside you.
One more point is worth making--take a case, a business or innovation case, and run it by
many people, getting what they see and think important and possible to do. The people
with the most frameworks inside them and with the most diverse such frameworks inside
them, see things in the case that no one else sees. The world is actually bigger and their
every moment experience of the world is actually bigger and more exact and complex than
the world that others live in. People with more frameworks and more diverse ones live in a
larger world than the rest of us. They spot patterns, problems, chances in cases the rest of
us cannot see. We are simply utterly blind to them--we lack the frameworks to highlight the
specific little correlated details that make such patterns up. The implications of this for
innovation are as obvious as they are stark--more frameworks and more diverse frameworks
and choosing frameworks that compensate for each other’s weaknesses make for more and
deeper innovations. Innovation is rare in part because it require being master of one
domain and yet applying within that domain to exact parts of it, things from other domains,
and seeing in one’s own domain, things in it no one in the domain can see, because you apply
frameworks from without the domain. You have to be “in but not of” to innovate--a master
of something you yet are not inside. This is the opposite of “being effective” because “fully
cognizant of and conformant to what works around here, our local culture”.
Though Wind and Crook’s model of mental models is flawed, deeply flawed, their main
point, that managing mental models is important for innovation, is valid. You can compare
their work with Kenneth Boulding’s work the Image published 50 years ago, on the same
topic. Boulding talks about how our minds seek to confirm models we already have (most
unconsciously acquired while growing up = childish models). To overcome that you have to
bombard people with hosts of messages, of the same import, sent by diverse media. You
have to create environments around others that communicate collectively the same overall
message. People adapt themselves to the environments around them. They do not adapt
themselves to messages. A common sequence of self changes comes from a sequence of
strange environments that a person deliberately puts him/herself in. Change by switching
the environments you adapt to. Wind and Crook, like most business professors and business-
men, assume that “heroic powerful men like us can change any time we want to just by an
act of our superb wonderful wills”. This bombastic stupid male illusion does nothing to help
readers but most readers, being male bombastic strutting little emperors, like these profes-
sors, think they too will change by superb acts of their powerful male “wills”. Powerful
wills do little or nothing to help anyone achieve personal change. The research was in on
that in the early 1950s. You can will all you want but you will do little changing till you get
into despair--absolute despair that you can achieve any of your fondest goals with the “you”
that you presently are. As long as there is the slightest hope in you that you can attain your
fondest goals with the you that you presently are--you will be completely impervious to self
change. Only when you enter the despair doorway, despairing of ever being able to get your
goals with the :”you” that you presently are, only then can you actually change. Wills do
nothing; despair loosens your attachement to you and your ways. It creates the leeway that
change moves into. If you want the best mental models, practice getting into deep absolute
despair, regularly--these is no shortcut.
The Myth that We Sense “Reality”, the World

brain science shows great streams of sensation pour into us, we see/hear/etc. operate in a
tiny highly indexed/interpreted fraction of all that
the cortex covering our brains largely filters/indexes streams of sensation pouring into us so
we see and hear “objects” like Jim or the radio
in a similar way, there are mental models operating inside us that filter and index what we
“notice” and “imagine” and “do”
we are not consciously aware of most of the mental models operating inside us--we can
“innovate” by becoming aware of them and changing them
sources of mental models inside us--education, training, influence of others, rewards and
incentives, personal experience
implication: we have to learn to recognize models operating inside us unconsciously, unlearn
such habits, learn replacement habits = learn, unlearn, learn cycle
generals fight the last war because they trust “their experience” which is always of the last
war not the coming war = power of mental models to mislead
two kinds of learning--within existing mental model elaborating it, changing to another men-
tal model BUT use paradigm and this becomes four ways of learning
five kinds of learning--elaborate existing paradigm, find anomalies in existing paradigm, over-
throw existing paradigm, suggest replacement new paradigms, establish one
dominant new paradigm
performance from new mental models--Roger Bannister’s 4 minute mile deed: “each race an
experiment” he was Oxford scientists applied science to his training = new
mental model
examples of general mental model shifts--inventory is asset to liability (JIT), people are
expense to asset (knowledge economy), quarterly reports to instant reports
(Cisco)
mental models have lifespans, windows of opportunity, beyond those limits become liabili-
ties, costs, dangers: example, minicomputer when PCs arrived
Palm pilot example--which mental model shifted? not technical features of the device but
interaction with user WRONG; not compete with computer but compete with
paper RIGHT
personal resonance of mental models with the lives they embed in--so much of your back-
ground may fit a particular model you are unable/unwilling to admit it not
longer fits/works in reality; Simpson and GEC, investing in a shrinking tele-
communications market, too late for the window
Forces Tending to Make People Hold onto Non-fitting Mental Models Too Long
initial automatic unthinking resistance--causes people to fight past such obstacles but many
continue this fighting too long past all obstacles, ignoring dangerous real over-
whelming ones
sunk cost fallacy--desire to not “waste” already made investments--losing sight of losing
much more by hanging tough
male hormone conflict escalation--lose sight of overall goal and get caught up in local cycles
of revenge for bad treatment and slights to status and self image
mystification of own past--present successes caused misattribution of one’s success as due to
“all” that one did and was, when only slight parts of it actually made for suc-
cess plus luck = the “I deserved to succeed” self bombast position
When to Switch Mental Models

changing too late--when the old model is dead and decaying
preponderance of indicators--just noticeable differences and slight hints accumulate--if there
is a dominant pattern among them emerging over time, does it indicate ero-
sion/decay of an established mental model?
escaping your own success--what made you successful is more luck than you admit and a
smaller more specific part of your than all that you (wrongly) credit with caus-
ing your success = shrink skeptically and drastically what parts of you and your
past you attribute your present successes to
view all cases with repertoire of frameworks that compensate for each other’s weaknesses--
never trust one dominant framework for understanding any case, not trust
menus of frameworks not carefully selected to compensate for each other’s
weaknesses, beware of plural frames pretending to be diverse frames
do full crisis analysis of near miss incidents--do not wait for crisis for force deep change--
design trip wires for invalidity emerging for any/all assumptions your current
model is based on
do personal metaphoring--become yourself various stakeholders, assuming young King Author
like, their viewpoints
do not take happenstance first replacements for dead mental model as permanent--death of a
model sucks in host of contenders, most of which die off, sift for those able to
last
compensate for age/era--if young you discount hardness of implementing, if old you discount
value of the utterly untried/new
habituation means any long term successful mental model, including its success, bores us to
death--we end up hating models that work well for us = dangerous mid-life
crises
try out radical change futures before committing to them--experimentation saves lots of
costly errors
The Illusion that Only One Mental Model is Right at a Time

sometimes the old paradigm stays relevant for some areas and a new paradigm emerges to
dominate other areas--no need to throw out the old paradigm when the new
one comes along
example: the internet does not destroy geography but complements it; computer did not
eliminate/replace paper they made need for more of it
values from old mental models: find new uses for them, review model evolution history for
extrapolating next ones, recover old viewpoint/model to refresh vision,
develop diverse model repertoire, become comfortable using more than one
model
Seeing Beyond Your Existing Mental Models

listen to radical views, unpopular views, marginal sources, anti-establishment revolutionaries
5
.@ $ 0 4$#

4 A445$;" A<

8,

&'

&' &

'%!+
>
&'

'%!%
'
B,

'%! %!
%

!
!
!
+
L,

&
!1
6, 3
? !
%

% =
%

%&

3,
?/

%K
'
&
&

'%* !
&
M,

!

1

.

6,
, ! .

! %!
0

N,&
' '
: %

.
/ +
+
'
' 'L,! ,
,

B
A$ 3, M,

'>'
%

@

5$
0 D

54 0
5$ '

$0
8,

B,!
!J
@.H
%
A
L,
%
0
/
6,'

3,&.%

!
8,
M,
8

:,%,
N,@!.&
9,'

&

8, !

!

' &,

!&

4 = ,$E

!!

!
"#
!%!&
?!

- && $ 0$#
,'

" '
G

' , $-

'
4 !
,

, &
B
#4
0 L A

B

"0 0 0

#4$ "4
8,
1

&
0
,

,
B,'
'!&
+
#
6 "

-
L,
'!'
-

6,!
&
'

3,

&

!'

M,&.!
!>!.

!

#

'
+

- "
:,

!'
,

$
N,!>

! , ,

9,

>

8,-
87,
>!%

88,
>
8B,
&'
2&
8L,

86,
!

86,!!.

!

"2

,&.&M,%.
83,!
!

&&'
8,

L
& !
& & 3,

%

8M,
(

6,
:,'

6,

'!

L, ,

0
!
0A '

& '

" ! $0

&

2>- -
B, J

&

-$
$0"0$)$$*""

$0

&
"GJ H

$ ' H

8, "

8,

'

B,
&'
'
$&'
B
L,
.

.!
.

6,
.
&.
&!B

3,

&

M,=

+

.
J?

!
&'!,H
41. Lienhard’s Inventor Myth Model Of Inno-

vation.
Lienhard is a historian of invention, writing books on invention but more importantly running
radio shows on invention. As, through the years, he told the story of various inventions to
radio audiences, a consistent pattern emerged in his stories--all invention stories had to first
become zeitgeist stories that, at a crisis point, became the stories of a single key inventor.
Invention was done, Lienhard found, by entire communities, one member of whom, at an
inflection point (a tipping point) tipped the entire effort into one path of practical realiza-
tion and became whom later ages named “the inventor”. To say that such single people
“invented the steam engine”, “invented the airplane” and the like, is a gross and obvious
distortion. Large, inter-communicating communities, driven by the zeitgeist of their times,
participating in enthusiasms for more speed, more power, more information and the like
shared with millions in their societies, did the inventing and the person whom we call
“inventor” was a capstone of this process, put on at the end by media and societal neuroses
who want all good things ascribed to lone heroic male individuals (preferably white). The
inventors thusly named distort history and reality of invention if believed. They are like
champions of innovation efforts in companies, found, as described in a later section of this
chapter below, to be capstones put on nominally at the end of a robust process, not leaders
who “direct” an innovation process, as the modern business press would have you believe.
Professors write to make you think thoughts control every good thing; managers and leaders
write to make you think they control every good thing, inventors write to make you think
inventors control every good thing--everybody is a liar, a gross exaggerator, and cannot be
trusted with the truth.
The Process of Invention One--Non-linear Invention Dynamics

a motivating spirit of the times--general lust for more X, where X is speed, power, informa-
tion, flight, health, etc.
gradual accumulation of inventions--by entire community of inter-connecting persons and
institutions caught up in the spirit and lusts of their times
overlapping curves of exponential performance improvements achieved in subsystems of the
eventual complete invention
crisis of performance--the community gets stuck--this becomes known, after the fact, as a
tipping point in the history of the invention effort
at this tipping point one man’s small individual step switches the system from one attractor to
another, Rene Thom’s catastrophe points
this one man’s small step, unleashes system wide avalanche in the inventing community--a
flood of further inventions
breeding population equation with n-tuples of performance achieved at regular intervals of
time = Moore’s law for semiconductors
The Process of Invention Two--Overlapping Worlds of Subcreations

it is not individual people who invent but creative lives these people invent, that do the cre-
ating/inventing
each creator/inventor first invents all sorts of life place and style, work place and style, tools
and arrangements that prepare the way for ultimate creations--subcreations,
these are called
the lives of inventors overlap other lives around them; the subcreations they invent overlap
subcreations of other inventors around them
hence, an entire “invention community” does the inventing with one person, wrongly, given
final credit by ignorant media, and hero-seeking lonely individuals
the invention community produces an increasingly dense stream of individual inventions,
with that stream at one point, spinning off “an invention” popular media can
name as “the” invention
the invention of the main function--airplane, steam engine, etc.--is inevitable for its inven-
tion community, but the exact form that gets named “the” invention by media
varies on happenstance circumstances
The Process of Invention Three--Societal Crystalizing Experiences

entire societies hum along undisturbed till several small, possibly disconnected events, open
up a lust, throughout the society, for more performance of some sort--speed,
health, flight, etc.
these are crystalizing experiences--directions of performance improvement that become
lusts that whole societies get caught up in
as communities of persons try to move performance in the lusted for directions of a society,
caught up in such a performance improvement enthusiasm, lots of individual
inventions accumulate
inevitably media wrongly name one person, late in this process, and very partial in his/her
contributions to the overall thrust, as “the inventor” of X
The Process of Invention Four--The Culture of Invention

societies dream and sometimes they develop especially compelling, unitary, totally distrib-
uted dreams--entire eras that lust after some particular performance
improvement type--flight, children not dying, power, etc.
these “cultures of invention” emerge out of the interaction of a lust for, vision of, greater
performance in some dimension with particular means mentioned or experi-
mented with that hint that such performance improvement might be practi-
cal, real, and near
as the dream throughout a society gives way to a community of invention throughout that
society trying means out, an exponential increase in available, ideas, funds,
persons, means, appears
soon lots of helpful small gradual inventions are pouring in, each suggesting ultimate success
is near, each helping and inspiring others in the community of invention,
expanding it
at some arbitrary point, usually when the community of invention gets stuck with some sub-
system’s performance, someone’s individual partial invention, so emotionally
relieves the community of invention as a whole that media laud him or her as
“the inventor” because media see the result of his/her work as “the inven-
tion” though much may still be left to be done
the “community of invention” develops, invents, shares a “culture of invention” via sharing
an “intellectual workspace” together that they all contribute to--usually with
an eager audience awaiting each new partial sub-invention = the culture of
“we are going to do this, soon, in our present lifetimes”
If you think about the invention of the telephone by Alexander Bell, you find:
Bell knew little about electronics

Bell’s mother was almost completely deaf
Bell would, as a child, play the piano while his mother pressed her hearing horn against the
piano’s sounding board
Bell’s father and grandfather were speech therapists
Bell’s father wrote a book Visible Speech that was a best-seller
Bell’s father developed symbols for teaching people to read English
Bell as a teen developed drums that measured human speech using vibrations
Bell taught his dad’s visible speech to deaf kids in London
Bell’s life work, he says, was “teaching of speech to the deaf”.
Bell noticed resonance of piano strings--when you sing a note, the appropriate strings vibrate
Bell did not intend to invent the telephone.
The father of one of Bell’s deaf students urged him to create the “multi-telegraph” a tele-
graph machine that could send several messages at the same time over one
wire
Bell developed the habit of doing experiments, outside his work hours
Bell was teaching the deaf in Boston and had lots of academics he could and did consult about
problems with his experiments
Bell got access to a Helmholtz machine, at MIT, due to a friend there.
Bell saw that machine could transmit sounds across wires to a similar machine elsewhere
Bell rigged a straw to the tiny bones of the middle ear of a cadaver he had cut out, watching
sound effects on the bones’ vibrations
Bell wrote that if sound vibrations could move that straw why could they not also generate
small electronic signals in wires.
It is clear that Bell’s entire life “invented” the telephone. Huge portions of his family back-
ground, childhood interests, social contacts, personal experiences pushed him in the direc-
tion of inventing a telephone. If you stripped any one of the above experiences from Bell’s
life, you can very well imagine that act hindering if not stopping his invention of the tele-
phone. Also of note is how little exposure to technical means was involved in this inventing-
-Bell worked on “what hearing” and “what sound” were, mostly, and only later and partially
did he get into technical means of “hearing sounds” over wires. I could list a similar set of
personal conditions and interests for Edison and several others, in an invention community,
all of whom lusted for “transmitted speech” to replace the telegraph’s “transmission of sym-
bols”. Thusly, lives not individuals invent and communities not individuals invent.
$
)
I $
8,
% L, B
,
/ ) $*
* " $

" "

"

$ 0A

'
6

" .&' 3,
, & * *
>

$ $#
$
%!
) $

'

. 5
$ $
' ' M,
:,
&
'

"

$ &'
&
% 0

' &

@ .

, B, '

8 &
&

' !

@ ' @
'%

,
L

&

J

! '
'

6, ! ! 1

&
'& '
,

3 ' &

M,& *

@

,H

$A
$)$"
$ #
)$
$ $'
8,
$

$ $)
)

$* $ -
%
B,
' I* "
"
* ""%
&
'

" A
L,

'%

&

' $
6,

' G$

&

3,
! # 4 ,
'
8
.

! &

D % .

<

&' &

.'

B,

! I
'

%

'
&

' '
L,
'
!
!
&
+

&
;

4 &

" ,

6

' %

%
!

3,.%

,

) M,
2
$)$
$ $*"$
/?
/.!
&

/Q!'
/!%
%'
!

Q
&
/Q!

/Q!&.$
!&
/Q '&

/

&

/
Q

&.

/Q
!.%'%!;
<,
/

!'
%

&
/

,
/Q
;

<

!

/ &

%

!.
/!

/

&&!

/4
% %
,
/!

!

!
/
!
'&

%!
&Q
&

/!

&
!!''

!
,
42. Burt’s Network Hole Spanning Model of

Innovation.
Network theory is a model of the world. It sees the world as lines of contact. When some-
one contacts someone else a line gets drawn. Soon dense bushes of lines appear. The over-
all topology of these dense concentrations of lines is supposed to determine various
important human outcomes. Networks do not cause things--they are models, simplifica-
tions, to help us see aspects of the world that do cause things. The pattern of connections
is separated from what is communicated along that pattern, in network theory. What does
network theory enable us to see about invention, creations, innovation?
There are several results. First, weak ties--slight contact with a broad and diverse array of
clumps of lines--outperform strong ties to single or a few clumps of lines. Second, bridges
among separated clumps, get a lot of benefits--they act as bridges and bridge controllers,
opening and closing off access between worlds (clumps of lines) that would otherwise be
unaware of each other. Third, it is not centrally located persons in networks who do best
from them, rather it is people who “gate” access for others to distant bridged areas.
Fourth, people in dense clumps of lines get more and bigger promotions than isolated peo-
ple. Fifth, researchers get more promotions when they spawn links that span “structural
holes” between different clumps that are isolated from each other in the net. Sixth, how-
ever, since people build contacts with people “similar to” themselves, broad and dense
clumps of contacts do not always expand one’s information, views, and chances much. Sev-
enth, anyone or anything with links that span structural holes in a network will be benefits
from it of some important sort. Eighth, there is a vision advantage of seeing alternatives
others do not due to spanning structural holes in nets--the power of le vide. Ninth, the more
redundant the links/partners/info a person has, the less value they get and produce in the
net. Tenth, local communications kill value; distant communications increase value. But
local communications easily lead to application; distant communications often fail to get
embodiment. This is the communities of practice phenomenon in all likelihood. There are
remarkably few interesting results of network theory beyond these.
Four Levels of Brokerage--spanning structural holes

make both sides aware of each other’s needs etc.
transfer a best practice from one side to the other
draw analogies between sides
synthesis, combining things from two separated groups
The Creativity-Value of an Idea from its Network Topology

the amount of surprise, and hence creativity, in an idea comes mostly from its topological
location in a network, not its actual conceptual contents
not the idea’s conceptual content, not the source of the idea, not who had the idea first--but
topological places in networks where the idea shows up, determine “how cre-
ative” it is
the contradicts the idea that creativity comes from people having certain traits, like intellec-
tual ability
creativity by brokerage in networks means moving an idea mundane in one group to another
where it surprises and is valued/useful.
the certain path to creativity is to find a constituency more ignorant than yourself and poised
to benefit from your idea
creativity is a diffusion process of repeated discovery--a good idea is carried across structural
holes to be discovered by one cluster, by another cluster, by another--each
discovery is creativity (each such transmission across clusters has the poten-
tial to add value to the idea, value accumulates
sayings validate this view--”originality is nothing but judicious plagiarism” Voltaire, “what is
originality? Undetected plagiarism” INGE
in creativity you do not persuade naysayers, you wait for them to die off--Planck
creativity is as much about knowing where to focus as it is about knowing what things to com-
bine--brokerage shows what will be interesting to other audiences
two advantages to bridging structural holes, for creativity--vision, seeing differences usable;
application, marshalling diverse resources needed to implement an idea
Aligning versus Dis-aligning Ideas

discussion is insufficient to fix differences between distant groups, and unneeded to align
people in a group, but it is essential to contagion between adjacent groups
structurally equivalent people have the same friends and colleagues so peer pressure makes
discussion unnecessary in order to align their ideas/attitudes; weakly equiva-
lent people have some friends and colleague in common but need discussion
to share ideas--direct contacts are needed between weakly equivalent per-
sons in order to share ideas/attitudes
reputation building as a short cut to trust--rather than wait for years of exchanges, that I can
wreck X’s repute if betrayed allows me to speed up trust
managers--depend for impression building (employee loyalty and obedience to them) on
monopoly control over information = forbidding employee spanning of struc-
tural holes = isolation and holes remaining the same for years, unbridged.
How distant are two communities? How much of messages from one another can they
understand? can they bother making the effort of understanding? How similar are their
needs and capabilities? These measures will determine, in large measure, how “creative”
ideas from one community are when seen by the other community (if actually seen and
understood instead of politely ignored or dropped because they are “confusing lingo”).
You create creativity, in this model of innovation, by developing networks that are filled with
clumps not connected to other clumps, then occasionally bridging such structural holes
between clumps with links, along which ideas “normal” in one clump will be judged “cre-
ative” and “surprising” in other clumps. You up creativity by upping isolation and later
upping connection, by pulsing isolation with connection in a rhythm.
/@$5"E*$$$#

&'""

0

.

!.

'

,
")A$*$$$#
8,

$

B,

'*

L,

'$
&!
!
6,
&

8 $
3,"$#/A/"E"#

%
'

M,
!'

&&

%&

%%&%

:,

'
*"-"*0
0)"A

N,

'
=

9,!
''
%
.&
!
1
%
@%
%&

87,

.!

54"
&

88,!

*$
&

&

0!
&!
&

,
'
%'&

>&

&

"" AP) $
'

,
$#"
&

+
&!
0$

'

,
"*
&
43. Van de Ven’s Necessity-Function-Emer-

gence Model of Innovation.
This is early work in the 1980s that started with a model of models of innovation. I like this
work because the model of models is a disciplined, comprehensive place to start and few
studies bother with this preparatory work. What does Van de Ven’s model of innovation
models tell us? Another reason I love this work is it has a model of innovation models that
we can compare with the one you are now in the midst of reading. Though, as in all the
models I present here, I have freely edited and “improved” particular model contents, often
by updating rather dated initial contents, to keep things interesting and relevant for read-
ers, the overall framework of the model of innovation models below is different enough from
the overall model of innovation models in this chapter to keep us interested and to inform us
of how ideas and knowledge have evolved since the early 1980s. People used to think of
innovation in the ways below--compare that to now.
Two levels
the global level--innovation appearing within economies, histories, institutions
the local level--innovation appearing within teams, individual minds, small groups
Three drivers
the historic inevitability drivers--innovation as stages in historic processes such that present
arrangements collapse, chaos reigns, then reactions to the prior regime, the
collapse of it, and ensuing chaos installs a new regime
the functional lust drivers--people see a function needed and work in societies of invention
till they achieve that wanted functioning via some specific means
the emergent process drivers--innovation as part of the fabric of the universe, unavoidable,
inevitable, because things evolve and evolution itself is an invention that
invents people and other things, endlessly--the universe itself is creative, it
created natural selection which created human beings, which create more
Nine processes
HISTORIC INEVITABILITY DRIVERS
logical necessity--innovation by next steps in unavoidable stages of development in systems
institutional requirements--innovation by conforming to self change protocols of institutions
biologic and natural laws--innovation at tipping points built into natural systems but that
humans can find and manipulate
FUNCTIONAL LUST DRIVERS
accumulation--successive gradual small inventive steps cumulating into interacting whole that
is qualitatively quite different than its parts in performance
relations (dependent, peer, dominant)--acquisition and spin off, fusing and splitting, embed-
ding and recursion, fractal growth and reflective mirroring of deeds of others
EMERGENT PROCESS DRIVERS

evolution--dynamics of variant generating, variant combining, variant selecting, and variant
reproducing within natural unavoidable evolution processes
dialectic models--each established/dominant system viewed by emerging generations of
humans as “the obstacle” therefore they counter it, in the ensuing fight both
change/blend, winners embody loser principles and learnings within them-
selves as new subsystems
enactment--reflective practitioner style probing reality with experiments then observing and
learning from responses, learning loops that produce knowledge accumula-
tions that crystallize, non-linearly into sudden leaps of performance and
ambition
Sixteen individual innovation models

cumulative synthesis of gradual changes into big innovations--non-linear accumulation of
slight changes
transaction stages--cumulation of ideas in discourse processes till decisions to change/inno-
vate result
legislative stages--proposals submitted to institutional consideration processes and manage-
ment of impeding interests till policy changes are installed
regulation changes--the economics of what ideas are worth pursuing change suddenly when
regulations change, suddenly opening old ideas to implementation
stimulus-response--shocks or crises, not handle-able by existing institutional routines, invite
violation of and invention of new countering routines
co-opting exterior threats--powers from outside that threaten imposition of negatives can be
co-opted by invention of packages that appeal to them while channeling
forces in new directions
entrepreneurship--various kinds of gaps in psyches and economies spotted by people who see
avenues for changing the world by handling those gaps
acquisitions--institutions incapable of changing themselves by themselves buy innovation by
incorporating otherness inside via acquiring strong fully developed other-
nesses
policy entrepreneurship--instead of waiting for crises to pull institution beyond present con-
figurations/policies, pro-active selling of possible changes to policy formation
nets
knowledge accumulation--professional further education and formal experimentation etc.
used to accumulate more knowledge than all others in certain areas as basis
for invention
reflective practice--all existing beliefs and deeds viewed detachedly as hypotheses in need of
disconfirmation/confirmation--policies as experiments
strategy as reflection process--strategy as entire organization reconsideration cascade pro-
cess, mixing bottom up with top down imaginations--annual rebuilding of all
technology paradigm shifts--gradual evolution of technology families gives way to non-linear
tipping points where small input changes force whole system state change
avalanches
structured dialectics--interpreting the meaning of present theories and beliefs as “what
errors in prior popular ones they replaced” used to imagine replacements for
present beliefs/theories
garbage can choice models--solutions seeking problems and problems seeking solutions, with
opportunistic combining of both, inventors taking credit for emergents rather
than individually doing all themselves
double and triple loop learning--using anomalies and failures to challenge not conceptual con-
tents but frames for interpreting them, so frame repertoires expand and
diversify and compensate for each others’ weaknesses, leading to continually
increasing scale innovation.
Contingencies
the historic inevitability drivers hold only in highly institutionalized contexts with formal pro-
cedures for change
the functional lust driver holds when key investors/inventors agree about goals, end state cri-
teria, and means
the emergent process drivers hold when there is little institutional context and no agree-
ments about goals
the greater the novelty of an innovation the more likely emergent development will apply
The General Innovation Process (recursively done for fractal outcome shapes)
cultures of innovation emerge where groups lust for some superb performance along some
one particular dimension
shocks trigger concentrated efforts to achieve such performance dreams
plans submitted as sales pitches to resource holders
first resources immediately find the initial idea splitting onto multiple cooperating/competing
parallel streams
part-time high turnover fluid in and out involvement dominates--project memory has to shift
among many generations
initial euphoria gives way to frustration and eventual closure--people tire of the immense
effort and irrational/underhanded resistances they encounter
the innovation journey lengthens till enough time for intruding outside events and priority/
resource changes to occur elapses
vicious problem cycles get set up requiring outside intervention to save the innovation
project multiple times
failure/success criteria shift over time, differ between resource managers and inventors
investors and top managers continually stay informed, interested, and intervene regularly--
sometimes usefully, more often disturbing things
alliances and cooperations undergo all sorts of revolutions, subversions, recontextings requir-
ing continual renegotiations
the innovation spreads out to become a whole systems of mutually supporting changes, and
add on leech, parasitic (niche on niche) products
initial replacement of the old with the new gives way to partnership relations between the
old and the new as the innovation matures
innovations projects stop when implemented fully or when resources run out--however,
inventors in them are adept at recontexting, repackaging, repositioning and
getting the same project to reappear in many different places, times, and
contexts in their vision that “it is possible and it is worth doing”
manager attributions about innovation success and failure are all nearly always wrong and
distort future actions as well as ruining good careers and furthering bad
careers
Van de Ven’s research ended two popular ideas about innovation--stages of innovation and
innovation champions. For decades people had published models of innovation stages.
These came from the early idea diffusion models of innovation (these diffusion theories were
almost idioticially simple-minded--there are people who adopt new ideas first and other
people who adopt them later and still others who adopt them far later when forced to by
overwhelming preponderance of the idea in everyone around them). When Van de Ven’s
people followed particular innovations over years and decades of changes of manager,
changes of budget, changes of technology, changes of priority, changes of company, they
never found clear stages. Instead they found woolly innovation trees, with small scale inno-
vation processes embedded within larger scales ones embedded within still larger scale
ones. They found messy fluid coalitions with people, resources, ideas, problems continually
flowing into and out of them and constant changes of form and leadership and emphasis.
They were impressed at how in such flux and mess yet one powerful idea or vision kept draw-
ing support and supporters in each new context and generation till decades later, there it
was, a full commercial embodiment of someone’s dreamy idea earlier. For decades people
had written about the need for champions to “parent” an innovation, blocking and tackling
with power centers to protect it, and so forth. Actual following of innovation projects over
years, however, found champions were late in the process, always nominal, and found and
added on as felt needed then sloughed when politics eased up enough for invention to
receive more emphasis over political work.
Christiansen’s histories of 1990s innovations in computers, telecommunications, and other

industries, are quite nicely done and in the same vein as their early Minnesota work on fol-
lowing actual innovations through their ups and downs.
0 -$$)$
8%
>
'

B,$

'
!
+
D
'
'
L,

!

6,
!+

!&

%
3,

.
'&'

!
M,
>
.

'

:,

'+

&'
!J'H
N,D

&&'

!

9,
'

D!

&
!%

87,.!
&.!&!!'
88,

!'%

8B,'
&!&

'
8L,'

!

86,

!'+&

%
'
83,&

.&%&.
%.

'
8M,&

+

$

4"$)/ A0")"

'

&'

&

'

D

&'

&

!

&

'&

-$$ 0")"

!
D

'D

!

&

'

&

'

'
!

%

%

J%%
HD

%

!

%&

%

!

%

%
!

"#$*"0")"

&

'

! .'
+

'

%
&

% & %
%
%

%

!

%

%

%
&

!

&
+
'
!&' !

;&<

!.

&

'
! '
%

&

+&%!
'

&'

!

!
&

%

.'

&%

&% &
&' !
'

'&

'!

%'

&

%

%

!

.!

&
%!
'
%

'
&

#$" $$)$*"
0-'
"
'0

!&

.

&

'

+

=
'
'

!'

+

'

='

'+
))@

&'D

=

+

%
&!

$A

''
%
%

'
'%
&

-$$

%&
%

D

&!''

%%

J

H
"#$

!
!
!'

&!!

'

=!
'!
! %

%
.
%

=
'
%
%

;

&

!
<

&
&

'
!'!

!

&
44. The Greene Career Dynamics Model of

Innovation.
This started as a cynical theory, based on Americans and their propensities to steal and back-
bite. Though everyone pretends that members of a company are loyal to it, in reality abso-
lutely every single soul in every US company is using that company to further their own
career. When a dilemma occurs because deciding one way hurts the company but helps your
own career and deciding the other way hurts your career but helps your company--there
never is any hesitation at all, everyone chooses to hurt the company and help themselves.
CEOs in recent decades have really perfected this way of work in the US, going from 8 times
what other employees take home as income to hundreds of times what they take home,
without any commensurate improvement in CEO performance (indeed in the US CEO tenure
is half what it was 20 years ago, and getting shorter every year). Eventually we will just
rent a CEO for half an hour, throw hundreds of millions of dollars at him, then a few months
later, rent another one, and throw money at them. Everyone will be better off and happier.
So this theory started as a cynical joke. However, people kept telling me it was not funny
but accurate. My students eventually applied it to create innovations, and, amazingly, it
worked, though I had never devised it to work. So here it is, a theory of innovation as a
function of career dynamics.
Fundamentals
innovations, whatever else they are, are all always the solution to the career problem of
needing visibility to higher ups
innovations are personal visibility projects packaged as fulfillments of CEO or other leader/
authority dreams
innovations are always split, into a public side, and a secret side--the secret side never fully
shared with authorities (because they would steal it), the public side never
fully representative of the actual innovation’s present contents or intents
innovations always take place within a culture of invention, which takes place within an
enthusiasm of the age for some type of superb performance never before
attained in history but possibly possible now
communities invent and create innovations, but individual people are used to name them,
due to the desire of everyone to see themselves as a possible inventor if not
as an inventor per se
Steps
recognize the dominant enthusiasms of your era
recognize cultures of invention within such enthusiasms of your era
join one and contribute to it by:
a. creating a package that shows how your invention solves the biggest problems
announced by your CEO or other leader
b. do extreme product/service extrapolation events--study extreme products/services in
your culture of invention, build a model from them, use the model to go beyond
them
c. define the problem culture that sustains the biggest problems your organization faces
and reverse that to get a solution culture
d. apply that solution culture to invent a new way of work and new product of work
e. split all development work into a public half you report on and tell people about and a
private half you keep secret from all
f. at crisis points or when contexts/priorities change threatening your innovation effort,
reveal one or more private parts to amaze and re-get priority and attention
g. secretly demonstrate parts of your innovation with leading customers figures who want
early access and surprise authorities with the interest of these customers when
things or persons threaten continuation of the innovation effort
h. plurify the formats of your innovation by specializing versions for many particular co-
inventor groups and co-applier groups you form and enable
i. create a high tech circles program around your innovation to distribute enthusiasm for
and application of it widely quickly till no one can stop it
constantly let higher ups take partial credit for your innovation by including them in presen-
tations but isolating them in time and space so they do not bore everyone
with their self praise
constantly let lowest level developers do top level presentations for CEOs and client firm
CEOs to counter the egotism and braggart hormones of customary male man-
agement regimes
present your innovation Socraticly by asking customers series of questions that reveal funda-
mental needs only your innovation meets--present by asking, never by telling
get your team to write up the story of this innovation, to publish a book based on that, and to
teach innovation seminars based on the book--getting money all 3 ways from
one innovation
Control Points
the fundamental innovation paradox--it is all for visibility, yet it has to largely take place in
the dark = temptation to reveal surprise too early, too incremental so final
result bores
explaining your idea without letting authorities steal it
getting others to help you without giving them the ability to extort control of the idea from
you
delivering the performance you are interested in while, along the way, delivering some per-
formances you can use to hold off resource controllers and anxious managers
using the supporting institution and context at hand while always having lined up an alterna-
tive one so if problems occur you can switch sponsors nearly instantly without
missing a beat
impressive functionality demonstrated packaged in huge visual audio sex tactics so the vulgar
masses of managers confuse the value of the package with the value of the
invention
$4$#$#0")-"
4 $$"
00-" /"0$
"0-"
0")-$"
$4
0")-"50
#"5
0"E$#$544
0")- $) A-"
0")-"*
$-" $
4"$
$ "
0")
/5 + "#$
0")
$0 )

)/
0")
0** $<$
0" E%*"
4
"$ "
; )
*5
0"
$*
-"
)-
*
A

" $
*"4$#
/

2-
0)0
"/

/ "

"
A

B L 6 3 : N
8 9
#@""0A$

$""0A$ "
$$)$ 5A?
8,$$)$"
&

B,$$)$"

&

'=
L,$$)$".

6,$$)$"

&

.

'&

3,$$)$"

%
&.
!'
M,$$)$"
'
&

:,$$)$".&

&
N,$$)$". '

&'

9,$$)$"&&
'

87,$$)$"%
%

$" *$
8,

&

'%.1

!' *J "H?
B,

!
8,.
*J "H?

&' !!'

8,

+

L,
@&

' !
!
! +

'
B,

!6, B,'

!

)
'

*

!

L,=
L,
&

!'%

.
&
3,'
'

J
H
, "

,
!
6,
!!.
6,

%

M,.

5'!.
,
&

+
3,

?
3,
'

%= *&
%

E

M,'

!
M,'

'&'.
*

'
!' :,'.'
!+

:,
!
&

!
'%&
&.%
N,

'
'

,
45. Kawasaki’s Starting Ventures Model Of

Innovation.
Guy Kawasaki’s model of venturing is based on a foundation of passion for changing the
world. Ventures are changes in the world achieved by new products or services. Passion
presented well draws resources; resources marshalled well draw customers and sales; cus-
tomers and sales draw investors for great expansion. Venturing is a set of cycles within
larger cycles--an idea cycles going on daily and weekly, a presentation cycle going on
monthly, a recruitment cycle going on all units of time scale, a product development cycle
going on quarterly, a market development cycle going on quarterly, a business re-assess cycle
going on yearly. You keep these cycles cycling, in synch with each other. Furthermore, you
keep honesty among the cycles, so they each represent accurately their state to the others
and vice versa. You always balance the tendency to exaggerate and lie generated by passion
and enthusiasm with the need for honest redirection from sober outside assessments. You
never settle on passion only or reality only--you always mix and alternate them. There are
two kinds of start ups--those selling to other start ups (using outside investors) and those
selling to establish major firms (using bootstrapping, no investor money). The former seek
exponential take off as their customers reach exponential growth; the latter seek one or two
major contracts for big volumes from their huge customers, after nibbling smaller contracts
to establish ability to deliver value. Venturing is a kind of policy by experiment--you act,
and create things, deliver the acts and things to the world, and learn from reactions, adjust-
ing your acts and next things. It is a learning process, learn by doing, not by planning. All
ventures have some core “staying power motivation”. For Hewlet and Packard it was simply
they liked working with each other and invented a business so they could make money by
working together. For Kawasaki it is some “mission to change the world”. Every venture
has some motivation of great staying power, that is the basis of all--handling hassles, retry-
ing after defeats, putting up with poor conditions and long hours, etc. The motivation of all
big company workers is a tiny fraction of the motivation needed by all ventures. There is a
clear transition from one translation to another--ideas translated into presentations trans-
lated into resources translated into products and customers translated into investments.
You speak at first ideas using words, later you speak with deeds, still later you speak with
results. This evolution requires culture, habit, style, personnel evolution as well.
The Initial Seed

meaning from serving the world
focus from mantras for key constituencies--investor mantra, employee mantra, partner man-
tra, customer mantra, user mantra
act-learn-redirect cycle--plans are refusals to start
business model--where and how your product gets you money
the capability-recognition tandem--split work (& resources) into getting a capability to cus-
tomers (product development) and getting customers to the capability (mar-
keting)
work--milestones needed, assumptions of business model monitored for changes, tasks
needed for product development and market and organizing that.
Intrepreneuring
do the impossible idea--do the idea that does not stick in your organization, the homeless
waif idea, the “too radical for us” idea--if your idea fits the org it is dead not
a change or improvement
wrap your idea in CEO-announced organization priorities--use you internal venture to make
the CEO’s change agenda for the company successful
use your company as giant resource base--ruthlessly find and use every possible resource,
database, existing customer, industry leverage, advertising idea, talented per-
sonnel advice
be the “new entrant” firm that destroys your company’s main core business lines--better to
have the company’s own venture destroy its core business than someone’
else’s
develop and maintain invisibility--disguise and skunkworking essential, babies need the pro-
tection of the dark till they grow into proven power/results big enough to
withstand ignorant, envy-filled, bad-minded interference and subterfuge by
“managers” in the company in general
three CEOs--a political CEO, highly placed to stop interferences; a financial CEO, to scarf
resources your way without visibility to others; a venture CEO, to build the
product and build its markets, invisibly, till initial results too good to be both-
ered can appear and be widely announced
in but not of--get a site far enough away to allow a separate culture to develop but near
enough to steal ideas, person, equipment, and everything else
avoid bureaucratic supports--if you have a formal budget and facility, that is a target others
use to destroy you, if you are without formal budget and facility, there is
nothing enemies can target and destroy
hitch rides on rising paradigms--find corporate dilemmas and choose the future side, the
hated side, the core-business threat that everyone fears and dreads
minimize newness--use as much off-the-shelf as possible, to minimize technical, marketing,
quality, cost risk
keep exact records of costs/benefits and inform key players secretly for years--for the day
that bean counters discover you and attack you, doubting your venture’s
value and right to have existed
find the CEO’s major VP level problem and solve it with your governing board arrangements--
position your venture, when it is ripe enough, so that the VPs who sponsor it
and get to take credit for it are the ones whose lack of cooperation constitutes
the CEOs biggest headache--the CEO will love your venture for getting the VP
dunderheads to work together for once
split your venture in two--a develop the idea venture, and a use the old organization to beat
everyone else to the market with the venture’s product
develop and rehearse venture culture and protect it from big company culture remnants--
niches not consumables, 2 page plans not 100 page ones, stay with friends not
hotels, pay with stock not salaries, sell to the future’s firms not established
ones, help other ventures start up continually and let them steal from you
shamelessly
Get the Message Right

for all constituencies--investors, employees, partners, customers, users
who are you?--the right drive, the right skills, the right values/culture, the right timing/posi-
tioning, the right piggybacking on what is wildly growing
what do you do?--the need/pain you alleviate, the inability of anyone to alleviate it better
than your way, the foundational underpinning of the present/past your way
replaces and does better, the obviousness of all this, precise distinguishing of
what is utterly new and utterly unique in what you do from what is already
here and proven in what you do
nots--not overpowering competitors (customers want service not dead companies, except
Microsoft), not being a “leading” firm (customers want service not status,
except some nerds), not popularity (customers want the future’s populars not
the present’s)
dos--clear benefits to specific institutions and classes of person, core capabilities that no one
can match, core needs of customers you stay focussed on alleviating, contin-
ual abstracting of functions your products does from present means of doing
those functions (IBM “selling cash registers” versus IBM “selling mainframes”
versus “IBM upgrading customer computer capabilities however they are
delivered by the technologies of the moment)
personalize benefit statements--not “helps IT department efficiency” but “keeps your office
computer up all the time without breaks for upgrades”--exclude all jargon
do not use adjectives for your product that other firms also use--either invent unique adjec-
tives or instead of adjectives offer proof points, single clause proofs of helping
customers (not “secure” but “no one has ever hacked it”)
test your positioning statements--ask receptionists, suppliers, board members, competitors
what you do--if they use your terms, your terms are working and mean some-
thing
reposition when lead customers invent better uses of your products/services--do not insist on
initial position you yourself did when more important people, customers,
revise things
The Start Up Formula

the start up tandem--extreme and unique new capability offered to extremely specific mar-
ket (small enough to not be of interest to big firms, big enough to let you grow
to critical mass)
the start up value proposition--you offer extreme capabilities no one else provides to very
specific clear sets of customers = high margins and low marketing costs
the start up growth proposition--you define one niche after another and dominate one niche
after another, till interactions among niches make you master of a product
ecosystem
the start up name--abc (early in alphabet), no numbers, verb-able (like “xerox it”), replaces
whole sentence of clauses (so two syllables or one, with bit-ing sounds,
“eBay” it), unique sound, names that have logics (they show what is new
about what function you do or how you do it), if possible make it funny (so
people will repeat it to friends endlessly, get it to Letterman)
In the Beginning Your Firm Is its Presentations

drift in talk can become dangerous drift in focus and aim and deeds and results--keep the lan-
guage playful at times but utterly consistent and exact at other times
fractal pitches--all your main points in first minute, all of them again in second 3 minutes, all
of them again, in last 17 minutes, never talk longer than 20 minutes ever
socratic pitches--say nothing, ask five questions to your audience, in a row, their answers to
which are your first minute and first 3 minutes presentation points
key questions--what do we sell, who buys it, why do they buy it (what need it fixes better
than any other fix), why are you presenting to us (what you want us to do
after the presentation)--after all of these, who are you (why you are the only
people in the world who could envision this and do it well enough to succeed)
errors--presenting your technical means not the ends it achieves for users, presenting the
function your product does not how that function helps the lives of users
preparation--investigate your audience via media and social contacts, investigate your audi-
ence by showing up early and talking to coffee drinkers around the edges
use scrolls not PowerPoint slides--any medium other than powerpoint will get attention--Pow-
erPoint bores everyone to death, it is an alien invasion trying to bore Earth to
death
the interaction rule--the questions from the audience that you answer will be remembered
1000 times better than anything you ever present--frame question-asking
with your presentation then answer them = a good presentation is answering
questions about a very short pithy presentation
investor pitch--what you do, what pain you alleviate, who has this pain, how you alleviate
this pain, how you make money, how you distribute, how you get customers to
know you exist, what is your secret magic (technology others cannot match
till too late), who are your competition, why you will defeat each (relative
strengths and weaknesses), who you are (drive, skills, values, timing, piggy-
backing), 3 to 5 year forecast of finances, sales, lead to sales conversion rate,
network effects), current status, how immediately next money will be used
sales pitch--what you do, what pain you alleviate, who has this pain, who are current custom-
ers proving this, how you alleviate this pain, story from one or more current
customers, your secret stuff (technology others cannot soon match), demo
the product delivering benefits to a user (audience member if possible), map

the competition, who you are, trial use or trail demonstration, or trial pur-
chases requested
ask how much of their time you may have, ask what 3 things they wish to hear from you,
announce your presentation’s main points and length, start
don’ts--bogus exaggerated estimates of market size (use the size of the segment that you can
contact and actually go after, not global segments you have no money for con-
tacting), don’t pitch too general, or too techie specific, but in the middle--at
the level of customer pains and benefits
use fantasies to show markets are huge--how many people input text into fields on web sites?
how many hackers go after those same sites using those text fields, how much
money can site owners thusly lose, how much money can site visitors thusly
lose, how many of all these people would be willing to pay $50 a year to have
absolutely secure such fields?
start low key and almost asleep and, by your own presentation, as the audience gets excited,
reflect this rising audience excitement in your voice and gestures, till every-
one is standing up and crying “alleluia” at the end--do not start excited, let
your content gradually excite you and the audience with its accuracy and
implications
Bootstrap Starts--Manage for Cash Flow not Profitability

definition of Bootstrap start--low up-front capital, one month sales cycle and payment terms,
recurring revenue, word-of-mouth
meaning--1) pass up sales that take a long time to collect payment on 2) no educative sales
cuz product benefits are obvious, 3) piggy back on mega-trends 4) piggy back
on product with huge installed base rather than new entrant with tiny initial
market share
bottom up market forecast--how many salespersons you can now hire, how many contacts
they can make per day, how many contacted persons buy, hire only enough
salespersons to sell what you are now capable of making, avoid suicide by
over-selling--selling more than you can ever produce in time
let first customers spot fixes needed and then fix them rather than spending resources on
testing before launch
hire who you can afford--young inexpensive people who like dreams; hire people too ignorant
to know what they do not know = try anything however bold, hard, new
start a service, then convent it into a product (product-ize tools you develop and use doing
the service) = outsource your initial R&D
hire services you need by function not by form or status, but a few roles may be high status/
price to give assurance to investors later (particularly accounting type stuff =
are you real)
make sure you do not do what others can do cheaply at commodity prices--do non-commodity
type things
sell direct--resellers are slow to get your story right and lose feedback from your first custom-
ers; position against market leader--piggy back on their fame and name recog-
nition
stay real--when will your product be ready to sell, what are your total actual costs of opera-
tions, when will money run out, how many sales leads will convert, how much
of receivables will convert, what can your competitor products do that yours
cannot, which of your employees perform poorly, are you changing the world-
-which part, how, are you leading poorly?
keep minimal staff and maximal outsourcing, carefully do not make promisees you cannot
keep--talk accurately to all, regularly scour operations for wasted space,
equipment, utilities, etc.
the quality of your first board reflects the quality of your idea, the quality of your articula-
tions of it, and the quality of you--cheap boards are deadly, quality from the
start
not trappings of “established firm” but a “great product”, not planters and secretaries, but
well answered phone calls and responsiveness to all, not videos and ads but
accurate communications to all updated timely
manage well--keep goals simple, few, utterly unmistakably clear; track goal accomplishment,
every problem/chance has a known home--someone in charge of that, notice
good contributions and contributors and reward with stock, organize not to
start things but to solve and finish them so we can move onto better things,
track till finishes not launches only, take negative messages seriously and
investigate them thoroughly (do not assume reality is false), set up a culture
of keeping promises and making promises slowly and carefully
Finding and Keeping Employees

it is hard for a new barely formed poor venture to attract great people; it is easy for a chance
to hit it rich to attract great people--your “chance” is what attracts, you sell
“a chance”
people sign up to give a “chance” a four year window in which to prove itself, after four
years, they assess prospects and usually move on to better “chances”
you recruit people for start up, and you recruit people every day again, to keep them around-
-in the beginning all a venture is is some people working for a common pur-
pose
ability (can they do the job) meaning (will they do the job) chance (do they believe they/you
have a real chance of big breakout success), powers (do they have strengths
you may later need)
your best people hire everyone (not your B and C players) cuz your best people hire A play-
ers; rule--everyone hires people better than they themselves are
ways to go wrong--interviews weed out only, never weed in (never trust interview results);
correlation is not causation (they were there when big victories happened
does not mean they caused them), big company skills are not small company
skills, beware a need for perks, because of laws anything but superb recom-
mendations means dis-recommend, trust people your employees trust
recruit your customers--recruit believers in your “chance”; talk about wages/conditions over
talk about product/growth chance = bigger is worse; let the candidate demo
your product
people that are usually discriminated against make good candidates because A players are
rare and if somebody else is dumb enough to mistake race for ability, you can
benefit from their error
an initial trial 3 months, understanding, helps candidate and firm to feel each other out
bads that are not usually bad--big org experience is not useful but should not rule someone
out, failure is not useful but should not rule someone out, education is nice
but not necessary, industry experience is bad and nice so neutral overall,
hire people with a few strong strengths, ignore the fact that they always also have major
weaknesses (everyone has major weaknesses but not everyone has even one
major strength)
interviews are for selling your firm to your candidates--sell your chance, your team, your
board/advisors, your resume-building value, your technical base, your growth
positioning partners
find all stakeholders in the candidate’s job choice process and answer their questions/anxi-
eties too
people hire people like themselves = you cannot do this and survive, you must learn to hire
people unlike your self and others in your firm
in small organization people who grate on others can demoralize the firm into death--hire
people not like you that you like
Finding Investors
get intros from current investors, lawyers and accountants, other entrepreneurs, professors
show traction--from # interested in field test, to agreed to pilot, to is piloting now, to actual
sales completed
red flags that turn off investors--intellectual property ambiguities, ownership selfishness and
inflexibility, fun founders rather than function founders, paying with stock not
options, sloppiness about complying with regulations, undisclosed “surprise”
hidden problemsclaim, claims that you have no competition (competition vali-
dates that a real market is there)
make a chart showing what you can do that each competitor cannot and what each competi-
tor can do that you cannot
pink flags, they do not kill but they do not please investors--fixed sales projections (better is
minimal case and maximal case and likely case with assumptions for each),
quotes on market sizes in the future by experts (“experts” include lots of
fools), X will happen next week (the near future is as iffy as the distant
future, something is not done till it is done), bad mouthing big established
firms (they have the newest tech anytime they want it just does not fit their
business model from core customers now huge in size), we depend on patents
(a patent can be got around, that is what IP lawyers do all day), do not say a
tiny % of a huge market will buy (even tiny %s that are based on nothing will
not happen), we have first mover advantage (this works when network effects
deliver real extras to your customers from the size of market you serve--not
something that builds up till after years of big sales increases), we have a
E!.
@)$"0)$"A

$"*"$"$#
$"*"$"$# 8,1S877

8,

%

B,13'
B,!

F
L,
L,&! '
6,
.
'!

%

6,'.%
%

&
3,
''
3,L?

%%&
M, 'J
+'H!
M,
&%
!
:,&!1 :,

N,

+ N,!
+
9,

!> 9,
'!

87,''&.
& 87,

88,&
)* 88,'
&

8B,

B? +. 8B,'

8L,
!
8L,

4)$" #-"
8,

%.
%%

%

%
'&.
B,
!
'
!

'
D!'L,

%

%6,
&

% &

.% 3, &

% M,

>
&A:,
=
%
!
N,

!
%

'E9,

!8
!
'87,

.&
1'&

.88,
>

8
%8 L
%8 8+L
8B,

>.3D
%

!
'
8L,.'D
?!!%!&'
%!''&'%
!

%!''

%!'!!%%
'%
!'%!'''

!%!'''

!!
86,?%83,?

'
?&'
%&'
$ 0? '%8M,'
/!
*!

.

8:,
D
'!!
&&8777
'
8,

8N,

?!'%!
'
%!
%!'. $
! '%!'

&%!'
%!
'
%!

B,.'

'

%!''!
%!'J
H%L+3',-%% -" ?

%'% !'!
&89,.!
' '%!L
' 8,
D!&

'
!
%B7,@?%&%

&

> '

.J&
%% B8,

.!
>!''*,,,
&

%&
'!

H
L,
' BB,!.'%!
%
+

B,

'&

'

1

!.

M,&
!!'
'' )$" L,!

'

%

:,&

'

!. 0)$"
.''
6,&J'
&H%&%
J2H

&

' &&J
.;
<H%!J
J H
!'&%!
&

%;/'<
H%
D
&

' %
J'!!
!&
/"*?"$4)$"-"4$ !
'!'
H%

&.

N,!.
%
'J!

'%
&

%. *"--"

. 8,+
.
%
%
'&.

,
&

B,&>!''
%!''
L,

'
6,
&1'%
!'@.!1''

3,

%

M,
&
.!

:,
'

'
'
N,
>%
!%
9,&' >! &!
87,

%
%

%

88,D
'
&
D
''%'
%'1

8B,
'.
8L, '&+

+1!
#$##0$)"
#$##0 * A 8,

%!'%
8,&'
'&

%B,!
T

B,
'6'' %
%

!%L,
L,'
''% 1

'&

%
6,&J=&H
J!
HJ&
H! !

&

'%
JH
%'
!
.
%
&
3,''&
J
&! H '
!

%
;
<

M,

!!
%

1% &
%
'

J

&

.
1
%.%

.
H6,.!
!

%'&'1!'
. '
!

'
. '3,
.%'.
&'

=
J&

.'!

H%
:,
'%'!&
' D.

&'J;<
H%I!
!.
N,

D
'
J

'
%

H%&
&

9,
L%;D

<1' &

J' !'
'!
=

&

!

H%!J&%
!*
87,
' !
8( = J
&
!''H%'
'R.!
&'J
'R&
!.% !.H
!
H%!
J
!.!!.

88,

!+

'
.' >
&

'
&

H%! J

''
8B,
$
.'/
.&
'H
This book was written to educate youteam

great not please you orthis
(to investors inflate your
means selfthey
only regard.
made Beyond mere
a fortune business
for other mod-
inves-
tors already)
The Venture Adventure--the Fundamental Images

the idea cycle, the presentation cycle, the recruitment cycle (employees, customers, part-
ners, suppliers, investors), the product development cycle, the market devel-
opment cycle, the reassess readjust cycle--all at once learn by doing--act,
learn, re-act
the venture cycle--one try every five years for 20 years equals 4 chances to hit it big
46. Livingston’s Founder Stories Model of

Innovation.
Jessica Livinston interviewed dozens of Silicon Valley and Route 128 venture founders, from
the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and early 2000s. Her interviews were both thorough and short,
allowing easy comparison among stories from different founders. She summarizes some
main traits and findings in the beginning of her book of interviews, but there were many
other common themes, across founders/businesses throughout the entire book. I marked
points in each founder story, grouped similar points across different founders, then rational-
ized the resulting categorical model. The results are given below. Remember the points in
each group, for each single category, come from diverse founders and ventures, and that
means from diverse industries, often. Kawasaki’s previously presented start up theory is
advice actively given to those now considering a future startup. Livingston’s founder story
theory is reflections by entrepreneurs who won big, on keys to their success. Since we do
not have any large equivalent “failed founder” stories, it is quite possible that these
founders did not create their own success so much as luck into it. However, more than half
of these founders had several previous failed ventures under their belt when their last one
hit the big time. So there is plenty of learning from failure in their stories, making their
own analysis of success determinants not quite so invalid as one might suspect.
What impressed me in these stories was how poor the qualifications on every level were for
these founders--nobody in his right mind should have hired any of them. Also what
impressed was how poor their understanding of what was going on was--most of them aimed
at X but discovered along the way that B was more likely to succeed, so they switched to B
mid-stream, not once but switched to B, then W, then Q, then G, till finally something grew
terribly fast or attracted a lot of net hits and they knew they were onto something special.
Few of these founders spotted something, did it, and got good results--intentions did not
help all that much in their stories--except as platforms for observing what works better than
intentions.
The vileness of Americans and their culture, the vileness of little boys and their mania for
machines, the vileness of financiers and their lies and ruthless exploitation of anyone weaker
than they--all these nasty forces were met by specific founder-generated protections. In
particular founders worked hard on linking up only with people they could trust who shared a
real dream of improving the world with them and avoided anyone interested in money
mostly. Interest in money was a sure sign of failure to come, for these founders.
Success measures for these ventures evolve--hitting beta test, rate of user sign ups, domi-
nating share of hits in your product category, exponential growth from a dominant initial
base, monetizing share. Doing ventures is mostly a learning and adapting process, not
mostly implementing plans. It is vital to delay decisions, late binding of them, because
technology, users, and competition is rapidly evolving. You are aiming at a moving market/
capability target, in an environment that does not exist yet, because it is going to take a
couple of years or more to build something and by that time everything will have changed.
You envision a possible future we are evolving towards, and revise the vision several times,
while building something that fits that evolved version of the vision. It is much like gunnery
on the ocean--pitch and yaw, all sorts of motion of both the gun platform and the target as
both respond to the ocean of change they both ride on.
A number of nearly automatic protections for new venture ideas exist. If the ideas are just
ideas and new, then, surprisingly, rather than being copied, they are ignored by all estab-
lished firms and all venture funders and nearly everyone else. New ideas never fit the
present well. They are hard to establish--everyone like the “idea” but doubts the practice
from applying it. Secondly, if the idea is doing something technically hard, everyone ignores
it because they know it is too hard, too long, too risky to attempt. Thirdly, not a few ven-
tures start out proposing and pretending to develop something that is not their real product.
The customer would not understand their real product so something much simpler and easier
is explained and advertised and sold, but it works only because of something much hard and
more complicated within it. Most product ideas are holes in present arrangements, func-
tions people want to do but now cannot easily do, gaps between what is wanted and what is
easy to do with present tools and arrangements. You can protect and idea by being unfa-
mous and unthreatening, by tackling something hard, or by having two ideas, a public simple
one and a private harder better one, using the first to cover for the second.
There is a history of many tech ventures, so that ventures today come into being in a very
different environment than ventures a few years ago. One of the differences is cost--ven-
tures today can do without venture capital funding because new technologies allow a soft-
ware venture to come into being a grow with very small expenditures of money. A second
difference is availability of personnel--talented programmers today can join a team
remotely without moving their families and coordinate via a few trips for personal face to
face relationship building till growth changes the need for their talents. Three, the ability
of funders and investors to cheat, steal, and viciously manipulate venture founders has less-
ened as general information on the meaning of various agreements, contract provisions,
choices, and investment parameters has spread into media readily found by anyone on the
web. Information has spread so that what was implicit and hidden in past negotiations is
well known by people today, on all sides of all negotiations. We have not yet seen a clear
globalization of venture formation in competition to Silicon Valley, California. Though there
is endless speculation, ambition, talk, and government nudging and funding in this direction,
as of yet, no other center of venture birth has arisen that can compare with Silicon Valley,
California in number of ventures tried and number of ventures succeeding. This is a strict
measure of the importance of locality to the venture business phenomenon, and a measure
of the lack of understanding of the sources of success of Silicon Valley, California. Finally,
product/business ideas as time goes on come more and more from using everyone else’s
recent new products on the net--inhabiting the future now, using it, finding its faults and vir-
tues, allows your personal needs and experiences to be valid indicators of what others will
want and pay for. Inhabiting the future by buying the newest and the latest, the vaporware
and the beta-ware, and living inside it, using it to its max, is more and more, as time
elapses, a valid way to come up with venture ideas.
Main Traits
uncertain about making company; not uncertain about making good product = bringing new
functioning into the world
determination is the single most important quality in founders = ability to persevere impor-
tant because nothing goes according to plan with start ups
early rejection was the norm = new concrete embodied ideas do not fit any part of the
present so everyone rejects them in practice though they all like “the idea”
if you idea is truly new having it stollen is no problem because the real cleverness you will
need is persuading any part of the present world to change practices to
embody the new idea
founders are adaptable = understand users again and again changing designs and changing
plans again and again = end up making entire different product than started
out to make and ended up selling to entirely different people than started out
to sell to
empathy for users and cordial friendship among founders guided founders through all the trial
and error of starting up
founders wanted first to change the world, second to cash out someday so they could fund
more changes of the world
start ups do not have businesslike leaders and businesslike cultures and do no hire and pro-
mote people with usual qualifications
inherent risk--you are existing on investment rather than income (Fake from Flickr)
Learnings from Founder Stories--A Meta-Model of Founding the New in History
PURPOSE--BEYOND MONEY
I wanted great product and financial independence = having a company as a necessary evil
(Kapor from Lotus)
think a lot up front about why you are doing this, what your breaking points personally will
be, so each up and down does not jerk you into over-emotional local reactions
(Brady at Yahoo)
not vision alone but vision with faith (Lazaridis at RIM)
complete freedom, working for your self, that turns into absolute daily slavery to what has to
be done next = no actual freedom at all (Schachter from del.icio.us)
CORE--BEYOND MONEY
friendships stronger than business stuff allows start ups to succeed and persist and adapt
(Kraus from Excite)
partnership-friendships = the complete the details guy with the reach for the stars guy (Brick-
lin from ViciCalc)
could not have survived as a start up without something other than money and other than
pursuit of a business idea bonding us = it was our friendship that kept the
venture from falling apart = you need something much stronger than greed
pulling people together when hard money decisions have to be made (Bricklin
from VisiCalc)
more than ability to have good ideas you need ability to attract good people = talent attracts
talent = a lot of ventures get stuck on choosing “right” ideas, a fallacy, instead
you cannot foresee your future, so whatever idea you start out with, direction
you first choose, opportunity you see will eventually or quickly go away and
others will replace them (von Hoff at Marimba)
if you get users then everything else follows--what makes one of these new companies valu-
able is the users--users cannot be copied (Fletcher from bloglines)
if you want to think differently choose different type locations (victorian mansion on 100
acres of forest for example) (Kahle from WAIS)
RIDINGGROWTH OF YOUR CUSTOMERS

selling X to geeks who see it as “the future” (Levchin from PayPal)
getting what your product will ride on wrong--start out to ride on handhelds, for example,
but end up riding the web (Levchin from PayPal)
building a start up off of the growth of a big base customers (microsoft riding IBM, Excite
riding Netscape, Google riding Yahoo) (Kraus from Excite)
it had less to do with us than with how fast the internet grew and we were able to survive the
internet’s wild ride (Brady at Yahoo)
blogs became really popular, well reported, and grew tremendously but that was not our
plan, a complete surprise to us, we just lucked out timing wise, we just tried
to solve our own little problem (Fletcher from bloglines)
at thetime we were doing a multiplayer net game with social networking chat and photo shar-
ing details but at the same time all sorts of personal publishing sites were
growing, MySpace, YouTube, Tribe, Friendster--an idea of publicness arose
from blog culture, and online digital identity for everyone--we just happened
to arise in the midst of that--it took our photo sharing detail and blew it up to
huge proportions without us doing much ourselves (Face from Flickr)
blogging, social networking, camera phones, ubiquitous internet sites, wider broadband dis-
tribution--all happened at the same time and we rode their convergence (Fake
from Flickr)
the big accomplishments are taking surprisingly much time, decades, when everyone talks
about speed of technology evolution--we still do not have full internet pub-
lishing of music, books, movies, and more 20 years after the technologies for
doing most of that were developed = the weight of practices that have to
change for entire industries is immense (Kahle from WAIS)
NETWORK VALUE
rate of users signing up motivates the employees of the start up daily (Levchin from PayPal)
getting a lead in numbers in your subscriber base is final victory--if you get “ahead” you end
up winning in the end (same rate of growth applied to different base levels =
you win) because network effects make users get more value from using the
winner (Levchin from PayPal)
learning--it is okay to not monetize customers right away--eventually you will find a way if
the numbers grow--you can always find a way to monetize lots of customer
numbers (Levchin from PayPal; Bhatia from Hotmail)
the value of open systems = business schools teach hurting and fighting competitors but we
linked to competitors to add value for our customers = keeps people coming
back cuz its about providing service to them, not the venture (Brady at Yahoo)
if you get users then everything else follows--what makes one of these new companies valu-
able is the users--users cannot be copied (Fletcher from bloglines)
WAIS was about getting others to copy us--you start out at “that is crazy” and no one is inter-
ested but by the time you get to “of course” you have lots of copiers/compet-
itors (Kahle from WAIS)
LEVERAGE
hanging around Silicon Valley incredibly important = mindset change = personal networking
(Kapor from Lotus)
develop a network of people who win if you win = help you (Ozzie from Groove)
our law firm required no payment til we got funding = Silicon valley has a lot of practices/tra-
ditions aimed at helping people get started (von Hoff at Marimba)
ease of venturing on West coast versus East coast = West coast is enormously better =
resources, people, no relocation when hiring, many VCs on one road = 10 pre-
sentations in one day, an attitude of people should try out ideas and failure
helps prepare for next things to succeed (Perlman at WebTV)
attitude as a resource: best places, brightest people, enthusiasm, nothing impossible atti-
tude (Ramsey at TiVo)
very helpful to start ventures on the West coast = how to get accounting, leases, law services,
what to spend money on, what to lease are easy on the West Coasts (Kahle
from WAIS)
on West coast you need a lot less infrastructure that you control yourself, they are a culture
of dreamers so wild ideas are welcomed not criticized, you do not have to be
impressive and proven they trust young nobodies to build the future there,
(Kahle from WAIS)
you fail and people figure that you thereby learned not to make that set of mistakes again =
value for the future (Geschke from Adobe)
in the early 1990s if you were a visiting alien you would learn most about developing soft-
ware by visiting Microsoft; later when Microsoft was ten times bigger it
became a huge dysfunctional bureaucracy and its size killed its software abili-
ties = doing bug tracking, write specifications, do usability testing, track tell-
ing details (loading seg registers on 386 processors was very slow for example)
(Spolsky from Fog Creek)
MANAGEMENT
exit strategy : usually IPO or acquisition (the latter now) (von Hoff at Marimba)
anyone can run a company up to 100 or so people = good intelligence and intuition needed
but eventually you need management experience to motivate teams (von Hoff
at Marimba)
hitting the library studying our technical area for six months, reading past 30 years of results,
choosing a way to go technically (Kraus from Excite)
marginalized and treated as unimportant in my first company so I got irritated at no one lis-
tening to me and my idea seriously and I decided to leave and do it myself,
taking friends with me (Kapor from Lotus)
facing a non-compete clause but we propose such a grandiose ambitious thing the company
thought “those guys could never actually do anything--they are unrealistic” so
they let us off the hook on the non-compete clause (Kapor from Lotus)
balance of technical with business people--at different times need different balances (Kapor
from Lotus)
investors would rather fund a great team than a great idea
your initial partners in doing the start up come from people you worked with in some prior
big company--being friendly and sharing venture ideas broadly is key to find-
ing people you can trust and start something with (Ozzie from Groove)
bad at paying attention to how other people are feeling = surprised when coworker problems
come up = should not be thusly surprised (Williams at Pyra/Blogger.com)
hard to find people to hire at first so first 20 hires were all friends of friends of friend = high
level of trust and everyone very young and committed = everyone’s first job =
looking for something interesting to do (Brady at Yahoo)
ventures are at first families--people so close, intense, inter-dependent that you have to
trust each others = requires a certain compatibility and liking of those you dif-
fer from = non-fitters just will not work (Perlman at WebTV)
a lot of founders are hobbyists = self taught = do hardware, do software, do networking, do
everything till something works = learn from others by reverse engineering
their products (Perlman at WebTV)
the worst thing that can happen to a startup is if the founding team do not get along, are not
decent people, are not cordial, cannot respect each other while disagreeing,
differ on philosophy and vision (they can differ on implementing it but must
agree on direction and vision)(Perlman at WebTV)
if core team is good and decent and cordial and their product is terrible and never sells well,
still the start up can hang on for a decade due to the power of cordial founder
relations (Perlman at WebTV)
certain ideas are in vogue at any one time and attract the best people so very hard to do
something outside that and still attract good people--best people have to see
challenge, something interesting and difficult to do, in a proposal in order to
get attracted to doing it (Ramsey from TiVo)
people who seem absolutely clueless make good founders, remember that we founders
started out absolutely clueless (Graham from viaweb)
complementary founder personalities--improv guy versus the directed detail guy (Fake from
Flickr)
we hired a VP of Reality from a big established firm--he did not “run” or “boss” us but he
took over all sorts of PR, funder, operations issues needing professional man-
agement treatment (Kahle from WAIS)
finding a good founding partners is as difficult as finding a wife/husband to marry = if you find
a good one stick with them forever (Kahle from WAIS)
started with a friend from a prior company = need at least one other person to bounce ideas
off of (Spolsky from Fog Creek)
SPEED KILLS
spend more money and time on the product and as little as humanly possible on facilities and
the trappings of looking like a business (Kapor from Lotus)
learning = hire more slowly and carefully, be cheap, cheap, cheap, get legs under the busi-
ness before running fast, (Kraus from Excite)
learning--not recruiting good middle managers, not recruiting a good board, picking a bad
successor, undisciplined product strategy, expanding too fast (Kapor from
Lotus)
the big decision--when to sell--if growing well, how long can this last, temptation from too
much too early publicity, need to keep growing, not sell too early or late
(Fletcher from bloglines)
your reputation is very important, as an entrepreneur, as a tech guy in the Valley, so it is
worth spending a year or two, making some deal/tech work out for buyers/
acquirers who did a deal with you (Fletcher from bloglines)
At Xerox it takes 7 years to bring a product out to release to customers--that is two or three
generations of technology = your product is dated and dead before it gets
released (Geschke from Adobe)
the one things I would do differently is much slower growth = slow enough to keep the cul-
ture, transfer it to carefully chosen high quality hires who buy into the cul-
ture, and maintain our profitable basic model of business without letting
growth become an excuse to dump a working profitable business model and
switch for a big company facsimile that had no chance of working (Greenspun
from ArsDigita)
SNEAKYNESS
venture capitalists lie to first time start ups adding all sorts of unnecessary clauses that favor
them, the funders = you have to start with clauses you want and reject all add
ons even if they are called “normal business practice” = vulture capitalists =
you have to call them on add on clauses, reject all add ons and build, slowly,
one by one, clause by clause nailing down all the implications of every clause
and rejecting clauses only there to benefit one party only (Kapor from Lotus)
venture capitalists, trained in negotiating at business schools, hide information from whom
they negotiate with = set up cheating and distrust (Kapor from Lotus)
right of first refusal clause in venture capital funding contracts is bad--it limits you to going to
just that one company for your next round of funding (Kapor from Lotus)
venture capitalists claim an idea was their’s in the beginning and lie at conferences and to
the press
founders cannot sell for a certain period of time after IPOs and everytime after that that they
do sell, they get personally sued by shareholders (personal suits can take your
house)
if you leave a big company to start your venture--take absolutely nothing and discuss nothing
using company media/email--write nothing while at the big company, keep
ideas and plans purely oral in your heads because big companies have lots of
spare money and time to sue you over bogus intellectual property issues if
you eventually succeed (have money they can take) (von Hoff at Marimba)
a company making our chip for us, found out how hard up we were and put a clause forcing us
to buy only from them in the future = we lose control over prices/costs for-
ever = they felt it was clever of them to press us for such an advantage, but it
just killed the deal, and we got another supplier (Perlman at WebTV)
a lot of venture capital firms would not fund us because like vultures they were waiting for us
to fail, so they could buy up out pieces at low prices (Perlman at WebTV)
Microsoft promised to support RealNetworks and Java but reneged on it after buying the firm
= you cannot trust promises by acquirers (Perlman at WebTV)
big companies have groups that will not work with or agree with each others so they try to
support and promise broad things but they have not gotten each of their own
internal groups to read off the same page so their broad promises are usually
fake and not implemented = the politics that kill ability of big firms to promise
and do anything broad that requires many of their own internal groups to
cooperate = they are big but they “are” not (Perlman WebTV)
if you are lucky you can nudge your biggest competitor and prod them into pushing too hard,
just past an invisible line that draws lawsuits from governments or media
firms or IP firms, leaving them all less interested in pursuing your own firm
(Ramsey from TiVo)
angel investors knowing they had us over a barrel offered to fund us again but by wiping out
our existing common stock, and giving the two product development guys
nominal shares only because they needed our programming work (they under-
estimated how impossible it would be to continue the software with entirely
new people writing it) = you have to revolt against such manipulations (Gra-
ham from viaweb)
venture capitalists want you to spend, want the business to grow big looking and a lot of fail-
ures are caused by being pushed by such people to grow faster and beyond
your actual customers, markets, scalabilities, reliabilities of delivery
(Schachter from del.icio.us)
we gave use of a Ferrari to anyone who recruited ten good employees but software people
only stay around for 6 years or so, so we never needed to buy a second Ferrari
(plus we got lots of employee morale from this and lots of press coverage of it
as a symbol of a new kind of business culture), but to ignorant VCs the Ferrari
was both a luxury expense and a symbol that the original founders were bad
managers BUT the VC installed CEO when he hired a VP of Sales, a VP of mar-
keting, a VP of project management/production all of whom did nothing or did
nothing competently for their huge salaries, that was not considered “luxury”
or a “sign of bad management” because it was “normal” in big companies and
it was “grey” not red like our Ferrari = “good” business is just a culture, a set
of enforced norms that mean nothing performance wise, a rite or ritual of a
certain tribe of people (Greenspun from ArsDigita)
people copied our product, sometimes exactly and thoroughly but they failed to copy what
#"5/A$) $$$ %"/)"A4$#
)4 )$"
"?&%
% '
%&''
-$?

%&
%

%

** ?'%%
%
$?!%&
%
'!1&%!
)$"$"A) -"/A$0 $A*"*
)4 ) A
"?!%
%
$

!2%&

0

"0?&

!&%

)

!&%
"
2
!%

/
4
"
#

)$"2

4
**"$?

) A"? )$"2

&
%&!
&

'%

/

*
) A0?

&%
$A
$A
/
2 &'
8H
@
*

. /'2 -$0/ ?

!

/
%&

'%
BH
'

&
', !.
%
#

'
"
/
&
!

LH

2
2
)
)$"
5.
"

2

&
&
? 6H&
&
;<
0

%

%
%
3H
!

$

MH>!!

,

G?%
%% /#$?

2
%&%

'
!%.

/$ 0 ?
S%
S% /? S%%&'
S% %
++
"*"#" ?&.
%
*"$?
%%
.
%
!
. &

'&%
% 45- ?
%

A /?%.
&J
H%!

.
%.
%+!.
!%

*"0 0$#"
** 20- 5E$#4 %E$5 0#"-$)
"0
*"0I? %
2%!%

$?%
%

%!S
$"$?&
. %

%
%&1.

) )?

%

.%%

"- "- "P " "$$#

@-$0"$" ""'
!

#@-$0"0 $$
made us successful, our weblog on programming Joel on Software (Spolsky

from Fog Creek)
There are a great many patterns (64 at my last count) in the founder story fragments above.
In such diverse cities, industries, formats, and ventures to find patterns that are consis-
tently repeated indicates some overall generality among great specific differences. These
overall patterns in venturing are “the science of venturing” as invented by and articulated
by founders themselves.
47. Granovetter’s Trust Theory of Entrepre-

neurship Model of Innovation.
Granovetter is one of the few network sociologists who has published non-boring work.
Among the many phenomena he has tried to explain scientifically is why immigrants end up
owning small new ventures at higher proportions than people native to their own nations and
native to the nations they immigrate to. He finds that extra restrictions where they live and
extra opportunities both combine to induce more of them into starting ventures than others.
He also finds that the key resource among immigrants in immigrant communities in some for-
eign nation, is a lot of trust, enforceable trust, that allows groups of immigrants to pool
small weekly savings and, by rotation, borrow that sum that accumulates, as capital for
forming ventures. These rotating credit associations depend on tight knit social communi-
ties where defectors from group norms can be severely punished by purely social sanctions.
The close knitness that allows this is somewhat heavy and oppressive to individuals, but the
advantages it offers are access to capital for ventures that never could get bank loans or
angel investors. Immigrant businesses tend to not be new technology ventures, but ordinary
service and distribution businesses the original owners of which cannot persuade their kids
to continue as more professional jobs open up to them. So immigrants take over these busi-
nesses or found them where they have recently disappeared for lack of new owners. Immi-
grants differ with some immigrants forming ventures up to a certain size and no larger.
Granovetter finds these size limits, per immigrant type, come from the circle of trust each
immigrant culture is capable of. Groups able to build trust only among immediate family
members build only small local businesses. Groups able to build trust among a dozen or two
co-located different families, are able to build small sets of a dozen shops or related busi-
nesses. Groups able to build trust among several hundred co-located families, are able to
build middle sized businesses that later grow to national scale. In each case, it is the scope
of trust a group can establish that determines the size of enterprise they construct.
Granovetter takes pains to make clear that in Java, Moracco, India, East Africa, Indonesia,
Chicago, and a host of other places immigrants thrive in, any of a number of cultural and
local tradition factors can prevent or limit venture formation. Local cultures that denigrate
wealth and tell people it is not a worthy aspiration, cultures that emphasize how untrustwor-
thy strangers are and how one has to protect oneself from constant betrayal, cultures of
individualism that endorse betraying partners for the sake of personal advancement--each of
these, in its own way and context, prevents business formation compared to groups in the
same situation with differing cultural beliefs. Culture matters in business formation and
growth.
The Culture of Adam Smith, the Culture of Capitalism, the Culture of Economics
Adam Smith postulates Enlightenment individuals pursuing their self interests, but greatly
involved in social care and social solidarity endeavors, never sloughing or
slighting them to favor purely economic outcomes
Ethnic entrepreneur communities arise where horizontal scope of trust is great, and fails
where it, for any of several distinct reasons, lacks--atomized social cultures
are one way horizontal scope of trust fails to be large enough, but deep
beliefs in the untrustworthyness of others is another way, and belief that
wealth is evil in some sense is another way
Another point of failure of enterprise cultures to emerge is traditional--firms anchored in
social not economic values tend to dissipate their economic results and
growth as they collect increasing social obligations and expenses--profits get
divided and dispersed not concentrated and reinvested
Vertical solidarity does not spawn enterprise cultures because patron-client dis-symmetries,
when times are hard, or during harsh start ups, result in capture of all profits
by patrons, starving clients and creating enduring myths that patrons cannot
be trusted
Lack of horizontal solidarity causes enterprises to fail to grow and too much horizontal soli-
darity causes them to dissipate as pressures for distribution overwhelm rein-
vestment needs
Rotating Credit Associations

Members of a tight knit social group all agree to pool savings and distribute the pool to partic-
ular members in rotation
Members also pool and distribute information
Members also pool and distribute promotion
Members also pool and distribute contacts with possible customers for new services or enter-
prises they support/create
Because at each meeting the pool is distributed to a member, embezzlement is nil
Because the group does the saving, not just lone individuals, the money stays circulated not
hoarded up
The abstract principle here is “enforceable trust”, trust that is from a social procedure so
thorough and powerful acting on repute that sanctions prevent defections/
deceits
rotating credit associations are an intermediate step, useful till laws enforce contracts well,
useful till distinct kinds of banking can emerge, useful till angel investors
become wealthy enough to spawn new ventures in their earliest days, how-
ever, the social celebratory functions of these associations are strong enough
that they persist in advanced economies like Japan’s
Rotating Credit Associations as Micro Lenders

where capital is low, where collateral that banks require is not available, peer lending or
micro credit associations arise where peers loan or become collateral for
other peers who borrow
the members of these associations must have enough information about members and poten-
tial members that trust can be determined and defections predicted
some ethnic groups fail to form these associations because they draw ethnic members from
diverse places who are strangers and so they are not well known and repute is
a weak enforcer
Japanese and Chinese who migrated to the US organized themselves by where in their old
country they came from and kept ties via visitation so repute routes in the old
country extended into the new country, USA
also, Japanese and Chinese ethnic cultures come from parent cultures emphasizing “face”
and “repute”, making enforceable trust
also, social isolation of an ethnic group in a foreign nation helps keep people seeing each
other daily and helps make for enforceable trust
in ethnic communities not organized enough for enforceable trust, church groups or political
groups can allow enforceable trust.
Boundary and Identity as Enterprise Prerequisites

ethnic groups must have clear boundaries of who belongs and who does not, for two reasons
first, if the boundary is clear about who does not belong, enterprises can ignore claims for
care and financial distribution from outsiders
second, if the boundary is clear, repute among insiders will determine who is a bona fide
member and can borrow from the funds
clear boundaries and community identities lower operating costs greatly for start up and
operation of ventures--people who lend and who borrow can be trusted to
relend and repay
small immigrant communities--in absolute size, or because strict subdivisions operate to split
it into insider-outsider segments---protect from general social pressures for
distribution/care
if an ethnic community has a type of subdivision and it is strict in boundary and identity so
one person can belong to only one version of it--this protects from general
social pressures for care and distribution rather than reinvestment--if ethnic
communities have a subdivision but people can belong to several versions/
chapters of it at one time, social pressures can be overwhelming and prevent
reinvestment
male lineage makes for well bounded/identified “sets of relatives” where bilateral inherit-
ance blends relatives and expands them--so Chinese out-venture Phillipinos
due to social exposure differences not work ethic or other “virtues” of indi-
vidual or culture
when males are the leaders as well as inheritors in families, leadership and succession is
clearer and more precise
The Immigrant Advantage Over Natives in Business Founding and Ownership

immigrant status balances coupling, enough for trust enforcement, with decoupling, enough
to stop overwhelming social pressures for profit distribution
example: Chinese in China lack such balance, being not isolated and small enough in that
nation so social pressures for profit distribution overwhelm reinvestment;
however, within China migration, creates migrant communities inside big cit-
ies that are very much like immigrant communities in another nation, foster-
ing enterprise
as immigrant ventures grow in size and success they can choose how many employees from
their own ethnic group to hire and how many outsiders from the main society
around them to hire, they owe little safety and continuity to the latter, giving
them a strategic ability to adjust costs and cost flexibility, via hiring different
proportions of these two types of employee
The Culture Role in Ethnic and Immigrant Enterprise

cultures that denigrate lending and borrowing, Islam for example, allowed Chinese to become
the only lenders, the ethnic marginality and coherent isolation of the Chinese
hid borrowers from critique by their own people and allowed social superior-
ity feelings to Chinese minorities to salve egos wounded by having to borrow
immigrant minorities that take on commercial roles as lenders and brokers also have the
advantage of bypassing bureaucracy from the main society they are embedded
in
immigrant minorities also have information and contact advantages--due to the multi-nation
split family scope of operation around the world they embody or have access
to
people in a majority community who become wealthy and try to play commercial roles get
overwhelmed by social pressures to return to the community or care for it
people from an immigrant minority are not expected to play socially nice roles and benefac-
tor roles, so they can be colder in how they act economically, optimizing
profit
social distance from one’s own customers allows colder more rational more economic deci-
sions and policies
the economic advantages of being seen as separate and different may cause ethnic communi-
ties to perpetuate their distinctness and seen separateness, to keep economic
advantages they bring
example: a merchant dressing as Malays do when getting customers and dressing Chinese
when collecting owed money
Conditions for Ethnic Group Enterprise Advantage

where the dominant majority society has a culture supporting ambition, wealth accumulation
and enterprise--immigrants will not have much of an advantage in enterprise
formation
where the dominant majority society has a culture against ambition, wealth accumulation
and enterprise--immigrant will have an advantage in enterprise formation
industries with low entry barriers, with few economies of scale, few proprietary technolo-
gies, little product differentiation--allow immigrant groups to establish them-
selves and dominate a segment substituting ethnic ties for usual barriers to
entry (if you are not Chinese, in city X, then no one will help, lend to, or buy
from your new store)
industries and economies where the key resource for enterprise is trust, will find ethnic
groups outperforming natives in enterprise formation
industries and economies where the key resource is something else, technology knowledge,
for example, will not find ethnic or immigrant groups having an advantage
Summary: immigrant or ethnic minority enterprise advantages appear where: profit is dis-
dained, economic conditions are difficult, credit is tight, industry barely
developed, industry with low barriers to entry, where trust not technology
knowledge is valuable for enterprise formation
ethnic and immigrant businesses expand more by branching out into different business types
rather than scaling up their existing businesses, being limited by the size of
group where enforceable trust works for them
The Culture of New Business Ideas

spotting a business opportunity is a very cultural task--it is rarely mostly an economic percep-
tion and formulation activity
opportunity spotting is a matter of reading conversations in a culture--spotting patterns
emerging in complex weaves of falling and rising trends of buying/selling of
ideas and interests
successive waves of different immigrant nationalities--as the kids of first waves qualify for
better jobs and conditions of work, new immigrant groups take of entire types
of businesses
The really interesting thing about this theory of the ethnicity of enterprise is abstracting
from it the principles of ethnic enterprise success and seeing if they are also the conditions
of success of all venturing, not just ethnic or immigrant venturing. The main principle in the
above summary is a balance between enough social isolation so trust can emerge among
members thusly isolated and so that isolation allows more cold, unfeeling, rational pursuit of
economic optima. The budding enterprise needs protection from deceit and other untrust-
worthy behavior and from social obligations and care that distract money from reinvestment
into welfare and patronage needs of a community. Consider Silicon Valley technology ven-
tures--does their birth depend on this balance? It is striking how founders choose friends as
initial executives and employees, attesting to how essential it is to have something beyond
ambition and money when times get rough to keep people pulling together. Also striking are
the total shifts of direction and product that jerk founders, their investor, and initial custom-
ers around--the trust among founder-friends allows such deep shifts of strategy, direction, or
market--this amounts to a cold, unfeeling relation to first customers, first investors, and
other outsiders. So hiring friends as first staff and jerking around early participants with
large changes of direction are similar to the balance of immigrant enterprises hiring family
as first staff and being coldly economic to clients and customers where more socially main-
stream people have social care obligations. A similar balance does exist in Silicon Valley
enterprises.
Secondly there is the “being an immigrant” “within one’s own nation” idea, mentioned
above in the China context of migrants accumulating around each Chinese city. To what
extent are Silicon Valley founders immigrants within their own nation? Striking in this con-
text is the analog culture fight against digital culture and vice versa. Striking is the East
Coast blue suit culture fight with West Coast T-shirt culture form of the analog-digital fight.
Clearly cultures were involved and were here in conflict and clearly this was not marginal
but central as each customer of Silicon Valley technologies and enterprise products made
specific decisions about replacing their own analog stuff with digital stuff whenever they
bought Silicon Valley firm products or invested in ventures there. Founders “do not belong”
to majority business culture in the US and are proud of it. This is Microsoft executives wor-
rying about what type of T-shirt to wear when meeting the founder of Singapore--a business
culture identity decision. That inventions of business models, inventions of work practices,
inventions of lifestyles come along with inventions of digital technologies attests to the
wrenching of mainstream culture involved in merely buying digital technology products.
Also interesting is the looking-like-a-business way for Silicon Valley ventures to die an early
death. Looking like a business creates hiding places for slop, fast burn-through of money,
bad hires that small ventures cannot afford What do ventures have to look like if not like
traditional businesses? This is really a matter of “look like” to “whom?” New ventures
have to look like traditional businesses to venture funders and that hurts them. But they
have to look like great new services/functions to their customers. If they do that, they can
usually avoid needing venture capital funding entirely. Venture customers look for riding
the waves of the future and look to buy the future, expecting some inconveniences but ones
quickly spotted and fixed by responding early and well to first customer experiences, advice,
and complaints. Evolution is quality, not features operating. This type of customer is a dif-
ferent culture of buying than the customer of usual well established big mass production
companies.
Of course rapidly evolving highly technical knowledge and rapidly evolving new business and
lifestyle practices characterize Silicon Valley enterprises and their markets. Ethnic minori-
ties and immigrant groups cannot handle the technical level and rapidity of evolution
involved here. So Silicon Valley enterprise formation and ethnic enterprise formation part
company here--at technical difficulty and rapid technology and tech user evolution. In this
context, the great number of university grads and not-yet-grads who found Silicon Valley
enterprises suggest universities as nation-states for Silicon Valley founding. Such “nation-
states” are high tech havens and generators so immigrants from them have the technology
with which to found enterprises, if they have enough friends for founder teaming and enough
non-friends to coldly jerk around with huge changes of direction.
In sum, ethnic and immigrant enterprise principles do relate to Silicon Valley enterprise for-
mation and enlighten us by highlighting several different roles of culture in the innovation
involved in enterprise formation:
1. founders differ in business culture from leaders and managers of traditional mass production cor-
porations
2. high tech ventures promote a culture of technology different from the traditional culture of technol-
ogy in established businesses
3. founders act like immigrants within their own nation in a number of ways
4. new ventures are enclaves of new culture operating/established within large enclaves of new culture
within established cultures of traditional business.
5. the cultures of entrepreneurs isolate them so trust can be enforced by those sharing their culture
and isolate them from having to meet obligations of traditional businesses.
6. the product of new enterprises, if based on new technologies, induces users and buyers and custom-
ers into a new culture of business practices
7. founders of ventures are friends of friends, for trust’s sake, and culturally differ from their main-
stream business society so they can break certain rules and norms, equals a flexibility that
allows learning-by-doing based success.
# @"4"A

$) A
!

!

!

*$#
/$**"$A?
'".% ' " .
#$"$ 0A$ ?
.
D
'
!.
+!. &

$)"A )$" #"$ "-

"? "? 54$ "? )$""
1
? 5"

1 )$""?

&
& %
%&' 0#

0!
1
V

!
'
;< = ;<
&

'

"0$ " $0"

&
1

!!?

'1&0

!*

'

"- -$$- "-"? "-
0) * $? $?
.

$$
* ?
%
%%
0) * $?
U
!
"?
'&1

U

- ) ?
!%&.
!.
U

*- "-"?

U!
.' 8
'%

%

1
U

+
%.+%
&
F

&
#"5/A?!'&

U

&
&

!
&&

5" $#4

U

'
0$#4'
U&

U
$) A 44 ?
!'
%!.$'=. !'
!

2

1 U&
!
. 05"
(

!

!

'
U

&
U

!.

'
.

5/ !
!
U

$#4" ")$"/
$ 4 $
' ** $*"-$0/$#"54 U
&

0)$#- "#$ 4$/$?

/ $"54$ 0"/$

- I/ * A?

%!
%
!
&

'
!

F
0$#4-"/00$?
.

&

&

%
.

&.

&

%

&

"4#"$0?

!!

!
'?

'

%

F
*A/0--"$?
'

?+
'
?
54$4"4$0)$#O
8,

&

%!%
$$
B,!'&
%!
%!

'%

?
/
48. Davenport and Huber’s Information Ecol-

ogy Model Of Innovation.
Everybody likes to see everything as an ecosystem these days, just as in the 1920s, when this
was also popular across entire societies. Just as in the 1920s the problem with this is--we do
not understand even the basics of ecosystems, so saying that something is like one does not
throw much light on it. Why is this image popular in spite of its poverty of insight and infor-
mativeness?
Growth, in a word, is the answer. Technologies tend to proliferate and grow, jungle-like, till
they are a giant tangled mess. Products tend to proliferate and grow, in a similar manner,
producing a similar result. Ventures proliferate and grow similarly. So there is something
about actual jungles that is repeated in technology jungles, product jungles, and venture
jungles. What is it? Though you may have a lot of easy and automatic answers to that ques-
tion, serious examination of it, done over years by many professionals in biology and physics,
has gradually revealed that what is repeated, across all these jungles, is the growth process
that produces that result--natural selection. Ecosystems are just snapshots of the process
that produces, changes, and sustains them--natural selection.
“natural selection is the central law and organizing principle in all of biology”
Michod, 1999, page. 171
...the lawlike stature of natural selection in biology. The claim is general and
universal; it makes no reference to particulars like the planet earth; indeed, it
applies to any system of replicators, whether they be on earth or on some other
planet. The conditions apply to artificial replicators that exist in the memory of
a computer as in the field of artificial life. The claim is not even restricted to
living systems, and in this spirit my colleagues and I argued that Darwin’s condi-
tions apply to the emergence of order in certain physical systems that are far
from thermodynamic equilibrium, such as lasers... Perhaps they apply also to
categories and thoughts in the human brain and the nervous systems of other
animals... Michod, 1999, page 170-171.
Fitness is the most fundamental concept in all of biology, yet it is difficult to

define precisely in a way that captures its many uses. Michod, 1999, page. 197.
Everything in biology, even its micro-level biochemistry, arose from natural selection operat-
ing on pre-living precursors of life in chemical soups and then on further results of prior nat-
ural selection work--cells, multi-cell organisms, social animals, cultures. To study biology is
to study natural selection’s results and processes. Biology is natural selection to a remark-
able extent. Since the most sophisticated, complicated, human, important systems known
in the universe are all biological--humans and other waveforms--natural selection is the epit-
ome of the sciences in a deep sense. Ecosystems are a snapshot in time of natural selection
operating on some part of life. We tend to see information, technologies, products, and
ventures “as ecosystems” because they grow and they grow because natural selection is at
work in and among them. Though we use and prefer the term “ecosystem”, we would be
more accurate to switch to the term natural selection (natural selection of information
types, of technologies, of products, of ventures). Though an “information” or “technology”
or “product” or “venture” ecosystem may impress us now with its variety, nested knotted
inter-relations, and hard to untangle dependencies, all of it was produced by and evolves
still under the direction of one process--natural selection. We are far better off studying
natural selection as an innovation process operating on information, technology, products,
and ventures than studying these as already-developed ecosystems. Ecosystems can reveal
the synchronic inter-dependencies present now but not the processes that produced them
and that still evolve them, for those processes are all natural selection.
“There is no overall adaptedness, no overall property of the organism or other

unit of selection that is increased during evolution.” Michod, 1999, page 201
“Although fitness does not increase in evolution, new levels of fitness can be
created.” Michod, 1999, page 202.
Darwin was right about the fundamentals but he got one point wrong--survival of the fittest.
The fittest survive in certain very limited conditions. In general what survives varies based
on differences in the fundamental functions that define “natural selection” in any system.
We know this, as commonsense, as the QWERTY keyboard, due to costs of unlearning, had
first mover advantages so that, in spite of clear, prove-able performance inferiority to the
DVORAK and other keyboard layouts, it won, historically. It is not the fittest by any measure
but it survived and other, fitter keyboard layouts, died out. The fittest do not survive in
general, but only in specific, limited conditions. Not only that but new levels of fitness
emerge, that no one planned or intended. These two surprises--that natural selection is not
survival of the fittest and that it gives rise to new levels of selection/fitness--show that the
commonsense that most of us have about what natural selection is and does, is wrong. We
all commonly think very fuzzily and sloppily about what natural selection is and if we apply
that amateur version of understanding of it to real situations, in particular, to ecosystems of
information, technology, product, or venture firm, we will screw things up and fail. Before
natural selection can be gainfully understood as a quite powerful and general innovation pro-
cess operating in the biologic and non-biologic parts of our world, we have to develop a pro-
fessional, careful understanding of just what it is and does. Applying our commonsense
amateur version of it to anything will only produce error, fault, and failure.
The beginning of a professional understanding of natural selection is always an encompassing

framework, that looks at large swaths of natural selection, not specific local versions. Nat-
ural selection outside of living systems is an important such framework but too encompassing
for most beginners, wedded as they are to Darwin’s formulations and sloppy renditions of
them repeated in casually written textbooks in schools. A middle ground framework is nat-
ural selection as generating all the major transitions in the arising and proliferation of life:
from individual genes to networks of genes, from gene networks to bacteria-like cells, from
bacteria-like cells to eukaryotic cells with organelles, from cells to multi-cellular organisms,
from solitary organisms to societies. These are transitions in units of selection, what natu-
ral selection operates on to produce new levels to be selected. The emergence of coopera-
tion among lower level units and the regulation of conflict among lower level units are the
twin innovations that allowed all these new levels of selection to appear and they probably
are the requirements for still further newer level of selection to appear. What we require is
a model/definition of what natural selection is that handles this scope of life--all these
major transitions in the history of life’s emergence. If we can develop a model that abstract
and broad in application, and then extend it, without major change, to handle auto-catalytic
chemical soups that gave rise to life from non-living chemical soups, forming precursors of
RNA and evolving RNA into DNA, then this model might encompass all of evolution--living and
non-living. Michod’s book, cited extensively in this section, defines natural selection in this
way. In doing so he carefully undoes a history of sloppy defining and understanding of it,
caused, in most cases, by seeing natural selection and defining it relative to a small set of
living forms and how they evolved--ignoring the major transitions in the history of life and
how natural selection had to deal with producing them.
Living systems develop lots of selectively neutral traits. These repertoires of traits that do
not help and do not hinder survival and reproduction accumulate over time. When, sud-
denly or gradually, the environment changes enough that the living systems cannot choose
more traditional environments still available elsewhere to move to or they cannot modify
the new environment so its new traits are masked or weakened into inconsequence, some of
those up-till-now neutral traits turn out to be adaptive, helping the organism in the new
environment, and others turn out to be mal-adaptive, hindering adaptation to the new traits
from the changed environment. The ratio of these--helps from neutral traits now found
adaptive and hindrances from neutral traits now found to be mal-adaptive--determines sur-
vival in the new circumstances. So rather than evolving organisms till they are fittest--
changes in environment reward organisms having broad and diverse neutral trait repertoires,
and organisms lucky enough that the ratio of helps to hindrances is positive given specific
changes in the environment. Natural selection punishes, edits out, maladaptive traits more
than fostering adaptive ones. That environments select when they change, that they must
change enough to overcome organism ability to switch environments by moving and to erect
artificial environments that mask natural ones, that what is selected for is broad and diverse
repertoires of neutral traits--these too are aspects of natural selection missing from our
amateur understandings of it.
Below, in this paragraph, I mention inheritance not in living things using DNA, but in informa-
tion, technology, product, and venture systems--as you read, you will discover that this dis-
cussion is hindered, at every point, by lack of a precise, careful definition of what natural
selection is. Later I will revisit the issues of the rest of this paragraph, after a decent defi-
nition of natural selection is made available, and you will appreciate how much more useful
discussions are, with that definition in hand. Consider any one piece of information, one
technology, one product, one product trait, one venture business relative to competitors
copying it, extending it, bypassing it, undermining it, competing with it, as parasites adding
on to it, and the like. Its ability to survive in markets churning with innovation and compe-
tition, tuned by general economy contractions and expansions, is much like a particular
plant or animal trying to survive in a particular ecosystem. What is the inheritance mecha-
nism of information, technology, product, product feature, and any business venture? The
entire experience of it, in the minds of employees who developed or sold it and users who
bought and used it, stays when it dies out, when it fails to survive. These people move on to
inventing other things or buying/using other things. In their minds is the experience of it
plus evaluation of its failure to survive--that combination informs they next efforts. This is a
cultural inheritance system that humans have along with their DNA inheritance system and a
newly discovered Lamarcian RNA inheritance of learned behaviors system. Humans have
these three inheritance systems--information, technologies, products, product traits, and
ventures have just the cultural inheritance system, with a Lamarcian inheritance of routines
mastered in previous experiences system. There is no strong analog to DNA inheritance for
information, technologies, products, product traits, and ventures. However, a niche--a
group of buyers who buy something doing a particular function for them--if their supplier of
the moment fails to survive for some reason, not related to them--has the power to attract
new suppliers to provide the function the want. If one firm or technology fails them,
another arises to take advantage of their propensity to buy and use to fulfill one function
needed in their lives. The new supplier does not inherit traits from the failed previous sup-
plier. It inherits information about those traits, and hires people who produced them, per-
haps, but it has the option of consciously changing how those traits are delivered and
whether new traits are added or old ones subtracted from the mix that is the information,
the technology, the product, or the venture. That is where DNA-style inheritance differs.
The whole literature on disruptive innovations versus trajectory preserving innovations can
be interpreted as a distinction between innovation about better fitting an existing niche ver-
sus innovation about inventing better niches. It is easy to imagine particular innovations
that spawned new functions and the ended old ones--when telephones replaced morse and
other codes on telegraph lines, the function of translating the code into English or some
other natural language disappeared. When cell phones became common, a huge demand
for software automation of contact lists, phone and email number lists, appeared.
Darwinian Natural Selection

variation
heritability
struggle to survive and reproduce
none of these are limited to living systems, indeed, the only difference between biology and
chemistry-physics is these dynamics of evolution taken together, proliferating
life from non-life
Emergence of Levels of Selection via Evolution of Mechanisms of Cooperation

emergence of gene networks from genes--via evolution of Eigen’s hypercycles
emergence of cells containing genomes--via evolution of isolating parasitic selfish genes in a
boundary
emergence of meitosis--via chromosomes reducing conflict among individual genes who must
cooperate to get into next generation
emergence of nuclear genes and oganelle genes--via uniparental inheritance of cytoplasm to
reduce organelle conflict
emergence of societies of cooperating organisms--via kin selection, reciprocation, and group
selection to reduce conflict among organisms via genetic relatedness,
repeated encounters, and group structure
Evolution of Cooperation
new evolutionary “units of selection” = new levels of selection = begin as groups of existing
units with promotion of cooperation and mitigation of tendency of lower level
units to compete
cooperation enables fitness at the lower level to be reduced in favor of more fitness at the
group level
frequency-dependent interactions among evolutionary units are a source of novelty and
threat as defection can spread destroying cooperators
kinship, population structure, and conflict mediation reduce inherent threats to cooperation
from frequency based interactions
the above holds for populations of interacting and replicating entities: genes, cells,
organelles, organisms--that share a common context (resource base for auto-
catalytic chemical sets, gene pools for cells and organisms
symbiosis--cooperation between genetic units capable of independent existence, in cooperat-
ing networks of genes and cooperation among players in game theory in the
transition to organisms
Types/Notions of Fitness
in population genetics--fitness defined as--expected reproductive success of a type (repro-
ductive output weighted by survival) = individual fitness
in Fisher’s statistics of natural selection--fitness defined as--rate of increase of a type, on a
per capita basis = F-fitness
why did Fisher focus on rate of increase? = objective fact of representation in future genera-
tions
point of possible confusion--F-fitness, rate of increase of a genotype does not usually depend
on properties of the genotype in isolation, but depends on environment, com-
position of the population overall, and (in sexual populations) depends on
properties of the genotypes of all potential mates
many later represent F-fitness as if it were only a property of the genotype alone, but this
assumes fixed per capita birth and death rates, which are invalid if genotype
of a population is changing, and if genotypes interact in their effects on fit-
ness, or if there is sex.
The Goal of Any Theory of Natural Selection
Indeed, almost everything going on in a population affects the rate of increase of a type, so F-
fitness cannot be regarded as the sole property of the individual or genotype
our equations for fitness try to express evolutionary success on the left hand side as a func-
tion of individual type capacities along on the right hand side
GOAL of theory of natural selection = express evolutionary success of a type, for example
genotype at one level, as a function of that type’s individual capacities and
characteristics
Fitness Definition and Decomposition

fitness decomposition includes--defining heritable capacities underlying activities of the life
cycle of the unit of selection involved and that lead to survival and reproduc-
tion
we must relate the decomposed components of fitness, the heritable capacities found, to
appropriate environmental variables (example: frequency or density of
resources) and to aspects of the genetic and reproductive system to get
“causal dynamics of selection” for a particular fitness definition and unit/
level of selection
Fitness Depends On
great variety of ecological factors and conditions--density of genotypes or total size of popu-
lation
age or life history stage of individuals involves--as in age-specific or stage-specific selection
interactions with other types in a population--frequency-dependent selection is example--
interactions between members of same species and among different species
(competitors, predators, mutualists)
an example of “heritable capacities” is genotype-specific coefficients in ecological models of
selection
the most basic distinction among traits of an individual type is whether they affect: survival,
fertility (mating success), and fecundity--some traits affect all 3, some 1,
some 2 etc.
fitness may vary in time, space, and level of organization = spatial and organizational struc-
tures and their roles in interactions and emergence of new levels of individu-
ality for selection
Error 1: Who Does the Selecting?

in natural selection no entity chooses/selects, rather the selected set is generated by a vari-
ety of different processes--for example: differences in individual fitness,
effects on genetic and reproductive systems
the “selected set” contains not only a subset of the previous generation but also new off-
spring (forces from sexual recombination and within-organism change, muta-
tion during development, make these offspring have different properties
than their parents
we buy low priced items at the store but discover high priced ones when we get home = prop-
erty change is common in natural selection, it combines with differential sur-
vival and reproduction to produce overall changes in population
because offspring combine property change and “selection” we cannot cleanly separate
selecting from the overall process of natural selection
we can unify concepts of “selection” by focusing on covariance between fitness and the
selected properties of the objects/units of selection
the ratio of frequencies of objects after selection to before is related to some property of the
objects = fitness as a transformation of frequencies through time
Terms from Evolution of Interactions

evolutionarily stable strategies
kin selection
sexual selection
the handicap principle
group selection,
parental manipulation
reciprocation
social selection
family selection
Definitions
Natural Selection--genetic change from variation, heritability, and the struggle to survive and
reproduce (not restricted to living things) = variation, heritability, struggle to
survive/reproduce
Individual Fitness--expected reproductive success of a type
Heritable Capacity--a component of fitness that represents the contribution of the pheno-
type’s design attributes to natural selection
Cooperation--an interaction that decreases fitness of the individual but increases the fitness
of the group
Frequency-Dependent Selection--when individual fitness depends upon interaction with a
group or population
Individual (Level of Selection)--a unit of selection satisfying Darwin’s 3 natural selection con-
ditions with mechanisms for modulating lower-level change
Fitness Covariance--the covariance between individual fitness and heritable genetic proper-
ties
Emergence of Replication = emergence of life history (birth and death of replicating entities)
Definition of “An Understanding of Fitness”

1. when and how does fitness originate in the biological world during transition from nonliv-
ing to living?
2. how do new levels of fitness emerge during the evolutionary process?
3. how does fitness enter into models of natural selection?
Types of Fitness (and Natural Selection Outcome)

birth linear function of replicator density--survival of the fittest = heritable features of the
unit of selection suffice to predict outcome of natural selection
birth non-linear (square root) of replicator density--survival of anybody = heritable features
of the unit of selection not sufficient to predict outcome of natural selection
birth non-linear (quadratic) of replicator density--survival of the first = heritable features of
the unit of selection not sufficient to predict outcome of natural selection
The Relation Between Replication and Being a Living Entity

the key to the origin of life is--replication of entities--having traits relative to some environ-
ment and having errors in replication that induce variation in traits and their
relations to the environment
the appearance of a life cycle, birth and death, in the universe, turns existing in a world into
a statistical experiment of a population of entities in that world, a population
that become repeated different experiments/populations as surviving entities
replicate but with errors so the next generation differs in variety of traits mix
from prior generation
to live you have to endure stably enough to replicate, and replicate with enough error to
have diversity sufficient to handle drastic environment changes challenging
stable endurance till replication = stability fighting variation, stability to repli-
cate and variation to be ready when environments change
culture is a heritability mechanism that works with new generations of humans (and some pri-
mates and whales etc. possibly birds);
culture as inherited hides learning/replication-within-single-lifespan mechanisms in it that
compete in importance, in the future, with Darwinian genetic natural selec-
tion: within culture are variation, transmission to later portions of one indi-
vidual’s own life (pseudo-heritability) and struggle to survive mechanisms that
are nearly Darwinian, but extinguish or proliferate lifestyle workstyle ele-
ments not variant individuals = Darwinian natural selection learning mecha-
nisms operating within single life spans of individuals
what is the relative power, worth, ultimate destiny of single non-dying living entities whose
learning-within-individual-lifespan capabilities compete in power with natural
selection’s learning-across-generations of entities mechanisms?
Example of Non-Living Darwinian System--Possible Origin of Life

molecules having “complementarity”, like nucleic acids, can replicate
ther necessary nor sufficient for evolution of the natural selection sort to
occur
examples: in selfing (evolution of organic selfs, cells for example) and asexual reproduction
with no differences between phenotypes in survival or number of gametes
produced, yet powerful selection happens, due to different chances for mat-
ing and propagating genetic elements underlying different mating systems; in
heterozygote superiority, differences in survival and reproduction exist yet
no evolution occurs when the population is at equilibrium; in multilevel
selection, fitness of higher level units must include many generations of the
lifecycle of the lower level units, with fitness effects traded from lower to
higher levels during emergence of fitness at the new higher level AND when
parasites influence multilevel selection the reverse happens, trading of fit-
ness from higher levels to lower ones
fitness is the effects of interactions--of the individual type’s heritable traits with the environ-
ment in the context of a specific genetic and reproductive system
The Relation between Individual Type Fitness and Overall Adaptiveness of the
Organism
individual genotypic fitness, like F-fitness, is not a property of the individual alone, but a
property of the genotype in a population
individual fitness is often used, in kin selection, reciprocal altruism, and game theory models,
as a statistical construct but it is not a property of any particular organism in
the population
the heritable capacities that make up F-fitness are qualitatively different for every single
case study in natural selection
no collection of physical properties can be cited as a general basis of fitness
evolution commonsense and it huge error--people like to explain presence, decrease,
increase of a species or trait due to phenotypic traits = because this type has
this trait it had this evolutionary outcome BUT this assumes asexual cloning of
species usually sexual, it assumes total simple passing of traits onto next gen-
erations but sexual reproduction does not operate that way = most common
explanations of evolutionary outcome as due to traits of phenotypes that are
published are completely and totally wrong = sex can reduce genetic variation
or it can make heritable capacities (more adapted types do not outcompete
less adapted types, measuring adaptedness via ecological or engineering anal-
ysis of capacities versus environment traits faced) = genetic constraints can
mask adaptedness, constraints like sexual recombination, pleiotropy, or link-
age, as can ecological factors like frequency-dependent interspecific interac-
tion, density, and whether a population increases
sexual reproduction introduces intrinsic non-linearity into natural selection dynamics, since
mates must encounter each other for reproduction, so the part of F-fitness
due to birth processes is a nonlinear function of density of a type in a popula-
tion = this introduces a cost of rarity in both inter and intra specific selection,
which decouples F-fitness from effects of heritable capacities = outcome of
selection among types cannot be predicted from individual capacities or the
more “adaptive” types fail to appear = emergence of the “survival of the
first” paradigm of natural selection
in sexual populations, heterozygotes with superior fitness cannot win in competing with less
fit homozygotes (example: sickle cell anemia) = decouping between adaptive-
ness of phenotypes and the F-fitness of corresponding genotypes
kin selection shows central role of F-fitness in natural selection as opposed to reproductive
success of individual organisms = an altruist genotype may increase in fre-
quency, having higher F-fitness in a population, though the corresponding
phenotype is less adaptive in that its design decreases its own individual sur-
vival and reproduction = natural selection can cause a decrease in the average
individual fitness of a population, especially in frequency-dependent selec-
tion
CONCLUSION---there is no simple connection between adaptiveness of the heritable pheno-
typic properties of an organism ( its heritable capacities) and the F-fitness of
the corresponding genotype class, since F-fitness depends on the environ-
ment, the population, and the genetic system, in addition to depending on
heritable capacities
CONCLUSION--there is no overall adaptedness, no optimal design of organisms that is maxi-
mized by natural selection--even ignoring chanced factors such as genetic
drift
Explaining Fitness
fitness is the most fundamental concept in all of biology BUT it is difficult to define because it
has many uses
1. phenotype interacts with environment to determine individual fitness (expected number
offspring produced);
2. phenotype is produced by development process during which mutation and selection can
produce within-organism change
3. the organism’s genotype not phenotype is passed onto offspring
4. in sexual species, only part of the genotype is passed on, mixing with genes from another
organism to determine offspring genotype and phenotype
5. all the above is true only when the unit of selection, “the organism”, is well defined BUT
during transitions to new higher level evolutionary units, fitness effects are
traded among levels
two directions of explanation: one, use F-fitness to calculate genotype frequency changes;
two, use heritable capacities channeled thru genetic and reproductive sys-
tems under environment conditions to calculate F-fitness = F-fitness functions
as both cause and effect at different levels; in individual selection, causes
arise at level of individual organisms thru heritable capacities, but evolution-
ary effects are at the level of classes of genotypes and their rates of increase
= natural selection operates at the level of birth and deaths of individual
organisms but on the level of changing relative frequency of classes of geno-
types in populations
heritable capacities explain F-fitness and F-fitnesses explain heritable capacities both
BECAUSE of heritability and repetitiveness of life cycles = present F-fitness
depends in part on heritable capacities and heritable capacities in their
present frequencies result from past differences among ancestor genotypes in
their F-fitnesses
we explain natural selection two ways: by products, heritable capacities, and by it dynamics,
F-fitness BUT this is not circular argument BECAUSE an organism has capaci-
ties that are adaptive now by virtue of kinds of effects that the capacities had
in ancestors in past environments AND the fact that the present environment
is similar to past environments where those capacities grew up
only when fitness is viewed as some overall adaptedness propensity of an organism or other
unit of selection does the argument become circular
to explain fitness we need: one, to learn how fitness originated in transition from non-living
to living; two, the role of fitness in math theory of natural selection; three,
how new levels of fitness are created during evolutionary transitions to
greater levels of complexity
Summary
to explain the evolutionary success of a type, its F-fitness, we go to heritable capacities,
environmental variables and the genetic and reproductive systems
fitness is not an overall property of an organism or of any other unit of selection
particular traits re explained by representing them in terms of heritable capacities and show-
ing how they contribute to F-fitness
we explain present adaptiveness of heritable capacities and their underlying traits: as causes
of F-fitness differences in the present; and results of F-fitness differences in
the past = the repetitiveness of the lifecycle makes this NON-circular
fitness does not in general increase in evolution BECAUSE of many frequency dependent
effects on components of fitness
there is no overall adaptedness, no overall property of the organism or other unit of selection
that is increased during evolution
rather we explain this way--break vague general notions of adaptedness into specific traits/
behaviors of an evolving entity that interact with specifics of its environments
in the context of its genetic and reproductive systems
average fitness increases relative to the environment that previously existed BUT since envi-
ronments evolve too (if only because other surrounding organisms evolve)
increase in fitness relative to a past environment is no guarantee of increased
fitness in this present environment
IF FITNESS DOES NOT INCREASE DURING EVOLUTION WHAT DOES INCREASE? new levels of fit-
ness/selection can emerge = this happens as fitness is exported from lower to
higher levels during the evolution of cooperation (at all levels, cooperating
nucleic acids, genes, chromosomes, cells, organs, organisms, societies) = indi-
vidually costly yet group-beneficial behaviors evolve by the mechanisms of
reciprocation, spatial structure, kin selection, and group selection
NEW UNITS OF SELECTION/FITNESS EVOLVE DURING EVOLUTION, NEW EVOLUTIONARY INDIVID-

UALS ACTED ON BY “SELECTION”
8,"## "))
B,"* $#$
L,

!
&
4 -

"

E

!2 J %
' J?
' "$+0$+
,%
'
, '
,

,, 0--"$
H
" H

'
% & '
) - $?

1

1

!
%

F
J&
&

H
'&

'!

'
!

-
-
-

"*"0$ # #$
-" -"
-"'
$
!'

?
?

$
!' $
!'

( )*&+%+%#$%&+%$%+

#(+%,-#&%%&%
54$0 54$0- 54$04-"
$A/0A"))O "))O "))O
!&
D !&

!&
D

'

'

'

*"*-" ? 0#$-" ? 5" 0-" ?

&

,
, !.!
&
, %&'
D

/ ,
(
1

J
,
&

!

H2 &
+

$&

%
(
! ,
54"))? $)"$ $0

'!
&
$ ?

-!

? - ,
,

+ -

! , 4$

&'.

1.(

;<

(

' ,
-$" "
!
! '

F
$" "
!

!

,!
,

!

,!
) $ 0 $ $ " - $ W

) $$)$$5 ) - * IAJ $H
7
37:;3 81
9 6 83

*
5
*41936 21*11

9 2
;1
1 & 2
;1*1 :;1;1 :; :;1;1 :;
6 8 J !)!( 7
*
77 534
3 !+$F( &!+!$ *+ *+
((()( #+(24
4* $+ >)#?> #!)#'D FDC#$
1
1
!+,E$+!! "!($ +'F >!$"" >!$"
!)( $$ ( $ )#!)! ( $&(
!)! ( #F"(+ #)( F 45
51377
K 45
51377
!! $!
=()(C#>(
O N
*$
!(7 :($)( +B :+*++
$+ $)( ()( ( (+ >"+()(?>"+ ))(+B' $",!
NO +' N
? N
3 477

G 3 16B 7
335 93418B *1;1*1 *1;1
1 45
51377
:;K :;1;1 :;
$($& #F
3394
*3 !)!() !+$
7 !+$
7$ ",!!! *+
H+# + ))(,I# 77 $#$ $E $( $B!' *++
1
F0) ((+" & ( )&()( "24 '!F (F
$($ 45
51371623*6 8( D( >$"
#$ $ H# !)! ( $) !$!?>
$F!3 + #&
))$ H$"! $$!)!( $""
!!
*1:
@ 2
93A 6 37141 ?
3(+3
326*
637
837
6
7 )B 6
1341
3
71:? 11
71F 4; 348 ;137
91
3 351 +$( ))()9,
# /($F ;8 5 ** 34
981F
>$ +) !++
$'?> !)! ( )(
!'(+# $!F (
>! $) FD(
)( >!)! ( 71:B48 $ $$ ))( 34 4 416
7347
6 B 238
9* F !+
>:#?>#+ 39; *1
974
3 3883
$"! $$ !!!
>($))( > 37*
6+
(+ (- $F
$( ) !
&
O
? 7+7 (( 7(&
!)!(7
!B$) $7B*+ N *++
+ N
))C$!C +(- *!
3!-
NN N
*1:
@
*
5
*7
*
6**
*8
371 1
1137 !)! (" 71:B38
B 7
** 3
8

7**
37
1 3716
1 3716=70 $(!)! ()# >D (($ (E $+ *1:
@ 4993 "?+ 3;*
6
?>E$+!!$> !!+ 45
5 **
>+$(/ > ()(($$ !+!!$ #!
!?>! #! F+!$!)! ( $ *8
1 37
$(/#$! (+ ( 7

($3! D
$$
141

31 4
5 1
O 391
<1
3383
=(!0(> ? N
( ($>9)(7'?> 0
#&+'($>;/!
391
8 391
8 !!#+!+$ 7
23% 3 6 8
238;
2383: 38389 $! $"(+
3::3* 5- 37 B>$!#
))"+
!!)
$C
D!F"$
:5
($ (# (('
! $ ))(
=$$/>?>
&)-F! $ $((' (0$(( (C"(+$ #
!+ $ ($ #$ "!#
F"$ 26$($ :;1*8
2
; 1;5*
770 *1:
*618
*1:%
3
&&(! !0$ 737*
6K('E-'
181 F+$ (+0()# DH#!
EK !K$ $($-F"+ +#)# $(#($#
K "(!"++ + (
$
? ? ? ?N
;&9 9((+7
*3
3!#
$(+
2($/;"(+7
7&)( ($
:(!
O
)) N ?O 7 N? ? N ?
30
5
91 84
039- :;6196 1
43 F 51
1
3 37
6 8112 34 9 6 8 5 6 8
($(+H# 891 4* K
6 45
5
;
3F
1

;6
3
81 $! $ $! $"(+
($ (B ))( ($$"& > ))(?>0($#> 5- 734*
1
81 B>!$?>
##( 0$E$+(-F
! #!# "(+B $0)()#
$(("&# :+ ))!K (!# >(/#'?>
F$ $FF ?B> ))?> & $>$#E$+
$!F "$ "# ( 9!24 >(+> $ !$#>
))(/#$ (+&" H+# E$+!!=$
E $
/(!/ (!+F $F
))C +
$$ $ +

$
*
943 :3* 141
31
( ($ ;6
11:
4 3:5 2
3396F

;3:3*1

45
5137
7
535 5 - 4
5
>)
? 45
53
(#(('
#()(! )
)- "$"#'$ H ?>"($$ )
(&()( $#@ > ##( )) "(F
)()F 835 3 3
K D$"$ ! $F ( ($ :16 3*4 $$!!

7!! 1411: ;
12

637 $$
7
535 $ "#

$(!
"() 7

(&()(
! $!F"&
!!@/((
F$ (/
CC!
&
! $## >)?>#+>
=0( !+
#B" (/+
) )-
D$
;&9 ;&9 N ? O ? (

?
3(*# (&
=(,0("> 2(#+24
73
O N
1*65F 3 244
7738 1 * :;1
3 :; ( ($;3:81 47
141
3
B 7
*331:16
*
93
81 !#H! $()( ;8
6C;6
K 11 D$!! $((&' 45
5
($+$( " #!!# ($B#' !(($ ++& $$$$+ #H#$( D(B(((
) ($!' # (('$' 1"+! ($#! ))((!= (( &#$!
!# 0 ))# #'*1! $C+$F(( "() LM$((# "(#+B36 $)&(
H= & !&+F "(#+F(( )-> !$"& ($(
)(+> !$ "(#+ $C+$! !)! ( ))
"(#+
? N ? ??
49. Chesbough’s Open Business Models

Model Of Innovation.
MIchael Jensen, now famous at Harvard’s School of Business, designed a theory that created
the private equity industry, which, in reality, did not make the economy more efficient, as
managers of these private equity firms managed to jiggle fees in ways that made them “bad
agents”, in ways Prof. Jensen did not anticipate while coming up with his theory at the Univ.
of Rochester. Just as Long Term Capital Management made fools of two Nobel Prize econo-
mists, when it revealed they did not know how to know when their theories applied and did
not apply, the real economy has repeatedly made a fool of people like Prof. Jensen. Agent
theory, in economics, is built upon a shallow, one wants to say, pitiful base, by people who
have been academics all their lives. We can generalize quite safely--any institution or pol-
icy, entirely based on research, however empirical, by university professors of economics, is
a loaded gun in dangerous hands, as likely to kill it proponents as help its intended victims.
It is important when listening to impressive lectures at Harvard’s business school to remem-
ber that all those impressive things in class usually turn out to be foolishness in reality. The-
ory is vital for spotting and seeing new things but it is a bad guide to constructing new
things. Theory has to be laden with all sorts of provisos, and contingency-handler routines
if it is to be safe when applied. Applications have to learned not designed. But there is a
much deeper problem here--the bad guys, people willing to distort a new institution or pro-
cedure for selfish aims (not optimal for the overall economy, say)--are so clever and enabled
by communication technologies so quick, that they undermine any policy or procedure what-
soever. With the kind of self interested, willing to cheat, rational male person that domi-
nates business today in the US, such bad actors have implicit support and admiration (if you
see a loophole in “the game” then why not exploit it). Prof. Jensen and others invent theo-
ries and policies as if another kind of person was in business in the US today--they fail to
design for the reality of bad guys widely admired and supported by casual rational male
cheaters all over the economy. Theories supposing any sort of long term pursuit of self ben-
efits fail when people spite their long terms for the sake of quicker, faster, surer short term
wins. Our economy may need a new kind of person before many current theories can be
made to work beneficially in it. With this proviso in mind, plus another proviso briefly pre-
sented below, we can approach Chesbough:s open business model theory of innovation.
Business school started teaching entrepreneurship 15 years after entrepreneurship became a

dominant force in information technology, bio-tech, Silicon Valley, and the world technical
economy. Just when Silicon Valley was going into a bust, the MBA programs spewed forth
money-seeking greedy MBAs eager for fast bucks in a venture. Secondly, Silicon Valley beat
Route 128 around MIT, in large part, because Silicon Valley was all about countering US cul-
ture of business while MIT was all about conforming to blue suit traditional US culture of
business. The founding founders of Silicon Valley saw a world of ponderous highly central
mass media and mass technologies by the likes of IBM, subjecting people to pretend choices
and central editing and controls, turning entire populations into sitters, consumers, viewers,
spectators. They wanted a different world where people composed, performed, and broad-
cast their own individual programs to others around the world. They wanted open-ness not
closedness, dispersion not centrality, initiative by all not initiative by rich central elites, a
variety of deep content types not a uniformity of shallow non-offensive vulgar content types.
The founders of Silicon Valley were on a mission to change the world; the Route 128 MIT guys
were on a mission to make money. Changers of the world soundly defeated money-grub-
bers.
This means, business schools are late at seeing and teaching things, usually an entire gener-
ation or two late, and it means they teach the seeking of money while teaching entrepre-
neurship, making it certain that they generate few if any true entrepreneurs. It is worse
than this--what they do teach to MBAs, severely dysfunctions in the venture technology busi-
ness environment of Silicon Valley. Anyone who goes to a leading business school to learn
business venturing is a fool.
Chesbough’s entire theory is merely expanding certain Silicon Valley dynamics across entire
economies. That is all he is talking about. With that said I could close this section, in real-
ity, though readers would be upset. Nothing Chesbough presents goes beyond this one
insight--extending to the entire economy certain obvious dynamics in Sillicon Valley. For Sil-
licon Valley differed from Route 128 in a few important ways, one of which is a kind of
boundarylessness, or rather highly permeable boundaries, made permeable by exactly the
kind of trust and non-self-ness so missing from East Coast USA, MIT, and Harvard. A spirit of
teamwork missing from traditional Protestant Puritan US business and intellectual education
centers allowed boundaries to mean less, get permeated more, turning dribbles into flows
into streams into torrents of persons, funds, ideas, technologies flowing through firms till
they found a home. In Route 128 nothing much flowed, stopped up, constipated at every
turn by big business norms, blue suit requirements, rigid old lifestyles, impressive power and
rank dynamics, intellectual property lawsuits, punishments to employees who departed a
firm, punishment to employees new to a firm from a competitor firm. There was too much
monkey and not enough humanity in Route 128.
Chesbough’s entire theory can be summed up as declaring a culture, the Silicon Valley cul-
ture of business, the winner and spreading it across America, replacing its failed counter-
part, the East Coast blue suit culture from Harvard and MIT. In Silicon Valley flows of
people, ideas, technologies, and funds developed across ventures, with people not getting
upset about it all, till each resource found a home, a place where someones took an interest
and had the right attitude, opportunities, and components to combine with it. As firms
adapted themselves to these flows, they learned to depend on them--why do oneself what
others outside could do faster, cheaper, better, and with continual improvements? The idea
of “venture” and “firm” and “enterprise” and “company” changed, became smaller,
became, in reality, a collection of continually recombining things--a kind of true natural
selection process among a population of contending species. Chesbough proposes, though
he does not know this, a genetic algorithm as how business is organized from now on
(enabled on the internet). What Chesbough fails to do is include a myriad of other dynamics
that also made Sillicon Valley victor over MIT and Route 128. In particular, he nowhere
acknowledges the denigration of MBAs found all through Sillicon Valley culture and proce-
dures--technical people make venture babies and hand them over to MBAs when they get big
enough to support greed, when they lose all value and care and, like stars becoming black
holes, collapse in on themselves in sheer selfishness and self obsession. To be fair, Ches-
bough also misses the entire culture dynamics of what Sillicon Valley did and represents. He
is good, dead right, on various constipations of the traditional East Coast US business style,
spotting ideas, in company libraries that go unused for decades, as value if made to flow till
homes are found for them, for one example. He is good at spotting and suggesting correc-
tives for this and other traditional business constipations.
Chesbough’s view of an open way of doing business--businesses having open systems--owes a

lot to knowledge management ideas and research. He takes a rather typical Descartian view
of the economy as determined by ideas and idea flows and applications. He is somewhat
vague and untutored about the stickiness of ideas, the way practices embed tacit knowledge
that is hard to make explicit. He tends to dismiss, under-estimate, or omit treatment of the
costs and difficulties of making explicit ideas into good practices and vice versa making good
practices give up the ideas tacitly within them that make them work well. He sees the
internet as solving that sort of thing but does not realize that the same divide between idea
and practice, explicit and tacit, declarative and procedural, reappears in the internet as
richer media on the net allow persons to relate and share tacit expressions and intimations,
working together in real time net connections. There is not a lot of this on the net now, due
to bandwidth insufficiencies in economies like Germany and the USA, but it is growing and
will grow, steadily, till the same divide dominates both face to face and netstation to netsta-
tion connects.
The Constipation Problem--ideas that do not find homes because they do not
flow
an organization tries to invent the ideas it needs to grow, develop, and survive
however organizations largely adapt themselves to the same larger scale whole economy sec-
tor trends and emerging infrastructures
so organizations all invent many similar solutions for many similar problems as they all adapt
to the same larger scale forces
this is wasted effort as they could replicate solutions that one of them comes up with, but,
instead, they re-invent the same solutions themselves
the tradition, culture, training, and career path routines of big past bureaucratic organization
types cause each organization to not learn from or license solution to others
as a result, firms are much bigger than they need to be, much more costly than they need to
be, much slower than they need to be, much more repetitious of each other
than they need to be.
Why Ideas Fail to Find Homes

a company cannot generate only ideas that work--it has to generate lots of ideas that do not
work in order to come up with some that work well
each company therefore creates a library of ideas that work and get applied by it but out of a
much larger number of ideas that did not work out and did not get applied
each company is particular people thinking within certain frameworks facing certain chal-
lenges they are willing to tackle at a particular time = only a small set of ideas
interests them
if other people, or other frameworks, or peTHE ople facing other challenges, with other foci
and interests of the moment saw the same idea dropped by one company,
they might like and use it
the lack of diversity of person, framework, challenge, focus, interest in all organizations is
generated by their need to focus and accomplish and excel at particular
things/directions
if companies, thusly constituted, invent most business ideas, most such ideas will be
dropped, filed away, as not relevant, understandable, important, timely, etc.
The Style and Cultural Barriers to Ideas Flowing Across Company Boundaries
secrecy--companies like to feel their own ideas are their own and their secret advantage as
long as others do not know the ideas, even though the ideas never get used to
do much
information about the ideas--companies simply do not know what ideas they have stored
away from past efforts and ideas other companies have thusly stored away
nakedness of ideas--ideas are invented by people embedded in relationship networks and
invented relative to certain local practices, they have a social life that, when
stripped from them, makes them much harder to understand and utilize
tacitness of knowledge--many ideas are emergent from practices and have, locally, where
invented, not explicit form or documentation, so sharing them is hard, a mat-
ter of intimate conversation among people who know and trust each other,
not the type of relationships found between different firms
male hormones and the territoriality they generate--men defend boundaries irrationally out
of status concerns, not invented here-ness, and like emotions generated
between their legs = competitiveness taken to self destructive extremes, it
becomes a rite, a right, “the way”
The Social Life of Information (and Ideas)--ideas interest and work in places and
times because of social practices that surround/context them
patents and other documented ideas are a tiny fraction of the inventions and ideas any one
group or organization generates
most generated ideas are tacit, not documented, understood tacitly among people sharing an
intense discipline or social practice, shared as lore, war stories, and the like
furthermore, most ideas and technologies work because they are supported by certain social
interests, attitudes, and practices around them--strip them from these envi-
ronmental supports and they fail to perform well
outsourcing research, outsourcing ideas, licensing ideas to others--all these can be done
merely via explicit documented means and/or by tacit social face-to-face-ness
means = most ideas require the latter not the former
From Open Innovation (Borrowing/Licensing Ideas from/to Others) to Open Busi-

ness Models
open inventing =
find and use ideas from other companies
present and license own company ideas to other firms
open business models (how you create value and how you capture some of that value as prof-
its) =
find and use business model ideas from other companies
present and license own business models ideas to other firms
invent, find, and use business models that are open to the two above functions
An Open Business Model Overview

markets for knowledge/ideas/inventions now made possible and efficient via information
technology (if you ignore the social life of information)
open source software as example of an open business model that creates value that firms can
capture a portion of
emerging secondary markets for inventions (intellectual property)
intellectual property does not work in markets fast enough that windows of opportunity
(niching on rapidly emerging other products) are soon and small
innovation intermediaries are emerging that help un-constipate patent libraries and other
stored forms of ideas and inventions
predatory and benign business models based on using intellectual property
The Sillicon Valley Analog

people, ideas, funds, technologies as flows among ventures, seeking homes--seeking places
where fit turns them into live, important, do-able propositions
the culture of the Valley--losing people, ideas, funds, technologies to other firms overall is
positive as more of them find homes when they try out various ventures as
possible environments
the culture of Route 128 and other failures--flows are theft, loss, evil, to be blocked and
blockaded, to be punished, deterred = stop the flows, prevent things finding
homes
the culture of “whatever it takes” competitiveness versus the culture of “we are all in this
together, we benefit by helping each other, letting repayment cone later on”
turn the entire US economy into a Valley filled with people, ideas, funds, and technologies
flowing among ventures, seeking homes
turn each company into a Valley filled with people, ideas, funds, and technologies flowing
among within firm ventures/projects, seeking homes
The Profits of Opening Innovation Processes and Business Models to Outside

Sources and Outside Buyers
consider more ideas
consider greater variety of ideas
consider many more pathways for unlocking the value in certain ideas
consider many more diverse and numerous synergies/packages of certain ideas with other
ideas
use the division of innovation labor into creating ideas and developing pathways that turn
ideas into value and developing unique resource/asset/position configurations
that create competitive advantage--to get the above benefits by outsourcing

any of the above three functions
example: instead of creating your own ideas get ideas from others; instead of developing an
idea yourself license someone better outside to leverage it into value; instead
of getting competitive advantage through your own unique configurations of
resources/assets/positions license to someone else’s unique configuration of
them
example: a cellphone company no longer making handsets but just chips and software for
others to use in manufacturing handsets; a biotech firm that licenses ideas
from outside and excels in bringing them to market; P&G’s connect and
develop program that licenses products others invented for P&G to deploy to
markets; a theatre show that a succession of different owners bought and
brought to market as a show
Why Companies Fail to Find Value in Ideas They Invent--if ideas have values
some other company finds, why do not the originators of the ideas find that
value?
different companies have different people, frameworks, histories, and views of present chal-
lenges--that means they have different viewpoints, interests, blinders, blind
spots
also companies have focus--a company is largely just the focus it achieves to get some one
thing done--so peripheral things should and are dropped in the normal course
of doing business
companies therefore: see little, just relevant stuff to their focus and can see little, restricted
by who they have become through history
most companies are one type of home for ideas that pass their way and therefore do not fit
the vast majority of ideas that come their way
ideas that require reconfiguring of mental histories, and reconfiguring of organizational
resources will be resisted, missed, devalued, slighted or otherwise avoided
The Just-in-TIme Firm Concept--firms as projects, unique temporary “one prod-

uct” configurations of resources
compete via keeping top resources = the old approach; compete by gathering just in time
configurations of resources project by project = the firm as just-in-time con-
figuration of unique resources
Requirements for Knowledge Markets

pricing ideas--requires entirely new information systems between firms not within firms
today people buy and sell companies, do spin offs and breakups to get at ideas--the market
for ideas is therefore inefficient today
75% of patents today go unused on some shelf
patents like this protect a technology for years and yet no one uses the patent so patent pro-
tection today, for most patents, guarantees that no one else can find and use
unused patents on the shelf
when only your own firm can develop its IP and only your own firm can deploy and use it,
then most of it goes unused--locked up by legally protected disuse
IP managers are not rewarded for financial value gotten from IP but rewarded to elimi-
nate\handle bothersome lawsuits, to minimize risk
IP can be given away, published to create standards or develop a global open community of
volunteer developers that make the platform valuable to others
we can easily see why people would want to sell fallow unused IP but why would anyone want
to buy it, especially when pricing it is so uncertain and using even spotting
value in it without the practices that gave rise to it is nearly impossible?
therefore--a link between the practices that invented the IP and how the IP is later managed
is needed and a link between that management of IP and the business models
of the firm is needed
Forces for Opening IP and Business Models

technologies have smaller and smaller windows when they have value
the cost of developing technologies is getting much much lower for ventures and much much
bigger for dumb slow big bureaucratic firms having little brains
shorter time for profiting from a technology and higher costs for big company development of
them are forcing big firms out of the invention business
big firms noticed Silicon Valley ventures invented ideas faster and cheaper and developed
them to market faster and cheaper than they did--they first tried to do ven-
tures themselves, it failed, then they tried to buy key ventures but that failed
(venturers hate big company norms and conforms), then they tried to out-
source to key ventures while keeping their own big slow innovation labs and
enterprises, this failed too, so then they tried outsourcing innovation entirely,
this may work
when R&D costs rise faster than sales growth, the current business model is unsustainable
Outsourcing “Being in Business” Itself

in truth, big firms are no longer competent at doing anything at all in business
they are too slow, too expensive, too distortive, to mediocre, to compromised, too commit-
tee-like, too conformist, too risk-averse, to do anything in any business
only in the US are there enough ventures to make this evident, painfully evident
so big firms are outsourcing all that they think and do to small firms, so that big firms in the
end become merely banks, funding relations with competent venture coali-
tions
eventually all realize the bank that the big firm is is unneeded when the ventures get rich
enough, so the venture coalitions dissolve the big firm and end its misery
GE was the exception, a big firm that bought and fixed smaller firms then sold them for a
profit, being a bank but taxed as a comglomerate’s lower rates, but GE did not
actually fix the businesses it bought, rather it cut off all futures in them and
used the funds for upping present financial performance till some buyer stu-
pid enough to be fooled by present performance could be found
we can see why big firms need ventures but it is harder to see why venture coalitions need
big firms with venture capital or retained earnings as alternatives
The Core of Chesbough’s Model

in a world of more and more abundant knowledge
as markets for buying ideas from others who sell them develop slowly
companies that link processes of inventing with processes of managing their IP with processes
of deploying IP to get value from applying it will win
BUT most ideas are tacit not explicit, and most ideas develop in a social surround of practices
that when stripped away make it hard to see value in the idea and hard to
apply it
getting enthusiasm for an idea whose practices around it you do not see or experience is very
very hard to spotting value in someone else’s ideas is nearly impossible
instead of getting value from an idea only by deploying it as a product in your existing big
markets, you license it, make spin offs with it, form joint ventures around it
and get several diverse streams of value from it not one stream only
evolve your company: from no IP, reactive IP, defensive IP, enabling IP, financial asset IP, to
strategic IP; from no innovation,
The Open Source Software Paradigm--business models that capture value from
free software developed by volunteer developers
sell installing, service, and support of free software
version the software with the entry version free and versions with add on proprietary code
costing money
integrate the software charging for particular links
complement the software with add on modules that are proprietary
empower new invented hardware products with the evolving free software so you want the
software to evolve and stay low in cost to add value to your hardware offer-
ings using it
sell customers costly integrated initial systems powered by free software that evolves, and
dump proprietary software add ones, regularly, to jump value for existing cus-
tomers
publish free versions of your development tools so outsiders invent improvements in value
for your platform that your customers can then buy and benefit from
pioneer new function areas (web services for example in software) by developing them with a
free software platform, so you dump proprietary tools regularly, adding value
to the community and expanding inventions by the community that add value
to all who use your platform based on open free software platform
Summary: create a free open commons platform that evolves and evolve business models as
the platform evolves
Become the “partner of choice” for inventors and creators in a certain market area--seek,
find, fund, scholarship, recruit, train, inspire, swap people to link to the
sources of the next new good ideas and ways
What we have all seen in innovation evolution in the last 30 years is deployment of Silicon
Valley dynamics outside the valley to larger scales of the global economy. This is not a tech-
nical or business model matter though professors like Chesbough talk about it that way. It is
extending the countering of blue suit big company American business culture, by Silicon Val-
ley firms, across the global economy. It is the expanding of a cultural war within business
between T-shirt culture and blue suit culture. Microsoft by dropping stock options and tak-
ing up blue suits has switched sides and is now officially an enemy of this cultural change. It
fell in love with its Windows monopoly and lost all desire to change the world.
Chesbough underestimates the power of the social life that information has, the tactic prac-
tices that make technical things work and be understood. He imagines abstract versions of
ideas, pulled away from supporting practices and tacit knowledge, that are priced in knowl-
edge markets. Ideas, without supporting practices, however, are hard to understand, find,
and value. It is hard to develop enough certainty about them to have the morale needed to
handle the hassle of understanding them against some particular practices and social config-
urations. Grounding dis-embedded abstracted ideas is hard to do and hard to do with
enough morale to handle the hard-ness of doing grounding work itself.
If workgroups, who develop ideas and tools and approaches, could be exchanged between
ventures and organizations, then the supportive tacit knowledge, morale, and practices that
ideas need in order to be “understood” could be easily and effectively exchanged as well. A
great deal of this goes on in Silicon Valley as ventures hire one person and ask him or her to
help them hire people with related skills--whole teams often end up transferring within a
few months. Chesbough does not recognize the role that these exchanges of people plays in
getting open systems across company bounds to work well.
&@*$/$ 0

'
$$)/A*"0$#
- 7 +.

. - 7

0
"*$ 05 /"""- 5

M M

&

& %
& %

9
A8>.

** &
! * &

$$)
/A#$ #"4
- 3 -
L

& &
&
& &
&
ID-J
E$5 0# 5/ 5" $-

"E I4$# $" 0"
-

& -7 C28AA-DA0
-
%
9
1 ;4 <
%
D

$$)/A$0$#
,/,,
+ -7
9 9456 :

04-#0 /$$ $ #$

D E5$
&
& &
? "-"$
*"0

0
0"0

MDA0
4A. %

4 *

%
0"$2 $
$*$$
+ %

%
2D6+. 0

K$ -" /#$- ) -"

3 9 5

L<
0

%
< ;

*
%<<

>C8-2
<MC36DDF

&A,8-A,+. A2.3-A,+.

9 & % 5-3-4A.D-
.
50. Jenkins’ Media Convergence Model Of

Innovation.
This is a theory about media, media technologies, media industries, popular cultures, life-
styles, thought-styles and how they all interact and influence each other. It finds coherence
and repeated patterns in the chaos of new media, new content, internet composing, fan
community building, new devices to which all sorts of content and interaction get delivered.
It makes some coherence and sense out of the difference between media--voice recording
for instance--and delivery vehicles for media--tape recorders, voice recorders, ubiquitously
mike-d facilities, free internet telephony.
This theory is marginal in a way that many innovation theories are gradually becoming mar-
ginal. That is because this theory is a theory of emergence--how new media, lifestyles,
communities, and technologies are emerging, without being planned or intended, from the
myriad interactions among existing media, lifestyles, groups, and technologies. As a theory
of emergence, most abstractly, this should be merely an instance of what is called “non-lin-
ear system dynamics”. Jenkins is trying for a theory one or two steps less abstract, that is,
closer to media phenomena. However, the result is Jenkins’ theory, like all theories of what
is, at root, non-linear dynamic systems emergence phenomena, makes things seem a bit
more sequential and purpose-driven than, in reality, they are. Where myriad actors, tech-
nologies, lifestyles, markets, media, content producers, content consumers interact over
decades of time, purposes, plans, intents, sequences of actions are a drop in the bucket--
swallowed immediately and overwhelmingly by the myriad consequences of each tiny inter-
action in the overall stew. We, nevertheless, push ourselves to go one step less abstract
than non-linear system dynamics explanations because they are so abstract that they offer
less guidance to practical human action than we wish. In pushing thusly we distort reality a
bit.
In the history of innovation theory, we make theories that make phenomena seem purpose-
ful, sequential, predictable, as if the phenomena are not generated by myriad actors inter-
acting non-linearly. We do that by isolating a system and neglecting lots of variables in
various environments known to affect it. We can get a useful practical theory this way but
one where we never know exactly when and where the theory will work/apply. Remember
the Long Term Capital Management bank in the US, founded by two Nobel Prize winners, that
went bust, nearly injuring the global economy--their theories worked well within certain
parameters/conditions but there theory did not tell them what those parameters/conditions
were, so they wrongly applied the theory when market conditions made it suicidal. All the-
ories that take phenomena, basically caused by non-linear system dynamics--myriad things
interacting non-linearly many of which can take different sorts of initiative--and make these
phenomena more predictable and plannable by moving one or two steps more towards con-
cretion, away from abstraction, are this way--we get highly useful theories that are danger-
ous because we do not know the conditions in which they are safe to use. Jenkins’ theory of
media convergence in such a theory--it gains usefulness by over-stating predictability and
intention and at the cost of us not knowing when and where the theory will work and will
fail.
Jenkins is a partisan--he wants a world less of mass media and more of consumer-generated
media. He, however, is not an extremist that is anti-mass-media. Rather, in the fight
between more democratic new internet and cellular media and old monopoly power central
power media, he hopes some nudges for more diversity, more composing by ordinary people,
and wider access to production and distribution of ideas throughout society will appear and
last. The tone, however, of this compromise position is somewhat disingenuous--you sense
he compromises with mass media only because he consults with them and gets attention,
speaking engagements, money, and access to technology through them. He states his theory
is about the relationship between media convergence, participatory culture, and collective
intelligence, but you sense that the latter two are things he wants to grow and maintain
strength in the face of powerful moneyed interests that want less of them or to totally con-
trol them using their financial power. The history of new media and technologies emerging
amid powerful entrenched monopolistic old ones, is the new emergence makes a chaotic
regime the old powers at first are shocked by and handle badly and ineptly, but eventually
they dominate along with a few new powers that rose during the chaos period. The end
result is a blend, heavily tilted toward the old monopoly powers, but not entirely the same
as their past form and influence.
What is Convergence?
example: an ordinary person on his personal computer combines the image of a Sesame
Street character with an image of Osama Bin Laden, posts it on YouTube
where supporters of terrorism in the middle East copy it, not realizing what
the Sesame Street character is and means, and print posters having the
images, which posters are shown on CNN worldwide and seen by the person
who combined the two images originally---this is an example of media conver-
gence, the blurring of boundaries between them
example two--doing homework--scan the web, load MP3 files, access a podcast, chat via email
with friends, wordprocess a paper--convergence consuming
content is delivered across multiple media, diverse consumer devices, competing media
economies, and national borders--driven by consumer organizations, pre-set
and ad hoc, and driven by corporation dynamics, pre-set and ad hoc = media
convergence
media convergence is both a social process--human participation--and a technical process--
devices enabling consumer composing and consumption anywhere anytime--
and an economic process--individuals and companies aligning themselves to
use converging media for their own profits and purposes
levels of convergence--within same appliances, within same franchise, within same company,
within the brain, within the same fandom
consumption has become a collective participatory process; production has become a collec-
tive participatory process; distribution has become a collective participatory
process;
collective intelligence, developed and deployed for entertainment purposes, as media con-
verge, will grow beyond entertainment into new forms of relating, living, and
working
the prophet of media convergence--Ithiel de Sola Pool’s Technologies of Freedom (1983)--
blurring between point to point and mass media, a single physical means used
to carry one kind of medium but now carries any kind of medium (wires,
cables, airwaves) and services delivered by one medium now delivered by any
device/medium = end of the one to one relationship that used to exist
between a medium and is use is eroding
digital technologies enable one coding to be transmitted by plural devices, physical media,
where analog coding meant transmission was fixed to one physical medium
two trends--digitization allowing the same content to flow through many different channels
and forms, and, media concentration of ownership allowing one management
team to direct deployment of content across plural media = technical and eco-
nomic enabling of media convergence happening simultaneously
[however, third trend, dissolution of combines and conglomerates in favor of just-in-time
assembled project movies, project games, project content, assembled then
dispersed from plural components]
the question of media convergence--how it is impacting the relationship between media audi-
ences, producers, and content? how entertainment spread across plural media
becomes work and living and relationship building across plural media?
media convergence is simultaneously a top down corporate-driven and bottom up consumer-
driven process
media convergence is enabling new forms of participation and collaboration
Definitions
convergence as paradigm shift = a move from medium-specific content toward content that
flows across multiple media channels, toward increased interdependence of
communications systems, toward multiple ways of accessing media content,
and toward ever more complex relations between top down corporate media
and bottom up participatory culture
a medium is a technical platform for composing, delivering, performing plus associated social
and cultural practices (like starting phone calls by saying “hello”)
a delivery technology delivers the medium, one medium can have plural delivery technolo-
gies
example: recorded sound as a medium, CDs, MP3 files, DVDs, digital recorders as the delivery
technologies
so media are cultural systems while delivery technologies are only technologies
media extension = expand markets by moving content across different delivery systems
media synergy = economic opportunities from media extensions
media franchise = coordinated effort to brand and market content under media extension and
synergy conditions
knowledge communities = consumers/fans self organizing on the net or across other media to
expand, influence, prolong, or otherwise influence existing media, content,
production functions
affective economics = creating and inviting consumers into “brand communities”, blurring
boundary between brand message and entertainment contents
trans-media storytelling = the Matrix like phenomena where all of a story does not appear on
any one medium but only across several media = consumers become hunter
gatherers
gate-openers = replacement of corporate and central gate-keepers of content, homogenizing
and bland-izing it, into local kinky diverse producers whose works spread as
gate-openers link communities across the net and across different media and
across devices
volunteer agents = gate-openers = people whose sites on the net or cell phone services bro-
ker content of certain topics to communities interested in those topics (par-
ticipatoryculture.org or oumedia.org)
Basic Principles
new media do not replace old media but shift the functions and status of old media
fallacy one--the digital revolution fallacy--digital media will not destroy old media but co-
exist and blend and amplify them and be used by them
fallacy two-- the black box fallacy--the idea that all content and media will go though a single
box into the home or office or on the road
divergence of devices, convergence of media--social context of email, for example, differs by
locale--home, on the road, office, morning, night, weekends
pull towards more specialized media appliances, one or more for each situated context of
media/info use
media convergence is a kludge not an integrated system
new technologies have lowered production and distribution costs and expanded the range of
delivery channels, enabled consumers to achieve, annotate, recirculate
media content;
Transitions
three trends--digitization allows content across nearly all media, company concentration
allows one team to manage content across plural media, company dissolution
turns conglomerates into just-in-time assemblages of expert component small
firms--the project replaces the company
from passive consumers to active consumers;
the greatest defection from mass media and broadcasting is among the commercially impor-
tant young male 18 to 27 year old demographic
from predictable consumers to migratory disloyal ones
from isolated consumers to socially connected ones
from silent/invisible consumers to noisy/public ones
from mass media content dumbed down for large sales to everyone to individualized custom-
ized content by long tail media to networked community consumption by co-
composing consumer communities
The Top Down Process of Media Convergence BBC version

not TV channels but many streams of content
mix broadcaster content with viewer compositions emendations and comments
audience organize and reorganize content, not central corporate scheduling
audiences add comments, vote on content, edit content, compose composite contents of
their own
audiences creating streams of video themselves without broadcaster help
The Bottom Up Process of Media Convergence Current TV version

at first the plan was to pay many independent filmmakers to become roaming correspondents
but that was too top down
amateurs submit material, vote on the best, and professionals pay for and spruce up “win-
ners” selected
a new actor on the scene--the global net enabled global volunteer force of a knowledge com-
munity to act when certain topics and messages appear globally on their net
spaces (Warren Ellis’ comic book Global Frequency) = adhocracies (Toffler)
and smart mobs (Rheingold)
De-Mass-ification of Production and Consumption

producers instead of an expensive pilot of 5 episodes for a new TV series can release partial
provisional pre-pilots, that consume less money and time and get early
responses to that
instead of needing to lose money till enough episodes for a syndication package are accumu-
lated, early episodes can be sold directly to consumers as DVDs, recovering
money earlier
the most profit goes to the firm that generates the most diverse content (long tail customers)
for low costs
the subscription model--viewers commit to pay a subscription monthly fee to buy one season
of episodes based on viewing a pilot episode, producers when they sell
enough such subscriptions to cover production costs; early subcribers get
package price, later ones pay per view, to cover the next phase of production,
others buy individual episodes on DVD or by downloads
the long tail phenomenon appears in the form of fanatic fans of a show that provoke a pro-
ducer to produce it using lowest cost direct download distribution = the com-
bination of nearly no distribution cost and ability to find a big enough
audience across the global net at low cost, makes more and more diverse pro-
grams sellable and profitable
the power of grassroots media is it diversifies at a cost of offense or quality; the power of
mass broadcast media is it at a cost of heavy editing into blandness
Needed Enabling Transitions

norms to make participation humane and safe in knowledge communities on the net
expanded legal meaning of “fair use” by consumers so re-producing re-composing is both pro-
tected standing by itself and unprotected when collaged with other media
content into unique compositions by consumers/professional-producers
avoid panic attacks and paranoia as each new media unfounds existing media, norms, and
practices = avoiding over reaction and fear based reaction before things are
understood
intent to keep the democratizing diversifying and participation enabling aspects of new
media and devices.
This media-specific theory is a great deal more general than it realizes. It is a simplification
of what is at root general non-linear system dynamics, a simplification that attempts to
make a less abstract and more useful theory, but at the cost of making the situatedness of
the theory vague. Consider all theories of populations of many diverse things interacting
non-linearly, all theories of them that are more concrete and specific than general non-lin-
ear system dynamics. These theories make things appear more designed, intended,
planned, and predicted than they actually were. That makes the theories more useful as
guides to when and where and how to act. But there is a cost to doing that. The theory
becomes situated. That means, in some conditions it works and in other conditions it does
not work, due to the ways it simplifies away the root phenomena in general non-linear sys-
tems dynamics. But those conditions are not part of the theories themselves, so the theo-
ries work but do not know and cannot tell us all when and where they will work and when
and where they will not. Remember the Long Term Capital Management bank some years
ago, created by two Nobel laureates in economics, that went bust, nearly harming the global
economy till the US Federal Reserve Bank bailed it out. That bank was based on just this sort
of theory, that was one or two steps more concrete than general non-linear dynamics. That
bank’s theory did not include when its theory would work and when it would not, so the
Nobel laureates managing it continued following their theory when it no longer applied--but
they did not know that--destroying the bank. Jenkins’ theory is a typical one for achieving
this cost, for the sake of being a bit more useful than general non-linear system dynamics
theory.
Jenkins presents what is really a theory of how the old co-exists with the new, when new
means change how customers, producers, and distributers inter-relate. Jenkins’ theory says
that the new does not replace the old. There is a mix of top down forces meeting bottom up
forces. There is a time-delimited no man’s land where shock and awe confuse and stymie
established old powers and institutions and during that time new forces and institutions
emerge. At the end of that no man’s land time period, things are changed--the old powers
have invades and tried their best to assimilate the new to their old ways and bases for profit,
but they have powerful new institutions, growing rapidly, to contend with that block much of
such attempts. The fight between old established institutions (and their ways) and new
emerged institutions (and their ways) goes of for decades and even centuries. Both the old
institutions and the new ones compromise and diverge during these long periods of competi-
tion and contention. Even when some one “side” “wins” a big battle in all this contention,
it absorbs whatever it vanquished, and some time later, the vanquished entity’s ways magi-
cally appear as a component or approach of the victor side. Even victory does not obliter-
ate the vanquished, it usually just changes the context in which it works and gets funded.
Though Jenkins presents this as a theory of media convergence--that is his name for it--it is
really a typical theory of how the old and new, of any sort, learn to get along with each
other when the new grows rapidly enough and powerfully enough to reach powerful institu-
tional form during brief no man’s land periods of general industry disorientation. The
unique point in this Jenkins theory is the addition of the transition from analog communica-
tion to digital. The digital revolution meant a uniform code could be send and handled by
myriad physical technologies and infrastructures. That meant that with the information in
the code, the information becomes deliverable by all media and means, not specific ones.
The generalization of content across all devices and channels and media, that digitalization
achieves, gives the specifics of Jenkins’ theory. All in Jenkins’ theory other than this, is
merely a theory of how the old and the new learn to co-exist.
K.
@ 0$)"#$$$)$'
0
0#G$ $)"#$

$$

/ %
;L
< "$-
%

0

999
%

9
99

1

$
0

0-"
-- /A$#*
! %9 999

0

% )$"

19 * "2,D-.-999 %
H998 :
;4

4
%<
#

$
**

-- --
$4

0#$/0

$$"

9

$-
19 *
H998 :

'
999
0

%
8&M%

M/ $
*"+ $--?
*"0"
< DA3G 86CD .MM.+8999
-" 5/

1
IJ*

:
E "

* %
1 9

< .DC4C368. +A-8 AM
%
C-8C5,8C3G

<+A-8AM.4A+6+F

1% +A-8 AM
4$5? 46--3.--
4 0?

'

&
&

.
.
'2.

! &
.
-#4J

!
?$!

!
F'/!
+H

''&
&&

!
'
! ,
51. Matheson and Matheson’s Managing R&D

Innovation includes good old research and development, labs, and all that. Managing
research and development and the labs it takes place in is a major type and part of innova-
tion. Any set of theories of innovation, therefore, if it is complete, must include a theory of
how research and development gets managed. We all know the stereotype of managers
pushing researchers to “get practical” and researchers subverting managers by hiding, dis-
guising, and otherwise continuing knowledge investigations with no immediate paybacks.
We all know how smart top managers are and how smart top researchers are, and therefore,
we all know that the game, between them, of practical application pushing back against
blue sky inquiry and blue sky inquiry pushing back against practical application irritates and
wastes the time of both sides. This “game” is the biggest problem and danger to innovation
via traditional research and development organizations. The more time, attention, care,
worry, imagination, behavior, thought gets filled by this game, the less there is for investiga-
tion, invention, and conceptual revolution and revolution in practices. The game invades
and takes the place of innovation and innovation invades and takes the place of the game.
This is so much the case that the best researchers, nearly always, flee traditional research
and development organizations for other kinds of institutions, ventures, and self funded labs
where they can spend no time playing the game and hence spend all their time inventing,
investigating, and revolutionizing the world.
Research and development is either creativity pure and simple, sheer invention or it is some
bastardized crippled stunted distorted mis-shapen shard of that--compromised into triviality
by a manager push to “be practical”. What makes this tragic and comic at the same time is
the attempt to get people, hired because great at blue sky investigation and visioning, to
“get practical” or the converse, the attempt to get people steeped in practicalities to invent
the utterly new and un-imagined. People good at the one are generally terrible at the
other. Yet we all know, and most of us, with any years of experience on us, have personally
witnessed promises and visions made to people during hiring that are completely at odds
with all subsequent messages and environments that new hire person will experience in a
firm’s research organization. Organizations for some suicidal reason like to hire people
great at blue sky revolutionizing and then ask them to do, instead, petty immediate tweaks
of the already old and boring. There is cognitive and emotive erosion going on in most
research organizations that grind the size and scale of vision, imagination, investigation, and
invention steadily down till absolute triviality of “innovation” is achieved. Top executives
are most comfortable with trivial levels of change because they are easy to understand and
do not require reconfiguring contents of minds and process structures of organizations.
They “fit” better than revolutions in thought do.
What amazes me, and few others, about research and development and all that it does and
invents, is it is seldom discussed, founded on, or considered with respect to what is known
about creativity and creativity dynamics. Indeed, individual researchers are usually amaz-
ingly ignorant about creativity and creation dynamics. I have often wondered how anyone
can competently “manage” an R&D operation with little or no knowledge of creativity and
indeed with images of “management” anathema to creators and creation processes them-
selves. I have often wondered how anyone can competently invent and create with next to
no knowledge about how others have done it and how the best in particular relevant fields
do it. Everyone is so personally proud of their own “unique” personal approach to it, or to
managing it, that they never bother to gather good data about creativity, creation processes,
and in general how the best amounts and types of creation get done. Indeed entire books
on R&D and the management of R&D have dealt primarily with “handling uncertainty” and
“making good decisions about uncertain future possible outcomes”. It is clear if you read
the average book on R&D management that “looking professional” and “looking like you
know what you are doing” and “easily quantifying the impossible” are all styles that you
must have and master--appearance over substance. Managing R&D is a matter of making
people feel like uncertainty is at bay, is “managed” regardless of whether it is. If all feel
relaxed that uncertainty of coming up with and handling the utterly new is tamed, caged,
made manage-able, then all are happy. Reality never enters into this picture. “Managing
R&D” if we are to believe most of the books written about it, is a matter of making people
feel that uncertainty is smaller, less, less important, less relevant, less dangerous than it is.
It is a kind of psychological counseling, not a way of managing creation processes. The eas-
iest way to confirm this view is to ask any researcher or research organization manager what
the particular creation processes are that he or she uses, comes in contact with, and has
developed expertise with. The answer is generally quite vague when not none. Both indi-
vidual researchers and their individual managers are managing all sorts of things other than
creation processes. They have all sorts of models of processes but no models of creation
processes. You can confirm this when you find that they have one creation process model--
as if everyone in their lab and the world invents the same way.
A concrete example will help readers imagine and deal with this important point. Research,
quite solid replicated research, has found that creative people are far more productive than
non-creators, and that they never improve their ability to know whether what they produce
is creative or not, even after decades of creating, and that creators need lots and lots of
failures and errors to accumulate patterns among them that, when inverted, specify what an
eventual solution must be like--a so-called “failure index”. These are three well estab-
lished, replicated, findings from research on creating in dozens of diverse fields, in dozens of
societies, in dozens of different eras. They imply some things about how an individual
researcher or individual manager has to “manage” research in order to be effective.
1) researchers who invent more things and more diverse things, will end up generating the most overall creativity and the most creative
individual things
2) researchers who invent the most failed inventions and the most diverse failed inventions, will end up generating the most overall
number of inventions and the single most inventive inventions
3) researchers who try to create large single creative things will usually never succeed.
4) SUMMARY: creating is a numbers game--individual researchers and managers should manage it as a number game--getting maxi-
mum numbers of things created and of failures along the way.
These are three of hundreds of findings from research on creating, that all have direct rele-
vance for how individual researchers and managers handle and get creativity (invention,
innovation, discovery, design). To read book after book on “managing research” without
nary a mention of any of these findings from research on creativity, makes one think that
both researchers in industry and their managers are, well, cognitively and motivationally
stunted. Indeed, the tiny amounts of novelty in the things that industry regularly calls “cre-
ative” indicates a very low existing standard of what constitutes, research, invention, inno-
vation, discovery, design, and creation there.
Furthermore, even a glancing exposure to current literature, persons, and organizations

doing research in industry, reveals that a common culture of research dominates them all--
the publications, the persons, and the organizations. Research is “supposed” to feel like,
look like, a rather standard ordinary culture that nearly anyone and all organizations can
easily set up. This general standard uniform ubiquitous culture of research includes bean
bag chairs, lounges, whiteboards, expensive work coordination devices and rooms, cross-dis-
cipline brainstorm sessions, and the like. Looking like a researcher and looking like you are
managing research are easy to do due to a standard culture to industry research. It is
rather, suspicious, one could say, “uncreative”, that nearly all industry research organiza-
tions share a more or less standard look and feel, that is, culture. What highlights this best
is its rare exceptions--the German “meisters” who are totally uncreative in style yet, due to
absolute mastery of all aspects of their chosen narrow domain, manage to invent amazing
things from time to time, almost without wanting or intending to do so, the American immi-
grant “nut” who pursues the same goal through a dozen labs, jobs, companies, till, after
decades, at 50 or 60 years old, he finally succeeds, and creates revolutionary change world
wide. These outlier cases, these strange ones do not fit our images of the standard culture
of research. Usually this is non-creative cultures of researching viewing the cultures of cre-
ating.
Edison set up what is sometimes called the first R&D lab at GE Schenectady, New York. Edi-
son was a cross between a thinker and a snake oil salesman. He did little of the hands on
inventing in the middle and later years of his lab--leaving that to people more cerebral and
imaginative. He concentrated on what he did best--sell ridiculous ideas, get funding for
them, install pilot applications of them, and attract mass media attention to his pilots.
Research thrived in his lab because of the greatness of Edison in these non-research roles.
He surrounded his visionaries, thinkers, and tinkerers with all sorts of equipment, funds,
pilots, and media support. He ran and installed an environment around their conceptual
work. Because he “sold” most of his inventions to funders beyond his own company, Gen-
eral Electric, and because his company was tiny and growing rapidly, often by adding new
units, businesses, and persons, he was not selling to the same old faces in the same old
bureaucracy--the situation of modern R&D persons. People constantly refer to Edison as a
model for large corporate research labs without considering these differences.
The big reality in research and development in the past 50 years is the people who leave big
company labs, because their ideas get evaluated as not adding “the most value” the “most
quickly”, and create ventures that revolutionize entire economies. Nearly all the really big
inventions come from ideas thwarted in big company labs. Just as the really big university
idea inventions usually come from third rank universities, not first rank and second rank ones
(publish or perish in nature), the really revolutionary inventions come from big company lab
exiles and refugees. They land in or invent ventures to do what was thwarted in big com-
pany environments and measurement regimes. Outsourcing innovation is a way for big com-
pany labs to admit that they thwart all revolutionary inventions by “managing” them away in
favor of smaller, more immediate, innovations that fit current arrangements well. All sorts
of books set up measurement and evaluation regimes guaranteed to increase and accelerate
this flight of the best ideas out of well “managed” labs. A more phyrric victory cannot be
imagined! Well managed creativity is not at all creative, in the general case.
The prevalence of research outsourcing in recent decades, and its continued growth, is clear
evidence that traditional regimes of “managing” research do not work---they are guaranteed
to drive all the biggest and best ideas out into un-related ventures. It is the nature of cre-
ativity and innovation that failure is usual, but its cost is small, and success is rare, but its
payback is huge, dwarfing the costs of failing. Because of this, companies can play a
research numbers game--funding huge numbers of inventions and creations and testing the
majority for implementability and payback possibility. No one can predict which will end up
creative.
But a huge problem is any one organization is a good home for few specific idea types--the
vast majority of creative ideas will go unspotted, unsupported, and unused by any one team,
organization, or industry. Especially ideas so radically new they fit not existing organization
contexts or practices will find themselves homeless. Only flows of ideas, persons, technolo-
gies, and funds across many ventures allow all or many to find good homes eventually.
There is not enough diversity of power, authority, viewpoint, kind of person, configuration of
work process in any one organization however large, to allow most creative ideas found in it
to find homes there. Research organizations in large companies generate mostly homeless
ideas, orphaned and abandoned. We are back with Chesbough’s theory in making this obser-
vation.
SQUEEZING THE NOVELTY (UNCERTAINTY) OUT OF INNOVATION--MANAGING R&D
HOW TO TURN CREATIVITY INTO MERE IMPROVEMENT--RESEARCH MANAGEMENT

the game between management pushing practicality and researchers pushing
blue sky ideas as distraction from invention
bate and switch--hire people for blue sky invention then beat them into petty
this year increments of improvement
making people feel that uncertainty is tamed is more essential and possible than
actually taming it
managing things other than creation processes as managing research
INVENTION AS A NUMBERS GAME--AN EXAMPLE OF CREATIVITY DYNAMICS IN

RESEARCH
research as a pure numbers game--more creations attempted, more creations
failed, equals more creativity actually achieved
ENVIRONMENTS FOR DOING RESEARCH

the common homogeneous culture of research found worldwide hinders cre-
ation
selling ideas, getting funding, installing pilot applications, attracting media
attention as the environment that pulls creativity out of researchers
BIG COMPANY “MANAGED” RESEARCH IS COMPLETELY DEAD

big companies spawn frustrated creators who flee and invent paradigm shifting
innovations in small ventures
big companies outsource inventing by linking to, buying, spinning off ventures as
proof that big company “managed” research fails
management inevitably turns invention into mere improvement, missing all rev-
olutionary inventions that require new practices/thinking
OPHANAGES FOR IDEAS

no one organization can be a home for most of the ideas it invents, only flows of
ideas across many ventures allow ideas to find homes.
Above is a summary of the context of R&D presented in this section. It puts R&D manage-
ment in the context of what some of the other theories of innovation in this chapter say
about inventing. It puts some context around R&D management from what research has
learned about creativity. It is not a pretty picture. Management adds constraints and some
people have praised the addition of constraints as helping creativity. However, it is con-
straints from some situation in the real world, some problem in the world that spur creativ-
ity not constraints from ill-tempered ignorant bosses seeking to enrich themselves at the
expense of the firms they work for. Bureaucracies trying to budget, schedule, make normal
and controllable invention, creation, innovation, discovery, can squeeze all the novelty out
of them, thereby getting reductions in uncertainty they want. But the result is anything but
creative. Big company “management” of creativity simply does not work. 3M, the hero
firm, the top of the heap in R&D management according to Matheson and Matheson’s
research, as studied in great longitudinal detail by Van de Ven at the University of Minnesota,
was found filled with disguise, hiding, subterfuge, repackaging, skunkworks, and other ways
to hide creation from bosses and management systems. Even the best reputed R&D labs
have to hide their best efforts for years from their own managements. Big company “man-
agement” of creativity is a joke--it does not work, they are opposite cultures and enemy cul-
tures. P&G, another of Matheson and Matheson’s hero R&D companies, if it had pioneered
revolutions in soap, in cleaning, in eating, in daily life self care, would perhaps impress us
with its innovativity. Instead it is P&G’s early use of new techniques and systems, in large
part driven by employees wanting a lucrative after-retirement job, the prep for which is
paid for by P&G experiments while they work there, that impresses us about P&G, not any
revolutions they have produced in products or lifestyles of consumers. P&G does not
impress us with its research, but with its management systems instead. Big company man-
agement of research does not work.
Quantify Research Value

quantify value of project success
quantify probability of success
quantify cost of trying the idea out
combine into net present value--most research projects have low costs and huge possible
paybacks but small chances of success = research is a sheer numbers game
do a lot = win a lot
Research is Choice--the dimensions of making quality decision

appropriate frameworks
creative doable alternatives for every choice made
meaningful reliable information]
clear values and trade-offs
logically correct reasoning (probabilistic reasoning heuristic errors corrected)
commitment to action
Handling of Uncertainty--principles of implementing quality decision

value maximization culture
continual learning
creating alternatives
disciplined decision making
alignment and initiative
embrace uncertainty
systems thinking
strategic perspective
Handling Technology Strategically--layers of abstraction

strategy for specific R&D projects
strategy for your portfolio of R&D projects--what set of projects is best, what trend areas
need representing in project form,
strategy for linking R&D to business needs--position technology for impact/use, choose inter-
nal research versus outsourced research, shape the R&D organization
strategy for positioning the entire corporation and its major allies, industry, and parts
The Research Project Choice Process--a dialog between committees, perspec-

tives, risks and opportunities
make initial frame and charter
assess business situation
refine focus--issues, challenges, knowledge gaps
develop alternatives, information and values
agree to a set of alternatives--selected alternatives, specific information
evaluate risk and return of strategies---decide among alternative strategies
plan for changeapprove change management agenda--transition agenda, projects, plans, bud-
gets
implement the chosen strategy
change management reviews--status reports, change complete, operational guidance
Research Alternative Elaboration--guessing the future

alternative name
relation to emerging or dying and established and being now developed platforms
feature introduction schedule
ability to develop each feature in the schedule
collateral cooperating products and features and needed modifications in them
rising markets/products to ride to piggy back upon
organizational alliances and cooperations needed
operational weaknesses and innovations needed
Research Project Portfolio analysis

high probability of success and high payback = pearl
high probability of success and low payback = bread and butter
low probability of success and high payback = oyster
low probability of success and low payback = turkey
A perusal of the above theory of best practice R&D management inevitably reveals the
vapidity of contemporary management science and business leadership. The above items
are less than breathtaking. Only someone steeped in years, in decades, of male backpat-
ting, and self promoting congratulation could offer up such common sense dicta as “best
practices” of any sort. Bread and butter R&D is high probability of success projects with low
payback chances--that is all we need to know. The above approach, the big company
approach, turns invention into improvement, discovery into noticing, revolution into revul-
sion. It typifies the pettiness of person and purpose in contemporary business. If the above
is “best practice” then god help all big firms--they are deader than any of us realize.
2 @ $#$#"20'

0$
--
/ EA 0 0
4 0/A $)$$ *A
** $ -" ?
3 .
@
999 *") $
*""

.C-A3@-+A38C5,8CA3-L

<-36K.ACD-6D.--KCDD-

< 46->6D 2,5DC+

C3M6-8,+8,.
@
19 * C37.-84.38

H998 : <46--4.C6G.3C,-
<6886+8M,3.-
5CG>8G,F-
/254 /#-" $)$$ *4$#

# ? KE -"0?
> % <

8H40$#0
..!.% DA8-
G

%

@*
BH)$"$#!'
&

!' <

&%

$)$$$ /"
# ?
<4 *
<4 *
<4 *
45/#-" "20E 0

< :
<

%
<
<

!< %

"<

#<

$<

'<

(< 1
/%

(
< %%

4 0 00
52. Greene, Blackwell, and Oxford’s Knowl-

edge Management Model Of Innovation.
David Klein, a Harvard Professor and IBM Knowledge Management leader, edited a book on
knowledge management published in 1998, every single idea in which is completely wrong.
There is hardly any statement in any of its articles that has stood the test of the elapse of
about ten years of time. Professors, especially business school and economics professors,
have to handle, talk and write about technologies and companies driven by technologies
without knowing anything deep about any technology and without personal capability and
experience with any technology. The result is the dumbest articles and research imagin-
able, research so poor and off base that only mentally stunted people--namely, executives in
many businesses--could be impressed by it or show interest in it. These statements are not
exaggerations--if you think that they are, you are living in some serious illusion of one sort of
another, hiding from reality perhaps in order to maintain personal pride in a life you chose to
dedicate merely to getting money, for example. If you really do doubt my statements here,
get the book yourself and read its articles, and see if you do not end up laughing at the
immensity of the errors that fill each line of the book. Since some of the articles were
reprints of articles first appearing in the Harvard Business Review they cast aspersions on the
august repute of that publication. Once upon a time, many years ago, I met David Nadler,
and various of his subordinate consultants at Delta Consulting, perhaps the single leading
organization design consulting firm. I found, that, at that time, their salaries, in Manhat-
tan, plateaued out at about $90,000 per consultant, a fraction of my salary at the time. If
the best organization consultants plateaued out at such low salary levels, I concluded then,
the field of organization design consulting was just not worth wasting my time in. I lost all
interest in the field at that time for that reason. Knowledge management, as a field, was
invented by artificial intelligence software people, who, in the 1980s, went around the
world building expert systems, that is software applications that did design and decision
work using rules obtained from inside the minds of leading experts and designers. The soft-
ware was never able to do the most creative things that the people did, but the work of
building these software expert systems involved seeing, every 15 seconds, what was on the
mind of a leading expert while he handled various types of cases--frequent ones, rare ones,
easy ones, hard ones, and others. In the process of doing this work, managers and artificial
intelligence programmers realized that knowledge was both more concentrated than it
should be and more distributed than it should be in organizations. Some knowledge was
valuable and obtained daily but by so many people and separate teams that it was never
assembled into large enough bunches to become action-able. Other knowledge was so con-
centrated, secret, or important for personal career building, that executives and managers
refused to distribute it to anyone at all, though hundreds could have applied it to help their
company. Knowledge was both excessively concentrated and excessively distributed.
Knowledge management, as a field, arose from all sorts of other consultants, seeing this arti-
ficial intelligence work and spotting concentrated knowledge and distributed knowledge that
could be fixed by techniques other than building software systems. Knowledge manage-
ment, in short, originated as how to do artificial intelligence software work without using
software, one could say.
The second major impetus for the creation of knowledge management as a field was the
early studies of Silicon Valley and the gradual recognition that Silicon Valley beat MIT’s Route
128 by having a culture of open-ness and trust that was diametrically opposite of blue suit,
East coast, US business values and practices. In effect, a culture of trust and openness
defeated a culture of hierarchy and secrecy--T-shirts defeated blue suits. When the tech-
nology market bust appeared in the mid-1990s, you could read and hear a huge sigh of relief
from the East coast of the US, as blue suits had a hope that their monkey hierarchy and
hoarding info for career building ways were proved right. The subsequent re-acceleration
of Silicon Valley via new waves of internet businesses, threw cold water on these East coast
hopes. The initial and final victories of Silicon Valley over Route 128 demonstrated the
power of trust and open-ness to do millions of things that talented smart East coast people
could not manage to do themselves with hierarchy and knowledge hoarding. This gradually
made people aware that hoarding people, technology, ideas, and initiatives merely insured
that they all never found homes where they were central enough and salient enough to get
enough attention and resourcing to become powerful actualities. The East coast culture of
business had perfected a constipated way of doing business that turned ideas into libraries,
not deeds. So it was not knowledge management, in general, that people wanted--though
the first books on it and even later books like Klein’s, tried to portray better ways for big
companies to kill ideas more effectively by storing theme away more effectively--but a Sili-
con Valley style of openness and flow of knowledge, so ideas found homes rather than sitting
of shelves unused.
Indeed, knowledge management books are a great way for seeing the culture war under-
neath the business methods waves of the past few years. Most knowledge management
books are filled with contradictions--how to make elephants dance--but they never show
how that happens, instead, they make pitiful arguments that it can happen without any valid
data showing that is has. The professors keep forcing cases into their pre-ordained theory
categories, then, a page or two later, putting the same case phenomena under an opposite
category, without realizing that they are contradicting themselves. Cheesbrough and
Teece’s article in Klein’s book is a prime example. The distinguish autonomous technologies
from system technologies and say ventures do autonomous ones well while we “need” big
firms do to system ones. Well, everyone else in the world was noticing how ventures formed
effective and fast alliances that did ecosystems of inter-related technologies that people
bought because of those inter-connections--sounds like “systems technology” to me!
Cheesbrough and Teece got it wrong in that article--nearly everything they write there is
laughable from the viewpoint of 2007. Then open software alliances ended up “turning” the
big firms, like IBM, so that IBM released proprietary software into free public domain use,
and Lotus Symphony was made available for free. The professors are always late and
wrong. They have to pretend to understand technologies without ever having done or
designed or managed one. They talk through their hats, all the time, and get tenure for it.
Therefore, I was unable to find a single book by any professor in the world that was not abso-
lutely filled with junk ideas on knowledge and knowledge management. The lack of work
experience, the lack of technology experience, and the lack of personal ability to innovate
(while writing books about it) condemn nearly all professorial writings on knowledge man-
agement to the comedy section of good bookstores. Below I present those few pieces from
a couple of large compendia on knowledge management that are safe and not laughable plus
a lot of my own ideas from experience being an engineer, doing invention work in real firms,
managing others doing that in five global corporations, two of them in Japan, and, as con-
sultant, helping a dozen of Europe’s and America’s best firms adapt to Japanese competi-
tion, then the in internet, then the Silicon Valley-ization of entire economies.
In reality nearly all “knowledge management” systems and work are sales made by computer
companies to non-computer companies. Japanese firms prefer social doing of changes in
handling knowledge; US firms prefer technology systems for doing that. Hardly any firms
anywhere do both--social and technical joint systems for handling knowledge differently. A
lot of these results and the behaviors that determine them come from gender cultures that
dominate and generate business cultures. Males dominate business cultures nearly every-
where but in East Asia, lack of exposure to fathers, due to selfish organizations that steal all
the time from their employees, causes males to be somewhat feminine there. As a result,
East Asian economies attempt to achieve more changes in handling of knowledge by social
and therefore emotionally demanding means than Western firms attempt.
The Greene model of strategic knowledge management given below presents the individual
person as a primary knowledge interface--all else that is said and done about handling
knowledge has to deal with the limits and potentials of how individual humans actually han-
dle and can handle knowledge. It then presents polarities that knowledge has to flow
across. Any particular type of knowledge in a particular organization is measurably found
emphasizing one or the other of these various poles. That, by itself, is enough often to sug-
gest corrective, as rebalancing, actions. A culture of handling knowledge is then presented
as very ambitious criteria of how capable each and every part of an organization is at think-
ing. If particular persons and roles in an organization are not very capable at thought, it is
going to be very hard to get knowledge that is worth much handled well, no matter what
programs and projects are ballyhooed and installed. The shadow side of contemporary
knowledge management is presented below as a list of aspects omitted entirely by most
firms prominently doing “knowledge management systems” today. Finally, the management
of any X cannot be well done without great models of what X, exactly, is. Strangely most
knowledge management programs are casual to sloppy about just exactly what knowledge is
and how it appears and is operated on in its various ways of appearing. So the model below
presents 64 operations on knowledge then four forms that knowledge has--aggregation,
explicitness, consciousness, and formats. Nonaka, for example, discusses systems for com-
piling knowledge from tacit to explicit, from explicit to tacit, from individual to group, from
group to individual, thereby omitting compiling knowledge from 60 other such polarities pre-
sented in the model below. In other words, Nonaka and his group omit the vast majority of
knowledge compilation work that actual goes on and is there to be managed and improved.
Most other published studies of knowledge management are similarly sloppy and partial.
Basically, you have operands (some ideas or feelings in some formats) to be modified in some
way by particular operations applied to them (ways organizations learn). Concentrated
knowledge that is distributed to where it can be applied usefully, and dispersed knowledge
that become action-able when gathered and concentrated are two poles of making knowl-
edge useful, out of a total, below, of 64 such poles.
The Person as a Knowledge Interface

EXPLORE EXPLOIT TRADEOFF the person manages limited effort and time, investing them in
either exploiting ideas or exploring for ideas, sometime emphasizing one over
the other
ACCESS SYSTEMS ONLY TAP PEOPLE IN THEIR EXPLORE MODE that means that even if a system
makes all relevant and interesting ideas about a topic somehow “available”
most employees will not be in exploration mode and will not access and see
that
GENERALITY COSTS USE AND VICE VERSA the dis-embedding of an idea from the practices
around its origin and use, that make is formal, communicatable on media, and
broadcastable, make it hard to spot value in, fit into local needs and situa-
tions, and develop morale and motivation for
HOARD INCENTIVES DWARF SHARE INCENTIVES outsourcing is such a threat to all employees
and middle managers in Western firms (but not most Asian firms) that “incen-
tives” to commit career suicide by “giving” openly one’s own knowledge to
others in the firm are laughably too small--the basis for employ is lost for the
sake of a few “promotions” or “bonuses”, it is a joke
APPEAR VERSUS ACTUALIZE INCENTIVES the incentives to appear something instead of really
doing it, to launch something rather than finish something, to get visibility by
something rather than final impact with that something are huge in the cul-
ture of Western business and cause continual exaggeration of creativity,
knowledge use, and knowledge development obtained
MALES VERTICALIZING KNOWLEDGE USE modern organizations are so much dominated by
males and their hormone filled “swinging glands” styles of talk and managing
that vertical ass-kissing career forces continually distort knowledge processes
and uses in support of personal career building projects and away from cus-
tomer impact projects
TECHNOLOGIES ERADICATING ISOLATION HENCE CREATIVITY huge entire industries exist to sell
technologies--and those technologies offer only better connection, but more
connection temporarily boosts knowledge formation (creation) at a cost of
long term creativity decline due to too much connectedness shutting down
surprise, amazement, isolation, and creation
PERSONAL PERFORMANCE VERSUS GROUP PERFORMANCE incentives rewarding personal per-
formance--at the core of US and Western management traditions--guarantee
that knowledge will be hoarded if found and not shared with peers--incentives
to the contrary have to fight the accumulated mountain of decades of incen-
tives that work oppositely
MALE CULTURES MISS EMOTIONALITY OF IDEA USE the emotional buoyancy, gentleness, and
emptiness of mind conditions, among people, that allow systems to be emo-
tionally transparent to customer needs and technical capability improvement
potentials are things males deny, diminish, and flee from (they are un-male
things) so male dominated organizations miss the emotional links between for-
mal knowledge and getting real people to apply that, turning it from declara-
tive to procedural knowledge
SOCIAL VERSUS TECHNICAL IMPLEMENTATION whether to achieve some change in knowledge
handling and generation by social means or technical means or both
Knowledge Flows and Constipations

TACIT EXPLICIT the tacit explicit border--compile procedures into formal idea formats by pro-
tocol analysis, compile formal ideas into procedures via repetitive reflective
practice
INDIVIDUAL GROUP the individual group border--compile individual ideas into group traditions
by establishing cultural practices and rites, compile group idea traditions into
individual learning via in-use explanations by skilled practitioners
KNOWLEDGE FORMATS the knowledge formats border--22 distinct formats that knowledge
appears in--the primary reason different professions and disciplines of knowl-
edge cannot learn well or quickly from each other is the same ideas get for-
matted differently in each profession/discipline--compile knowledge from one
format to another and back
CASE THEORY the case theory border--compiling via abstracting case specifics into universally
apply-able rules, compiling via grounding theory constructs in case details,
theory relations between constructs into particular within case practices
ISOLATION CONNECTION the isolation connection border--knowledge generation requires
great skill at isolating from a group and from customers needs to invent what
all that has not imagined or allowed yet, yet it also requires the complete
opposite, great skill at influencing and selling others on one’s own ideas, that
is, connecting ideas to various others and the supports they provide for actu-
alizing the ideas
FLOW CONTENTS the ideas, persons, technologies, funds border--what flows are enabled and
blocked--do we transfer more knowledge by transferring ideas in some for-
mats, or persons having the ideas, or technologies using the ideas, or funds
that enable gathering ideas/persons/technologies?
INSOURCING OUTSOURCING the ingestion versus outsourcing choice--do we develop or find
the knowledge ourselves or do we outsource the doing of that to better situ-
ated less trustable and controllable others
INCREMENT VERSUS REVOLUTION knowledge to improve or to revolutionize--do we shrink the
impact to get immediate impact or do we increase the impact at a cost of
uncertain delivery date or possibility
The Culture of Knowing, Inventing, Learning, and Applying

DIFFICULTY OF READINGS the difficulty of books read weekly by all employees and level of
management, especially executives
GRADUATE EDUCATION LEVEL the graduate college degrees that the average employee, man-
ager, and executive have at each career stage
RISING SCIENCE EXPOSURE the portion of the world’s most inventive and lauded rising scien-
tists at company events annually
CROSS UNIT FLOWS the exchange of ideas, persons, technologies, and funds between func-
tional domains\divisions\departments\ally-firms\new-firms
STANDARD COGNITIVE TOOLS SET ESTABLISHED the standard cognitive tool set taught, mea-
sured, enforced, and incented at each level for employees, managers, and
executives
STANDARD COGNITIVE TOOLSET UPDATED the regularity and size of improvements in that
standard cognitive tools set
EMOTIONALITY RATIONALITY RATIO the emotionality ratio to rationality in systems, transmis-
sions, personal relations, and innovation contents (degree of male-ness distor-
tions and contamination)
RIP OFF RATIO the portions of subordinate ideas ripped off and taken credit for by superiors
in the male hierarchy
VENTURE FLIGHT RATIO the portion of ideas that flee the firm for ventures supports that are
deeper, richer, faster, more sincere, and less encumbered
EDUCATEDNESS LEVEL the portion of the 64 capabilities of highly educated people attained by
each level of employee, manager, and executive
The Shadow Side of Contemporary Knowledge Management

ISOLATION Isolation systems--that produce the isolation that creativity (knowledge genera-
tion) requires
PULSED SYSTEMS Pulsed systems--you can set an irregular interval at which the system
changes from more connection to more isolation along various dimensions
INDEXING GROUPS Social indexing--events that increase the degree to which people know the
needs, interests, and capabilities of all others in their supplier-firm-customer-
ally chain
INDEXING SELVES Self indexing--events that increase the degree to which people know their
own needs, interests, and capabilities
WEAVES Net-event weaves--punctuating net connection workflow process support systems
with events of mass concentrated face-to-face-ness and vice versa
PULSED FIRM Pulsed firm existence--one organization as a flux between extremes--virtual
collection of just-in-time outsourced assembled component ventures versus
global integrated command hierarchy
VALLEY-IZATION Silicon Valley-ization--extension of Silicon Valley dynamics across broader
and broader firms and parts of industries and the economy
The 64 Ways that Organizations Learn

Experience Formation
simulate experience
devil’s advocate--skepticism embodied in personal challenging of one’s own interests, propos-
als, hypotheses
role play--put on the role of someone else to see what things look like from their point of
view
possible futures search conference--consult all stakeholders for asynchronous conversational
workshop on what futures are possible, likely, desirable
causal maps--articulate what causes what, what effects what, build maps of what such models
others have in their minds
social computation
standard cognitive tool sets--every few months or years master a new set of inter-related
tools for improved mental work
vertical horizontal cascade processes--cross different scales of idea, rank orderings of fields
or ideas by importance; cross different ideas or fields or issues at the same
level of scale of importance
computation deployments--deploy computation processes vertically or horizontally within
your mind
JIT self configuring structures--revisit groupings of ideas in your mind gradually observing
how they interact within groupings
narration events
incidental encounter spaces--create times, activities, or events within your mind wherein
ideas not normally together can join and meet each other
cellular workspaces--connect yourself with appropriate others at exactly the times and places
where their advice is needed
corporate cabaret events--periodically celebrate by yourself all you have accomplished in
life, rehearsing again and again what was faced, what was suffered/endured,
what was overcome, what was learned
gossip compilation--periodically (weekly perhaps) collect all snippets of information, notes,

jottings, overheard ideas, and put them into a more permanent, ordered, and
usable form
organization reflection
capture crises as learning--when unexpected failures occur to you, whether through your
fault or not, examine them in great detail, thoroughly finding all they can
teach you about actual dynamics at play
deploy functions continually--whatever new functions or procedures one part of your mind
invents or learns deploy to other parts of your mind
SWAT organization forms--replace standard ways of organizing your mind, files, and work with
a repertoire of many ways, one or several of which you combine for each case
as needed
Organization cognition management--study how you study, learn how you learn, think how
you think--meta-cognition in other words--the manage how you study, learn,
and think
Border Violations
counter rules
coalition building--recruit disparate areas of knowledge or experience in your mind to
respond instead of one more appropriate one
interest groupings--find your own interests, all of them, and regularly develop them all, often
combining them
business hobbies--develop your hobbies to extremes till they turn profitable
campaign management--use past experiences and areas of knowledge in your mind as a
library from which you draw mixtures of capabilities into mental campaigns of
invention
counter norms
fit espoused to enacted--find gaps between what you say you are and what you actually do,
and between what others say you are and what you actually do and remove
them
fit technical to social--find gaps in yourself and your own work ways between technical sys-
tems and social system needs/capabilities/uses and remove them
propagate standards--when something works well in one area of your mind, simplify it to its
core, generalize its form and function, then apply it to similar situations in
other parts of your mind
invent solution cultures--when things are not working what culture inside you is sustaining
your inability to win, reverse all attributes of tKhat culture into a solution cul-
ture and apply that
counter roles
crossing boundaries--find all sorts of boundaries inside your mind and violate them
under-studying leaders elsewhere--find you greatest weaknesses and get involved in things
that challenge you to fix them instead of building on strengths
legitimate peripheral participation--study the limits, boundaries, shynesses, fears, and avoid-
ances inside your mind, thoughts you dare not think, methods you dare not
master and master them
discipline intensification exercises--punctuate your ordinary work rhythm with periods
wherein you accomplish vastly more faster better of some function than you
usually would, take these new stretched capabilities back to improve your
ordinary way of work
counter neuroses
counter personal neuroses--find all your strengths, interests, and talents and what the cost of
having each is--what you do not develop because you focussed on developing
it--then undo those costs
counter organization neuroses--find the organizations you are in and what their talents,
interests, and strengths are and the costs of each, then undo them
counter national neuroses--find what the strengths, interests, and talents of your nation are
and their costs, then undo them
counter life neuroses--find the strengths, interests, and talents of life itself and their costs,
then undo them
Content Evolution
balance learning
vicarious learning--learn by observing what is happening to others

exploitation learning--learn how to apply what you already know
exploration learning--learn by exploring unknown areas
graft learning--learn by partnering or marrying or hiring a brilliant other
surface feedbacks
tragedy of the commons--examine problem situations to see if tragedy of the commons
dynamics are underlying them
delayed feedbacks--examine problem situations to see if unrecognized delayed feedbacks are
underlying them
escalating hidden feedbacks--examine problem situations to see if underlying them are
actions you are taking are escalating feedback strength
counter-productivity effects--examine problem situation to see if side-effects countering
your intended main effect are underlying them
manage by events
work events--regularly punctuate your regular work with “workday events” wherein you
radically clean, order, move, rearrange, computerize, install your life or
workspaces
workouts and solving events--concentrate all external and inside your mind resources needed
for solving something on one time and place and push through to complete
solution in a short time event then and there
research assemblies--concentrate all external and inside your mind resources needed for
investigating or inventing something on one time and place and push through
to complete discovery in a short time event then and there
cognitive algorithm cascade event sequences--take an idea, new framework, or model and
turn it into a procedure that can apply to many areas then deploy it succes-
sively to different types of mental process or knowledge contents in your
mind
unlearn
update assumed facts--change what you believe and act on as new data comes in
revise automated processes--undo past routines and habits and replace them as new data
comes in
surface unconscious values--find values inside you that you were unconscious of and revise
them based on all you now know
undo influence of past victories--find ways that each past victory that you have had have nar-
rowed you and made you lazy and undo them
Organization Research
organization experiments
policy by experiment--examine your strategies and plans and change them into experiments
optimized for teaching you what to do next
process by experiment--turn each mental process or social process or work process you have
into an experiment optimized to show you new things about yourself and the
world
structure by experiment--turn each knowledge structure in your mind into an experiment
optimized to show you new things about yourself and the world
purpose by experiment--turn each purpose you have into an experiment to reveal new things
about your self and your world
expanded repertoires
plurify knowledge sources--survey thoroughly all your sources of knowledge and develop all
varieties of sources not found in yours now
plurify process capabilities--survey thoroughly all the mental, work, and social processes you
primarily depend on and like using, and where they came from; then develop
varieties of sources for processes beyond them
plurify values and viewpoints--survey thoroughly all the values and viewpoints that charac-
terize you at your worst and best, where did they all come from? then iden-
tify sources very different than those for developing new values and
viewpoints.
institutionalize plurification--build some regular habit of checking and plurifying your sources
of knowledge, processes of thought, and values and viewpoints
elaborate indexes
from name to role/task indexing--list all the people you know and consult with, whether fre-
quently or rarely; organize them not by name but by topic to consult them
about or role they perform in some of your mental processes
from role/task to process step/event indexing--identify all of your processes that people par-
ticipate in and events others participate in; what step in those processes or
events does each person you know play; build an index allowing you to access
them by those steps instead of by their names
from process step to failed attempts indexing--identify all your failed attempts in some long
important project and build an index allowing access to ideas, methods, etc.
based on knowing what failed attempt they were involved with
from failed attempts to partial solutions indexing--identify all your partial solutions in some
long important project and build an index allowing access to ideas, methods,
etc. based on knowing what partial solution they were involved with
manage organization mind

create perception bid/offer markets--inside your mind or among your immediate work col-
leagues create a market wherein different projects/capabilities of your mind
or colleagues bid to assist a goal, stating their price to cooperate
create solving collaboration markets--organize inside your mind or among your immediate
work colleagues a market wherein different mental areas or colleagues offer
“bid” possible solutions to some problem
create problem finding collaboration markets--organize inside your mind or among your
immediate work colleagues a market wherein different mental areas or col-
leagues offer “bid” possible problems for you and them to tackle
create method institutionalization markets--organize inside your mind or among your imme-
diate work colleagues a market wherein different mental areas or colleagues
offer “bid” ways to institutionalize new methods or mental processes
Knowledge aggregation:
self/other
tool/role
practice/bureau
herd/troop
gender/age
prospect theory limits/neurosis limits
Knowledge explicitness:
aesthetic(remote truth, immanent truth)/philosophy
culture/character
narrative/procedure
theory-frame/fact-noticing
repertoire/model
Knowledge consciousness:
unconscious/conscious
improv/organized
espoused/enacted
improved/invented
demystified/deconstructed
Knowledge Formats
basic reasoning
selection--reasoning from constraints of what components to combine to achieve functions using fixed com-
ponents
all possible combinations are, in principle, explorable because limited in number
symptom diagnosis--reasoning from apparent dysfunctions
start with appearing dysfunctions and go back to elemental laws of the system causing them
causal diagnosis--reasoning from first principles
start with elemental laws of the system and evolve and predict possible consequences and emergent phenom-
ena
composition--the general design problem of planning what to combine to achieve functions needed using
open-ended possible components
all possible combinations and designs are not explorable--too vast in number
monitoring--observation of evolving processes and occasional interventions to influence them
requires criteria of what to notice, what to pay attention to, and repertoire of actions to take when certain
conditions are noticed
fundamental reasoning
scientific method --replacing opinion and commonsense with tested hypotheses and replicable findings
science was invented to liberate humankind from the tyranny of religion and religion’s untestable, unverifi-
able rules, practices, and beliefs, and from the tyranny of commonsense with its hidden biases from com-
munity power structures and traditions
case based reasoning--using experience, well indexed, and modifying past solutions to handle current cases
works well when present and future are not essentially different than the past, but fails when present cir-
cumstances are not repetitions of past experience/cases
data type--types of data and types of operation on it abstracted into cross-field types of data and operations
a detailed metaphor mapping process of seeing what in domain X corresponds to what in domain Y, in both
operator and operand terms
group mind--also called blackboard based coordination systems and shared model/workspace/intellectual-
space systems
formal individual processes that fuse into emergent group process or formal group process that devolves into
emergent individual process variants--both are viable and sometimes used
cognitive emulation
problem decomposition--parts of the problem that do not interact much so independent solutions can be
developed for them and later combined
the key is finding fissures, subsystems within a system that do not influence each other much--that allows
independent development of solutions for each of them that can later be combined because interactions
are few
flowchart--input, output, control, assignment, condition, repetition statements
processes combine the power of choices and the power of iteration/repetition/recursion; and, the power of
things done in succession and things done in parallel
decision tree (function decomposition)
function decomposition is common in lots of design fields, where devices or facilities have functions that are
important
protocol analysis (grammar of standard operators/operands)
finding commonness among apparently different operations and different operands; expressing unique look-
ing steps in standard general operator formats that make overall process very simple to see and modify
simulation
object message--eliminating central control from systems and letting control flow, emerge from unplanned
uncoordinated interactions
replacing “main routines’ and “central controls” with objects that acted whenever messages hit them so no
one could predict how the system as a whole would act
state transition--where intermediate stages are as important as final results
effort is deployed to effect all sorts of local transitions of local entities from one state to another to another;
managing plural, parallel transformation processes
search space--and non-linear system dynamics with tipping points
exploring the dynamics of a system that is inherently unpredictable; finding tipping points where slight inputs
have disproportionate whole system change effects;
data/knowledge flow--association net or neural net as well
here flows of any sort are, by measures and signals, turned into evolving information; which by applying
abstract frameworks is turned into knowledge
language
concept ordering--order idea by categorizing them and by sequencing them
the same collected specimens/ideas can be put into several different types of order, and the result compared
philosophical--ideas organized into rules of inference, rules of evidence, implications/inferences, and the
like
this is a formal system for deriving further truths (implications) from limited initial ones--the model for this is
math where starting with the integer numbers an enormous realm of complex concepts was discovered and
built, some of which turned out to be real and parts of physics centuries later
narrative--stories of two sorts, existential anxiety ones and cost-benefit ones
joins tacit and latent and incipient and procedural knowledge with formal conscious declarative knowledge
cognitive function--a theory of mind in popular culture, how we explain ourselves to ourselves
we all share a common societal theory of mind and explain our behavior using it
E$5 0#
- 52
$*$
8.LC

G ?
K
M L ?
< < E$ -
2C+?
$ 0 # M
& & ? $ "
<<
72
. 5
C A
"
C 3A "
8
- 0
* 5 -
,
3, 3 #
$ " : -. A8
E
-

$ %
7

< :

<
0

<
<
!<

"<
#$#")A$0
$$)$-"
E$5 0#- 5$0
"
< %

<

:

<
%
=

46F

< %

%
5A8>

!< =

&
&

&

E$
- 5

)2

M " 0
# $ "
%

#
M65A "

&
!

"#$G
:

$ "$ 4 %

!

,

:

:
/.!2#@$$))

E$5 0# $# $'
53. Postrel’s Substance of Style and Design

Model Of Innovation.
Quite a few people distinguish functional design--arranging elements to get a wanted func-
tion done--from aesthetic design--arranging elements to get a wanted function done. In
other words, we distinguish functional from aesthetic design in spite of them being virtually
identical things. A very great recent growth in aesthetic design, in terms of increases in
numbers of design colleges, of grads of such colleges, of design jobs, of products succeeding
because of aesthetic rather than functional design elements, of design media and magazines
being published, can be seen as a departure from simple, elemental functions and for styles
and feelings and impressions. Or, it can be seen as some sort of arrival phenomenon where
entire societies arrive at levels of wealth where quality of time spent begins to overwhelm
mere goal achievement. Entire societies seem to be smelling the flowers they ignored on
their route to wealth attainment. It is particularly striking to see aesthetic design take root
in societies, like the US, where banal foods, furnishings, and the world’s worst fashions
adorn the entire national population, not to mention bodies bloated with fat. It is about
time, many will say.
The border between functional and aesthetic design is perhaps mere terminology. For aes-
thetic reactions like preferences in buying, appreciation, prominent display, social status
indicating by what you buy and display, are functions too. So all design is functional in any
serious sense. The distinction between function functions and aesthetic functions, rings of
the distinction between necessary and optional functions, or between defining and elaborat-
ing functions. But what is “necessary” evolves within human individuals and societies. To
be sure, certain basic functions, say of a refrigerator, have to be there for people to buy and
use it with appreciation for it, but beyond those basic functions there are other levels of less
“basic” ones. This has already been treated thoroughly and statistically in total quality the-
ory thirty or more years ago in the distinction there between basic, necessary, and delight
quality (functions/features of a product). Basic are so elemental customers cannot articu-
late them--they expect car doors on new cars that they buy to not smell of urine, for exam-
ple--necessary functions are articulatable--people know they want a car door to close with a
“solid” feeling (but what engineering traits of the door system make it have a “solid” sound
and feel is anything but obvious, so though articulate, necessary functions may be hard to
articulate), and delight functions are inarticulate because people have not imagined them--
a car door that refrigerates drinks put into a compartment on it, for example. The move
that Postrel outlines from functional to aesthetic design may be, put in quality terms, a
move from basic, and necessary quality design to delight quality design.
This raises the idea of extending the continuum from basic quality, through necessary qual-
ity, through delight quality, to art. This continuum can be re-expressed as the object, the
satisfactory object, the designed object, and the object as work of art. This is a continuum
stretched between functional minima and function superfluence. Objects of art are techni-
cally speaking useless--they have moved beyond use, to become objects of contemplation.
It is because they are beyond use that they endure through eras and ages, untouched, con-
templated instead. Entire societies can make this move from elemental functions, through
satisfying functioning, to delight as unimagined functions, to art--sheer appreciation in rapt
contemplation of existence and the world. The human lifespan and career dynamics have a
distinct transition somewhere around age 40 when not a few people switch from serving
audiences of the living to audiences of the yet unborn. Elton John, the pop singer/com-
poser, for example, in the early 2000s shut down composing of pop songs and started com-
posing classic music--realizing no one today plays and appreciates pop music from 100 years
ago, dooming his pop music lifetime output to the trash bins of history. He knows that clas-
sic works, however, get performed hundreds of years later. This is a big step towards relat-
ing to all of one’s existence and world in a contemplative manner, appreciating its sheer
existence and fascination, without the urge or necessity to change or makes one’s own
impact on it.
Quite a few fashion designers draw on what they observe people wearing on the streets;
some other such designers draw on what they remember from their own mother’s wardrobe
in their childhood; some other such designers draw on new functions and needs of daily living
that existing designs have not responded to or supported. More ultimately, all designing,
however, depends on and comes from and expresses fully one’s approach to creating. There
are at least 60 different models of what creating is, and each has a distinct approach and
emphasis, changing how one creates. That means there are at least 60 approaches to
designing any one thing, each of which can be expected to result in a different final design
outcome. This is not what it sounds like, however, as creating is a social act, with some
audience of critics or users who judge whether something is creative, that is, whether it
changes the field it appears in, influencing and changing the direction of subsequent works.
That means “designing” something involves generating novel offerings and submitting them
to a particular field who judges how creative they are. That means whether something is
creative depends on all sorts of social dynamics between persons and their audiences. Tim-
ing, envy, saturation, competition, backbiting, propaganda, and all sorts of social phenom-
ena get into any “design” process because they get in every creation process. There is not a
lot to know about design, without dealing with its roots in creativity. Strangely colleges of
design and designers themselves often show up quite ignorant about creativity, and how cre-
ativity is done. Indeed, there are several wide-spread ideologies about “design” and “cre-
ation” being inchoate, inarticulate, unconscious, “intuitive” phenomena, ruined or
contaminated by conscious thought. There is some growing evidence that designers and cre-
ators, exposed to research and models of creating, out create those without this exposure.
We can ask whether a design is innovative and whether an innovation is designed-well.

What, exactly is the relation between design and innovation? This can be treated as largely
a matter of terminology. Clearly we can have innovations that are poorly designed or that
are not “designs” in any aesthetic sense. Most of us have personally experienced this in per-
sonal computer and like devices in recent years. Good design is not necessarily “innova-
tive” so much as it adds an aesthetic an artistic element to what formerly was treated purely
functionally. We notice when something that looked and felt bad though it functioned use-
fully, suddenly looks and feels great, instead. That is what most of us notice as the onset of
“design”. When we consider Apple’s iPod and iPhone, however, a great design is judged so
because of the functions of the object--it does its necessary tasks better and more easily
than competing offerings. So “good design” can be functionally significant regardless of aes-
thetics. The onset of design in an area or product that hithertofore was un-designed in any
aesthetic sense, can be “innovative” in that a type of functions ignored in the past suddenly
appear. Clearly, Apple’s devices have been innovative via design aspects of them. The
design content was itself “an innovation”. How about the reverse case--if designs can be
innovations, can innovations sometimes be designs? We can reword this as--can we consider
something “a design”, that is, an aesthetic design, when that something is an innovation of
some sort? We usually consider something an innovation when it is novel and useful--the
same criteria for considering something “a creation”. Can something novel and useful be
also aesthetically “designed”? Clearly this can be true. The Palm Pilot, when originally
launched in markets, was an innovation that was design--the innovation was elimination of
buttons and controls due to imagining the device as competing with paper not computers.
Radical focus, via radical reduction of functions, accompanied with radical simplification of
interface, was the innovation and that led to the Palm Pilot being a famous “design”. Here,
re-framing became innovation which became good design. The boundary between “innova-
tive” and “designed” is mostly a matter of someone’s judgement about whether an innova-
tive element in something is aesthetically directed and effective.
The Platonic Economy

the senses mislead us
truth is behind and beyond the senses
truth is in the realm of ideas relating to ideas
truth is mathematic
truth violate senses and commonsense (Einstein)
virtuous people seek truth hence slough the senses and impressions and appearances in favor
of essentials
an industry given to adjusting appearances to lead and mislead people into buying what they
do not need and paying more for what they buy arises--the advertising indus-
try
the authenticity versus mere adornment/appearance conflict
a fake Tuscan village casino, a shopping center with a chaos of owner-invented facades and
decors by each store owner CityWalk in Los Angeles, both wildly popular
men are above and beyond females, dominating them, as the essential dominates mere
appearance
Design is Evolving
from the abstract and ideological to the personal and emotional
from this is good design to I like that
from narrating, telling, to aesthetics, showing
from mass production to mass customization, from millions of the same thing to everybody to
millions of different models to each of millions
from homogenization to customization
from the exotic as exotic to the exotic as the familiar and the familiar as the exotic
from surface differences as surface to surface differences coming from deep semantic differ-
ences
from few designers and design colleges to many
from good workmanship to abstract aesthetic traits
from rebellion or conformity to personal eclecticism, selective conformity = more choices
force more meaning to what we choose, choosing and not choosing both asso-
ciate us with others
from authenticity is--purity, tradition “our ways”, signs of use and age and experience, the
marks of time---to authenticity is--formal harmony, connection to time and
place, self expre3ssion = authenticity moving from objective to subjective
due to globalization the exotic is not affordable for tens of millions
Aesthetics is More than Beauty

the power of suggestion, allusion, humor, novelty
the ugly,horrid, disturbing, discomfiting
surprise, un-assimilatability, incommensuarteness, the non-fitting, the mis-fit
the provocation and combination of our senses by whatever provokes them
art as “making special”, an instinct in all societies
Names and Places in Design

Timothy Clifford’s book on the line between the fine and applied arts
the Cooper-Hewitt, National Design Museum in Manhattan
GE’s global aesthetics program
David Brown, former president of the Art Center College of Design in Pasaden a, CA
the Industrial DEsigners Society of America
Philippe STarck, the most famous designer in the world
Amy Spindler, style editor of the New York TImes Magazine
9 design schools in Japan, ten in Korea, 4 in Singapore
Domus Academy, Italy’s first design college, 11983, today 23 design colleges in Italy
product design, environment/interiors, personal appearances--new design emphases
material culture research, GrantMcCracken
Fashion Theory, a journal from 1997
Journal of Design History

Enterprise and Society
aesthetic universals like facial symmetry’s relation to beauty of face/person
Style as Gender
women double the numberof male customers for some styles
the mainstreaming of gayculture has made men able to show interest in style without being
thought gay due to media repetition, desentization
we fear style and mere appearance yet use it for worship in religions, for selling, for personal
adornment
Theories of Style
style is gender--males essential, females appearance
style is evil--appearance hides truth, Plato
style is power--advertising and customer satisfaction quality
style is all--buy a German cooking oven that you never use but feel satisfied “having”
style is status--looking better than others and peers
style is commercial trick--businesses use it to manipulate us (especially fashion, but child
name fashions mean novelty drives fashion not commerce only)
style is a few appealing victories among a huge larger stream of failures--diamonds in the
rough, needls in haystacks, gems in mountains of mud
style as meaningless--fathers tell daughters, but daughters love style, style is neither heaven
nor hell but one of several peer-ful virtues
style as choice--the more choice we face the more our choices indicate us, mean us, associ-
ate us with groups we may or may not like
style as me as identity--here I am, look here I am NOT all of them, or I am one of them
The Politics and Conflicts of Different Aesthetics Colliding

we like to express our own aesthetic choices but strongly dislike such choices of others
the aesthetic choices of others are received by us as offensive and violations of what our
environments should tolerate
attractive environments therefore tend to be environments that have NO aesthetics of partic-
ular persons = bland non-offense
we all want consistency, neatness, and quality = euphemism for absence of any particularper-
son’s aesthetic choice
Switzerland is an example of cookie cutter houses and plants, all the same, equals the
absence of any individual aesthetic choices
Italy is the opposite with no home like any nearby home
The Italian Solution--Let the Look Away--Ugliness Tolerance as the Cost of Design
Brilliance
PRINCIPLE: the cost of design brilliance is general ugliness of many failed design experi-
ments, like Italy, not Switzerland
Taste that tolerates failures, design experiments that fail, generates brilliant rare individual
designs
tolerance for ugliness is the basis of great design
Coarse’s Nobel Prize winner theory of the problem of social cost--the least costly handling of
bad taste in public is to ask people to look away
Because of the costs of agreement, optimal choosing is expensive, often more expensive than
the social harms being decided
the Italian solution--look away
habituation means something that is an eyesore today will be hardly noticed at all tomorrow-
-our minds are hard-wired for novelty
a happy medium--local design boundaries, so many small local uniformities of one type of aes-
thetic, becomes general pluralism of looks in society
small local design boundaries allow people to vote with their feet without the expense of
moving far
The Economics of Aesthetics and Design

economic data does not register pleasure increases from good design or ease of use improve-
ments so design contributions to better lifestyle quality are missed
so greater investment in aesthetics makes the economy look less productive; incomes look
stagnant even while living standards rise
Design as Innovation
evolving from basic functions to accessible such functions to beautiful such functions to artful
such functions--being special
evolving from products and tools to products as expressive symbols, a language of self and
other expression
evolve from male-ness to femininity
Postrel presents a new endpoint of innovation--being special--design as a symbolic expres-

sive function that things take on. The Apple iPhone and iPod represent this well. They
evolved hearing music through basic functioning, accessible functioning, beautiful function-
ing, to symbolic and expressive artful functions.
There is a single principle in Postrel’s theory--that tolerance for ugliness is the cost of
achieving design brilliance. Though Postrel finds many corollaries off of it, they are deriva-
tive entirely. Italy has design brilliance due to its tolerance for diverse aesthetic experi-
ments most of which fail into ugliness, while Switzerland achieves no design brilliance due to
its boring pretty homogeneous legally enforced “looks” and “zones”. You cannot achieve
the beautiful without much failed experimentation that makes things generally ugly. Gen-
eral ugliness is the cost of great beauty achieved. This is a profound principle at the heart
of creativity itself of all sorts. Only lovers of failure can create--you have to love your fail-
ures enough to study them in detail spotting patterns across them, which patterns, inverted,
tell you what an eventual solution must be like. A failure index, this is called, in creativity
research.
54. Abbott’s Knowledge Dynamics Model of

Innovation (including Dialectic Idea Evolu-
tion).
Abbott is sociologist. He presents how ideas have evolved and interacted in his own field of
sociology, and he grounds those dynamics in the social nature of fields of knowledge run and
done by human beings with all their envies, rivalries, dependencies, and myriad other social
dynamics. Knowledge dynamics derive in part from social dynamics among the people hav-
ing the ideas. His is a theory of knowledge dynamics driven by social dynamics, in part.
If you live long enough you notice themes and theories repeating in society and institutions.
Part of this is generational effects--young people wanting to get noticed and rise in status in
their chosen field, oppose dominant paradigms and go where others dare not look, violating
norms and boundaries, trespassing. Often this results in hauling out a long dismissed,
defeated theory or approach and resurrecting it. Thusly, one generation opposes an older
generation by going beyond that older generation to the theories that older generation
deposed and disposed of. So ideas repeat in units two generations long. In business ideas
repeat in single generations. Every 20 years society’s entire population shifts 20 years older,
by definition, filling in the first 20 years of life with entirely new people--to Beatles music
has to be resold every 20 years, as does Coke, Toyota, and all other brands. For these sorts
of reasons ideas repeat rather than dying out entirely.
More particularly, behaviorism was a dominant theme in psychology for a couple of genera-
tions--if you did not obey its dictates, you could not get teaching and research jobs and
funding. Behaviorism is obviously, to all involved with it, false and extreme. It maintains
that all that we can do and think comes from learnings from our environments. It maintains
that the brain is a blank slate anything can get written on by environments around us. It
takes models of how pigeons learn, no proved false for pigeons, and extends them to
humans--stimulus response makes all learning. This obviously false extreme theory’s mean-
ing, however, was never in its beliefs, constructs, and theories. Its meaning was entirely rel-
ative--it was meaningful and grew to dominance, due to the enemy it was useful for
deposing--eugenics. Behaviousim drove itself to extremes in order to defeat an evil prior
theory--eugenics-that held that all learning was built in via genetics. The Nazi party in Ger-
many made this famous by racial theories that led to systemic extermination of handicapped
people and Jews. Behaviorism pushed itself to extremes to defeat eugenics, and it suc-
ceeded. However, the extremes it went to made it vulnerable, and a single published
research paper by Noam Chomsky, proved that behaviorist modes of learning could never
account for a child’s grammatical capabilities. Suddenly, behaviorism being shown to not be
able to account for something as important as human language, fell into disuse. Cognitivism
replaced it. Later connectionism replaced cognitivism. Every 20 years some new -ism
replaces some dominant old -ism, in every field of knowledge. Generations of ideas replace
prior generations of ideas, just as generations of people replace other generations of people.
This is a force making ideas not repeat, one would say, however, if you look at psychology’s
sequence--eugenics, behaviorism, cognitivism, connectionism--carefully, you see a swing
from minds are symbol calculators to minds as association engines to minds are symbol cal-
culators to minds are association engines. Eugenics and cognitivism were symbol calculator
in flavor while behaviorism and connectionism were associative in flavor. So ideas do repeat
even when they do not repeat overtly.
When cognitivism defeated behaviorism in the field of psychology, psychology split into a
behaviorist-influence associationist subgroup and a computer-influenced symbol subgroup.
In other words, the defeated theory reappears as a sub-field of the victorious theory, put in
an overall context by the victor theory. This continues to happen generation by generation
till an overall fractal pattern of fields, subfields, subsubfields results, with defeated theo-
ries, on each level embedded in the next lower level, but put into the context wanted by the
victor theory. It is a kind of intellectual cannibalism--we eat the ideas we defeat, making
them part of us, taking their powers into us, to enhance our own. So many centuries of civ-
ilization and still we act as primitives do.
Social group attention spans run about 3 to 4 years long--after that groups want a change of
ideas. Thus, there are regular idea waves that pass through entire societies and every
diverse field of knowledge in society every 8 or so years. Bold pioneers are first to try things
out, and when media report their initial successes, the cowardly bovine mass in the middle
gets involved, with laggards, the lazy and unambitious, picking an idea wave’s ideas up last,
only when forced to by everyone else already having adapted the new ideas. There is a two
year overlap period, the last two years of the old idea wave, are the first two years of the
new rising idea wave, making each wave approximately six years long, for any one type of
idea user (pioneer, bovine mass, or laggard).
Consider the combination of the above four knowledge dynamics--

1) every two generations ideas repeat--driving force: young generations vying
to supplant established generation in their fied
2) every generation ideas change as each generation overthrows the dominant
paradigm it grows up among
3) defeated theories repeat as subfields of the fields that defeat them
4) idea waves, that last in society for 8 years each, pass over all fields of knowl-
edge every year.
A person understanding the driving forces for each of the above and watching how each of
the above interacts with the others, can position themselves and the outputs of their work so
as to become famous even dominant in their particular field of knowledge. Mastery of
knowledge dynamics is power. The knowledge dynamics theory of innovation sees social
dynamics among people having ideas as the driving forces for how ideas themselves end up
interacting. In a way this is a formal version of the social life of information theory about
the culture of ideas and technologies and about how practices pass knowledge across firms
when theories and articulated knowledge do not pass as easily.
The most productive often are the most creative too, because they achieve their productiv-
ity via being linked to central core regions of a field of knowledge (via mentors, doctoral
advisors, friendly editors or like connections). Being near the core they get pre-publication
access to research and pre-grant access to emerging new funding mechanisms. Standing at
the cross-roads where all in their field flows, they can see the whole and pick the best parts
to invest their time in. More peripheral others are unable to see the entire field and its
entire present, and lack the social “being known-ness” to enable grants and quick publica-
tion. They continually squander time and effort getting known and proving worth while
more centrally established peers do not have to waste time on such things. However, the
really big innovations in any field come from third tier universities, rather than from leading
ones. Some profound isolation from a field, both its ideas and social dynamics, is needed to
innovate in big ways.
Elemental Knowledge Dynamics

ideas change excessively every generation (20 years) as youth use out of favor ideas to gain
attention and novelty
ideas repeat exactly every generation (20 years) as old ideas can be resold to youth who were
not alive when the ideas were last in favor
sets of opposing ideas repeat within each other as subfields due to victor factions incorpora-
tion ideas they defeat as subdivisions within themselves
ideas from fertile emergent new fields spread to become past of all established fields as
waves of ideas that pass through each established field yearly, each wave last-
ing about 8 years
well connected ideas are based on and come from well connected people at the social nexus
core of fields, where all intersects
revolutionary ideas come from isolated peripheries of a field, in third tier institutions
all frameworks have anomalies, but only some anomalies connect with the local the timely
and the human compellingly enough to cause the undoing of the frameworks
they come from
the meaning of any dominant idea, theory, or framework, is relative--the flaws of the previ-
ous idea, theory, or framework it overthrew
because ideas, theories, and frameworks contend, each rising one, exaggerates during con-
tention, and emerges victorious flawed by the exaggerations from its struggle
against a preceding dominant idea, theory, or framework
frameworks and theories break down at smaller size scales and larger size scales, so new
tools that fix what happens on such new scales, cause the redoing of frame-
works and theories
the simplest thinkable systems are digital automata, representing the smallest scale of possi-
ble idea interactions, from which emerges time, space, and analog smooth
phenomena of most of our human scale world and reality (quantum strange
phenomena may be digital reality peaking through the smallest scale of analog
smooth realities)
Processes that Fractal-ize Knowledge (the same thematic subdivisions repeating

on all size scales)
hierarchy produces fractal forms of knowledge (the untouchable caste in India repeating the
four major caste divisions within itself as subcastes)
differentiation produces fractal forms of knowledge (people look to other fields peer to their
own field for what to emphasize to distinguish themselves within their own
field)
functional contraction mapping produces fractal forms of knowledge (when fields retrench
and drop non-essentials, they work at representing primary large scale divi-
sions of knowledge around their own field, within it)
designed microcosms produce fractal forms of knowledge (people deliberately model major
divisions of the superior level on their own subordinate level)
fission caused by division of labor produces fractal forms of knowledge (when responsibility
for entire fields gets split among different people, they distinguish themselves
by anchoring differences with larger scale differences among related fields,
example--doing the psych like part of econ, doing the political science like
part of econ, etc.)
fission caused by contradictions/dialectics produces fractal forms of knowledge (an opposition
to a dominant paradigm counters it, based on flaws in it to be fixed, but oth-
ers instead of picking the dominant or the challenger, tend to blend them in a
new synthesis the sub-structure of which retains both the dominant and chal-
lenges themes)
ossification of field produces fractal forms of knowledge (as the real group loses functioning,
some subgroup picks up its overall functions, repeating them as subdivisions
within itself)
the agency problem causes fractal forms of knowledge (regulate the players, regulate the reg-
ulators, regulate the regulators of the regulators)
children fields off of a main field cause fractal forms of knowledge (one child, the oldest,
apes parents, one child rebels rejecting parents, one child watches the other
two and synthesizes their differences, the result is repetition of larger scale
patterns as subfields within a field)
ossification fractionation generates fractal forms of knowledge (when an old field dies,
extremes break off from it, making new fields that repeat faction differences
in the old field as different entire fields)
cream de la cream processes generate fractal forms of knowledge (a bank for everyone, then
a bank for richer guys, then a bank for still richer guys).
simply having an environment causes fractal forms of knowledge (if you are one function
among others, and if your relate to those others, then you split into subfields
for corresponding with each of the other functions---so the sales department
of a firm, by relating to the design, manufacturing, service, marketing depart-

ments develops parts of itself resembling and corresponding with them)
opposing someone causes fractal forms of knowledge (when someone opposes you, you study
their flaws and weaknesses and their strengths, and end up mimicking as
much of them as possible--we incorporate as much of the strength of our
opponents within us as we can, identifying anything that we can accept or
mimic from them)
Using Knowledge Dynamics for Innovating

spot the rising generation’s irrational refusal of values in the dominant paradigm of your field
out-do them by preserving those values while achieving the same changes
they propose
spot the risinggeneration’s exaggeration of the novelty of their own opposing paradigm
out-do them by correctly assessing the true novelty of their idea and perhaps
pushing it towards greater novelty
spot ideas your field is re-selling to each rising generation
stop repetition of old ideas foisted on new rising generations in a field
spot vanquished ideas living on as subfields of victorious ideas
work to incorporate the virtues of ideas you oppose before your faction van-
quishes them
spot subfields of your field from each idea wave (from emerging fertile new fields) that
passes through your field
re-think portions of your field for idea waves permeating other fields before
permeating your own
spot well connected ideas generated by the best connected people in your field
find the core people in your field and get near enough to watch the flows of
ideas to and from them
spot revolutionary ideas from the ignored periphery of your field
survey the periphery of your field regularly for brilliant isolated persons,
ideas, and approaches from the non-famous and unknowns
spot the tipping point anomalies in a paradigm that threaten to overthrow it
distinguish anomalies that do not threaten to undo a paradigm from ones
capable of deposing it
spot the relational meaning of any dominant idea, field, or theory--its meaning comes from
other ideas it opposed
articulate the meaning of all fields and subfields by what they opposed and
corrected, not by what their parts and contents are
spot the exaggerations in each rising idea due to the contention with which it is born
strip the exaggerations of birth contentions from any idea to see its true and
lasting worth
spot the way handling smaller size or larger size phenomena redoes how we understand ordi-
nary scale phenomena in your field
follow new tools that let smaller or larger scale phenomena in your field be
observed and redo your field’s ideas based on new theories that work
at those new size scales
spot where analog smooth dynamics and ideas in your field break down at smallest size scales
work at the smallest possible scale of your field till phenomena that only the
simplest thinkable automaton digital machines could generate are
found
spot new tools opening up observation and theorizing about smaller and larger size scales
use theories adequate for these smallest or largest scales and extend them to
cover the large middle ground scales in your field.
People get really into their own ideas and the ideas of their field as a whole. They get so
into these that emotions make them easy to manipulate. They develop arguments and
antipathies, when they fail to get published or funding. Entire careers and lives get con-
sumed by the inner emotional human social dynamics of a field. This hinders innovation and
reduces the scale and impact of any innovations achieved. For larger scale innovations of
greater impact, you have to be emotionally outside of your own field. You have to be in but
not of your own field. Using knowledge dynamics to innovate can be done from a standpoint
outside your own field. This is one reason that creative people often are outsiders, or new-
comers to a field, not steeped in its ways and social forces. People who burst onto the scene
often create ideas that burst with them.
55. The Social Movement Model of Innova-

tion.
Jack Welch is famous for making thousands of GE managers rich. They like him for that. He
is also famous for how he did that--by treating GE as a bank, that bought, fixed up, and sold
companies, rather than products, and that was taxed as a conglomerate rather than at
higher tax rates for true banks. He is less famous for having a Phd. which enabled him to
think abstractly enough to frame GE in a new way, as a kind of low-taxed bank, and he is less
famous for how he did the work of GE as a bank, finding, fixing, and selling companies, using
social movements.
It used to be the case that social movement leaders were considered the opposites of corpo-
ration leaders. However, in recent years it has become apparent that managing a huge cor-
poration involves little command and much persuasion. One has to change the values and
directions of tens of thousands of people. Social movements are a primary means of “per-
suading” tens of thousands of people. However, there are lots of theories of how social
movements get created, directed, and work. Before dealing with that variety, I want to out-
line how Welch at GE used social movement tactics to do his transformation of that conglom-
erate.
He invented, led, and installed four successive movements--a more stringent measures of
success movement, a decision movement (fix, sell, or destroy), a new way of work move-
ment (six sigma), and a walk the talk movement (success via the old way was forbidden and
promotions given only for success done in the new work way). All movements were done
using the same social movement tactics. Top leaders made presentations and those who
responded well to them was organized locally into transformation committees, and given
privileged access to Welch for unblocking local obstacles. Each local committee built an
agenda based on the presentation that created them and defined particular local application
projects. Successful first local application projects produced more people, lower in the
organization, as new transformation committees who repeated the entire process at their
more detailed level. In this way a transformation procedure cascaded down the organiza-
tion’s levels, after being spread across organizations and organization segments by top
leader presentations. Volunteers were elicited by the initial presentations and organized
into local committees to do what the presentations said. Special access to Welch was
arranged for them to help them bypass and overcome local middle manager resistance. The
command hierarchy was tuned to enable the movement and the movement was installed to
challenge and teach the command hierarchy. These dynamics do not differ substantially
from how religious orders emerge, from how the environment movement works, from how
any social movement arises and works.
This brings us to the various models of social movement building.
Models of Social Movement Causation

supersaturation model--aspirations build up without realization or recognition till a last straw
suddenly unleashes entire system avalanche of aspirations-turned-into-action
order-movement-historic_institution model--an order elicits a social movement via a compel-
ling vision around which local chapters doing demonstration projects that
revise historic institutions emerge
generation change process model--each generation stews, because it grows up seeing older
generations not handling essential things, until finally it is old and established
enough to redo everything, undoing what older generations did
dialectic opposition process model--each generation goes to frameworks dismissed by ruling
powers then attacks ruling powers till they are overthrown--the exaggerations
and one^-sidednesses of opposing become instantly flaws and reasons for still
younger generations to then work to overthrow them
demographics model--when population size surges, the ability of established societies and
their institutions to socialize everyone to fitting in fails, and millions of
uncontexted people with no visible stake in the current system appear, loose
and ready to overthrow the existing order in favor of one where they have a
role and stake
non-linear systems “sandpile” model--some steady drip of an input to society goes on unno-
ticed for generations till, the pile it has produced reaches some critical angle
at which point systemwide avalanches of change occur--self organized criti-
cality systems a la Par Bak’s Nobel prize in 1972
transestablishment model--every historic institution has haves and have-nots, people with a
stake in how things are and people with no stake in how things are--every
once in a while a have-not with the mental machinery and drive usual to
haves appears who leads the have-nots in overthrowing the establishment and
installing a dis-establishment regime, which in turn ossifies and gets over-
thrown later by other have-nots
greenpeace model--design ridiculous of sexy (naked women) demonstrations that get media
attention, load the site with people who context those watching and report-
ing, telling your story, directing attention to nearby violations or dangers,
organize those who respond positively to the story into local chapters that
revise local arrangements in demonstration projects, use audiences and
media attention around those projects to recruit new volunteers for further
growth
sand-oyster-pearl model--an irritant appears in a soft flabby historic institution, to minimize
pain and reaction to the irritant the organization generates a smooth nice
looking pearl around it, to isolate it from the organization as a whole, spread
similar grains of sand and the entire organism becomes a pearl
timing model--in spring, on campuses, among undergrads, young males without partners,
when career prospects are unappealing to a generation, any consistent anti-
establishment message can easily become a crowd of crowds, of positive feed-
backs driven by news of other crowds, till social movements result, especially
if heavy-handed defensive treatment of demonstrators by established powers
generates further news coverage
historic mission emergence--a section of a country collects people who do not fit into estab-
lished institution styles of boundary following and rank competition, establish-
ing an anti^-establishment personal culture of dedicating life to revising the
world and a group culture of sharing to enable revolutionary change, with
local small scale revolutions, building upon one another for decades till mas-
sive whole society ventures and technologies and new purposes that gave rise
to them dominate old selfish greedy institutions and cultures of the society
(Silicon Valley for example versus MIT Route 128)
social neural net learning theory--if people are like individual neurons in the brain, and rela-
tionships among them are like weighted links among neural net nodes, then
learning in social groups will take on the slow rise, rapid rise, plateau shape,
the S-shape, of neural net learning, so social movements can be understood as
aggregation level of social learners, separated similar groups make local learn-
ing progress expanding their influence till they all at some local extent mutu-
ally touch forming a giant whole society scale aggregation, the movement
the dissolution of self model--all people carry around an individual ego-type self, the burden
of which is heavy with anxiety and responsibility, so there is a secret longing
to dissolve oneself in something far larger than ego (as long as it is eminently
socially respectable), that can be tapped to form social movements when peo-
ple are shocked by a sequence of deeply private emotional images generated
by deeply public widespread messages from some elite leader or group--the
miracle that that stranger knows intimate longings in me better than I know
myself, shocks people into briefly dissolving their egos in the relaxing swamp
of following blindly the person who thusly shocked them
Movement Building Methods

demonstrate, educate, formulate, train, demonstrate on smaller scale--the greenpeace model
challenge, chapterize, train, demonstrate, get co-opted (established powers copy your
agenda)--the German green party
stringent measures, decide (fix, sell, or kill), new way of work, walk the talk--Welch’s GE
model
find the dispossessed and disenchanted, organize them to train each other, organize them
into demonstration projects, formulate interested onlookers, raise level and
scope of training etc.--the religious project model
findthe dispossessed and disenchanted, organize them to train each other, disperse them to
recruit new followers, institutionalize their voting block powers to influence
policy--the religious missionary model
identify contradictions (historic trends locally blocked), elite group leads local activists in
removing local blocks, unleashed historic forces furnish new members, tackle
larger scale blocks/contradictions to the same forces--the communist move-
ment method
find all parts of society that are not usual in contact, put them in contact in mutual learning
context, recruit volunteers found at contact events to repeat the pattern--the
connection machine model (modern technologies often use this model to get
short term increases in creativity at the cost of long term declines as homoge-
neity replaces isolated-caused diversity)
find enemies of elites now in power, identify leaders of these dispossessed ones, elites fund
training of these leaders that re-contexts them from anti-establishment to
allies of established forces, re-insert trained leaders to co-opt resistance
forces into becoming participation forces--co-optation model
disperse trend spotters into hot local locales, induce trends or ride them by getting own
trendspotters to simultaneously wear or buy or do something new together,
invite people they contact by word of mouth to formulation events, invite
media to amplify such events, fund celebrity models to these trenders to par-
ticipate and endorse--the commercial trend-riding model
speed up disagreement, disperse disagreement, harshen disagreement, turn disagreement
words into conflict deeds, media-ize disagreement conflict deeds, concretize
and expand scale of disagreement demands--the focus method
school the dispossessed and disenchanted, involve in responsible roles, enable family and
work life of them with services, demand service back for services received
(mutuality), gradually replicate as microcosm of all major civilizational func-
tions in own organization (own businesses, own trading, own currency, own
education institutions, etc.)--the microcosm method
The Movement Building Paradigm

location location location--the people strongly detached find the people not strongly attached
and organize it so they discover or build an alternative way
entrance, explain, train, embed with services, embed furnishing services that entrance oth-
ers--the formulation loop
process compiling into structure--involve people in processes that evolve to become alterna-
tive new social structures
the public is the private and vice versa--articulate publicly the most intimate emotive per-
sonal phenomena people are experiencing without acting on, to amaze and
entrance them
garbage collection--find what each social organization discards, cannot use, and formulate it
in some inverse system or processes till it can become an institution among
others in society
Innovations as Social Movements

for technologies there are trend riding movements among consumers, to be seen with the lat-
est and greatest, to develop learning priority over others with pioneering
technology
for silicon devices there is an on-going innovation movement of reducing scale, doubling per-
formance, every few years--a movement repeated for decades becomes an
institution
Silicon Valley is a religion, of sharing info not hoarding it, of T-shirt egalitarianism not blue-
suit monkey hierarchy, of revising the world not making money--it recruits
people to values not riches
Social movements innovate. They change budgets, services, lifestyles, personal destinies,
and what parts of populations “make it” and live well. They right historic wrongs and
humiliate corruption regimes. They do the opposites as well--prolong evil products by

undermining campaigns to stop the evil, dwarfing good science having inconvenient discov-
ery content with bad science having convenient content. They innovate and the stop, under-
mine, and prevent innovation, depending on who is building the social movement.
Corporations are continually spewing forth movements to get people to buy or stop new leg-
islation while consumers are spewing forth movements to undermine corruption of political
processes by corporate campaign donations. Movement contends with movement--they all
use similar tactics.
56. Arendt’s Social Revolution Model of

Innovation.
If you grew up among autocrats--your father, your teacher, your president, your friends--then
it is hard to imagine kinds of power and ways of exercising power that are democratic, par-
ticipatory, and self-organizing. All of us are like this--we are so steeped in the forms of
power we grew up with that we cannot imagine any other basis of and source of power.
When the American, French, and Russian revolutions, and their later copiers took place, the
men of revolution there faced this imagination problem. All the ready explanations, con-
cepts, and categories in their minds, just as in our minds, tended to repeat past power forms
and patterns. Because of this inertial power of past categories and images in the minds of
the men of revolution, most of them failed to install anything new in history. Several of
them, namely, the French and Russian revolutions, managed to install “terrors”, greater and
more terrible autocracies than any autocrat before in history managed to attain. So the men
of revolution managed to install either nothing new or rather something the novelty of which
was its terribleness.
Hannah Arendt tackled this imagination problem directly, trying to describe exactly, how
those few revolutions that did not install nothing new or things that were new only in their
terribleness, managed to install something beneficial that was also new in human history.
She points to the American revolution and analyzes why and how it managed this feat. It
invented a new non-monarchal form of government. It installed divided powers, elected
leaders, a federal system of layers of representative assemblies, and it invented all this over
a 200 year period, via a long bottom up process of local assemblies cooperating to make
regional assemblies, cooperating to make state assemblies, cooperating in a war of libera-
tion from England, to form a new national form of government. To show that the men of the
American revolution solved the imagination problem and how they solved it, she has to
repeat their invention of a new imagination of what power is and how power can be estab-
lished and can operate.
She came up with a simple model:
liberation (from the past)

freedom
liberated ones meeting each other
their search through history of the roots of present system faults
making and keeping promises with each other to stay liberated and to establish self care
structures to fill the void when old power is left behind
discovery of the ability to establish power, new power, from nothing, merely by making and
keeping promises with each other
discovery of a new kind of happiness, public happiness, the happiness of changing all of his-
tory hereafter by what you do here and now
historic dream (people around the world coming to help or locally copying your revolution in their locale)
conserving novelty (protecting your new ways/institutions from built up forces from the past).
That is it, her model of how the American, but not the French and Russian revolutions, dis-
covered new institutional forms and installed them in history, changing possibilities for all
future humans and societies. The French revolution went wrong when it changed its agenda
from establishing new power forms in history to alleviating the suffering of the sans culottes,
the shoe-less masses of the poor. In the name of the endless depths of poverty, the French
revolution consumed itself with more and more radicality, unable to settle on any institu-
tional forms at all. The American revolution, on the contrary, never put eliminating poverty
on its agenda, because, America was in the happy condition of not having the depth of pov-
erty that Europe had lived with for centuries. The Russian revolution went wrong very early,
when Lenin became efficient, seeing how the Red Army in its fight against the White Army,
across Russia (which was funded secretly by Western powers) might as well eradicate the
Soviets, spontaneous local volunteer self governing groups that had arisen to replace the
vacuum created when the Tsar’s government collapsed, while fighting the Whites. Thusly,
the local new institution of self government, the true revolution, innovation in history, was
killed by Lenin’s Red Army in order to let a single group, the Communist party, have total
control of all of Russia. Lenin, thusly, became a new Tsar, and Stalin, instituted a terror that
lasted decades more than Robespierre’s terror, as any gathering of four or five intellectuals
reminded the communists too much of how they had taken over an entire nation, Russia,
after just meeting as intellectuals years earlier.
Arendt distinguished liberation from founding freedom, power divided from new power from
nothing, new national forms of governing based on centuries of local self rule from new
national forms of governing with no roots in daily habits of people, private lifestyle happi-
ness from the much greater happiness of knowing all of history would remember what you
created, public happiness. In our day when media, bosses, and career dynamics reward
people for merely looking innovative, Arendt’s distinctions are powerful reminders of the
difficulty of truly imagining something new. Social revolutions usually fail because the
minds of the revolutionaries are incapable of imagining anything completely new. Robespi-
erre keeps seeing ghosts of the old regime in new guises till he ends up killing everyone,
including himself; Stalin keeps seeing counter-revolutionaries and class enemies till half the
Russian population is enslaved or murdered. The both installed new autocracies to replace
old autocracies--a measure of their inability to imagine the truly new.
The Basis of Imagining the Utterly New

requisite liberation--full dangerous cutting of ties, bridges burned, no way back, in no man’s
land = committed to the utterly new publicly, the old has become your sworn
enemy
basis on other scales--the utterly new emerges from below or devolves from on high, from
smaller or larger scales than life usually is conducted on, look smaller and
larger than everyone else
build from zero with other liberated ones--provisional processes and structures, out of the
spirit of all you aspire to, refusing old ways, from experiment can emerge
“the Answer”
continually distinguishing key concepts--mantras the group repeats to distinguish new from
old concepts, new from old ways
The Difficulty of Imagining the Utterly New

assimilate all to known categories and frameworks
howdo you imagine what has never been before
what is the basis and authority for making the new last through years of testing and resis-
tance
how do humans invent something themselves that stands outside themselves as a source of
authority for changing themselves
how do humans stop being something and start having and managing it
Some Essential Distinctions

power split off from existing power versus power from nothing
revolution for establishing utterly new institutions in history versus revolution for eliminating
bottomless human suffering and poverty
liberating from old powers versus continual never-ending discovery of counter-revolutionar-
ies in your own midst that becomes historic suicide
the revolutionary new based on smaller or larger scale prior experience versus the revolu-
tionary new based on untested ideas alone
liberation from old powers versus founding freedom as new institutions in history
private lifestyle happiness versus public happiness from changing all of history by what we do
here and now
power, the total capability of a group of people to enact ideas, versus violence, the total
capability of a group of people to murder opponents, reducing total power
exercised in a society to near zero
fixed authority, the total of what all roles are allowed to enact in a group versus variable
authority, the ability to expand what roles in a group are authorized to do so
the total doings expands
human nature is dangerous and needs limits versus human nature is good and needs no limits
power can be limited by laws versus power can only be limited by opposing powers
the majority is good and right and decides all versus the majority often succumbs to crowd
enthusiasms, shallow trends, and populist evils and needs limiting
rightness of government structures and law from divine sources versus rightness from proper
balance and combining of human elements and fixes for human flaws
The Core Revolution Process

liberation (from the past)
freedom (liberated ones establishing the utterly new in history by making and keeping prom-
ises with one another)
liberated ones meeting each other (spontaneous emergence of self governing “Jeffersonian ward
coucils” as new power from nothing)
their search through history of the roots of present system faults
making and keeping promises with each other to stay liberated and to establish self care structures to
fill the void when old power is left behind
working together to make those provisional structures a departure from past system faults and ways
discovery of the ability to establish power, new power, from nothing, merely by making and keeping
promises with each other
discovery of a new kind of happiness, public happiness, the happiness of changing all of history here-
after by what you do here and now
historic dream (people around the world coming to help or locally copying your revolution in
their locale)
conserving novelty (protecting your new ways/institutions from built up forces from the
past).
Examples of Failed and One Successful Revolution

the French revolution started with liberation from the monarch and go distracted by the goal
of solving human suffering and poverty in general, consuming itself in liqui-
dating counter-revolutionaries in its midst as its focus leaped around without
principle, driven by the immensity of human suffering and poverty
the Russian revolution started with liberation from the Tsar and got efficient, liquidating
spontaneous emergent local self governing units, the soviets, while fighting
the White army, it liquidated its freedom component, then with Stalin, began
to see counter-revolutionaries everywhere in its midst, generating decades of
internal terror murders
the American revolution started with liberation from England and extrapolated from local
lack of poverty and self governing local assemblies to a federal split power
elected-leader form of government to replace monarchy--a form of govern-
ment that has, hundreds of years later, replaced autocrats and monarchies all
over the world
Revolution’s Steps as an Innovation Process

liberate selves from the old ways
enter no man’sland between the no longer and the not yet

promise and combine
to fill the void of no old power with provisional institutions and ways
to make those provisional things not repeat the basis of the past ways’ flaws
to invent utterly new ways of humanity governing itself
derive new power by making and keeping promises with each other
discover a public happiness of changing history here and now that surpasses all private life-
style forms of happiness
draw people from around the world to participate and inspire others elsewhere to replicate
your revolution
protect your emergent new structures both from old established ways and powers and from
revolutionaries unable or unwilling to stop their war of liberation and start
founding new institutions and ways
It should be evident if not obvious that the above revolution process is also a learning pro-
cess within individual person minds. We liberate ourselves from past ideas, flop around
without good alternatives, combine with others thusly liberated to come up with some alter-
natives, through much experimenting together something better than past ways emerges,
we draw participants and global copiers by these deeds, then work mightily to protect our
new inventions and ways from established powers and from revolutionary tendencies in our
self to keep innovating rather than establishing our new invention firmly in history. This is
how people learn and establish new thoughts in minds replacing old ones and it is how soci-
eties completely revise how they are structured and governed.
institutionalizing overweening monitoring of living archetypes replicated immigration
analogous wanted effectiveness continual moni- liberation &
continual search changes found & institutionalizingof toring & counter- ourselves olympian destiny
freedom
volunteer army
for further debunked ing of erosion forces I guess people like
similar revisions editing own ideas
of continual ossification me write it baby revolutions
of past monitoring & spawned everywhere
liquefying
countering
self criticism 59 48 44
society 64 acting to revise 63 60 acting to INSTI- fame haven
SEEKING the old in light SPOTTING MONITOR protect the TUTION- WRITING HISTORY “the audience 47 MY
STORY “send me your 43
ANALOGOUS of the new OVER- INSTITU- new from the old ALIZE WITH of the unborn AVATAR COPIOUSLY huddled masses” NEW
LIBERATIONS Back to Zero WEENING TIONALIZING Socializing COUNTERING DEEDS and ancestors” EXISTENCE COPIED Replicating RECRUITS
Humanity’s Pioneering Your Selves
Perusing Surveying Erosion Transformation Erosions Status from Drama Demonstra- Novelty’s
Possible PARADIGM Liberations set up Contribution Possibility
A WORLD OF
Liberations OLD finding NEW PARADIGM ZATION
seeing the REPLACED analogous monitor- ESTABLISHED beyond OF PERSONS completely LIBERATIONS
specific erosion counter particular past hierarchy relevant daily lives exported hope limitless sympathy
ently from new needing analogous types erosion actions my privacy publicized people everywhere seeing all those
viewpoint liberations new monkeys, new seeing possibility others trapped in their
keeping watch on blocking and tackling bananas where there was none selves and lives
tion spot
Defending 46 Global & 41
61 62 57 58 45 DAILY 42
SEEING WITH ANALOGOUS the Future MONITOR COUNTER POWERLESS TOTAL Historical POSSIBILITY
FOR
Dreams INVITING
NEW EYES LIBERATIONS EROSIONS EROSIONS PAST RELEVANCE OTHERS ALL OTHERS
Conserving Local
Not Content Disrupted Immortality Mindlessness Misinterpretations by Bystander Becomes Instructing Generation
the past assimilates Masses Conquest Plurality
the new as it first the new is the passage the miracle unity of mankind
appears may only not well CARE of time causes the new into plural hints of entire MIRACLE my life experienced in
diverse past frame- systems crumbling
defined enough to forgetting of “last works of victories shared vision of
be tip of iceberg of interpretation the slammed door becomes teaching
of further novelty be consensed on straw” violations “oh we used to do one pillar pulled and
the garbageman
new future
suddenly people must the entire ediface becomes archway eyes lighting up with
pull the string and “what was I revolting that all the time” tumbles into a new world professor hope worldwide
stay awake during
a new sun appears meetings about” 55
measuring
56 countering COUNTER 36 drama
35
representativeness 39
fragility of INTER- “see what is “show the way” I LEAD
52 the new
51 COUNTER eroding powers PRETIVE ENTIRE happening there” SURPRISED I 40
COOPERATION OFFENSE of the past ASSIMI- OLD WAY BY AM THE
UNFATHOMED MISFIT FORGETTING LATION UNDERMINED Whistle Points VICTORY THE WAY Most Individual WORLD
Baby Care Distinguishing Found becomes
Ecosystems Emotions Breaking Breaking David vs. All Responses Transform- Most
Disrupted Disrupted Inter- Interpersonal Goliath Inventions ational Social Globalization
of Local Acts
Organization Dependencies Identity
RISKS OF ASSIMILATION
Dependencies THREATS the past the unfair GLOBAL GLOBAL possibilities
the new BIRTH the new the past assimilates fight VISIBILITY the POSSIBILITY for everyone
counters counters all assimilates the new personal, now changed by
all institutional personal habits
the new procedurally
new institutionally old things are auto- root for the underdog unimagined tactics group, mankind what we do here
arrangements old things are easy matic
unhead of acts,
identities discovered and now
the old church beside powers that be applied at unheard changing the defini-
to do continually remaking
the cell phone store besides themselves 54 CREATION of places
COUNTER POWER 33
53 PERSONAL 34
49 50 COUNTER PROCESS Steps of Self & AGAINST 37 38
MISFIT MISFIT ASSIMILATION TION Social Change ODDS IMPROVISATION FUTURE EVERYONE
Invention
the Old Dreams realization that emergence of Consequences
discovery of the whole world start of war of Ways sudden colleague interactions new power beyond risk-filled action
other liberated as enemy liberation emergence already are your planned or to realize novelty
ones with friends like you they just don’t get refused of a new new envisioned envisioned powers pullingbottom cards
utterly alone together, who needs enemies the point compro- public world the story retelling
mises & threats form of happiness the hut is really a from a house of cards
simultaneous discovery game done with
the rat rejects its if I were to live for castle
16 inventions
cheese 1000 years... 31
FINDING entry to no act of 32 emergence of 28 emergence of 27
man’s land 12 THESE SURPRISED power from ENACTING
ANOTHER 15 rebellion 11 SUPRISED public forms BEGINNINGS nothing
LIBERATED FIGHTING WANTING WANTING BY of happiness ARE BY THE NEW
Optimism of Against Response Unsettledness Unhappy All Self, New Designs
Impractical Hopelessness the act of THE BREAK abandon- PIONEEER immolation Time, Past PROMISE work to
UNCERTAINTY courage ment of HAPPINESS of daily labor to POWER fashion
utter loneliness hopeless odds of saying “no” burned bridges personal happinesses create really new acts and speech to
the road never the outrageous is choosing my destiny, a bull’s eye on my lifestyle goals work as one long vision and realize realize new vision
before taken my normalcy so this is my battle- forehead a cityscape made of party it
sweating inventions fashioning holes in
ground tightropes being
30 25
9 RELEASED Obeying CAPTIVATED 26
Discovering HAVING 10 BY
13 14 Liberty 29 FROM POSSIBILITY FASHIONING
NECESSITY UNSEEABLE SHEER DEFINING ESCAPE FROM PRIVATE Freedom OF NEW THE NEW
Provisos & Excuses of Self & Mortality Embraced as Partial Responses All Emergents Not Contents
World Better making & keeping Natality struggle to
utter despair at tipping point refusal of emergence of
something CONSCIOUSNESS absolute promises to each past inside PEACE see and pre- solutions better
continuing, having fundamental end of road releases system- other selves in serve what
building houses own operations or planned ones
caught in the headlights
what the world is, Alice falls thru the the butterfly flaps one with words reflective garbage in this haystack there
is at fault rabbit hole into wing disposal is a needle, I believe my ideas are birth
house of mirrors another world leavings of the real
ideas
death last straw 7 emergence 24 emergence
4 sentence 3 8 20 SEPARATING of novelty SURPRISED 23
THIS COMMIT COLLAPSE POSSESSING of colleagues 19 NOVELTY
OVER Limitless ENEMY UNKNOWN Absurd OLD SELF HONOR Wealth of the EXCUSES CHAFF From Trying NOVELTY
repeated exhaustion saturation HOMELESS Change fighting SURVIVAL INSTITUTION Innovations
DESPAIR of all you do COMMUNITY imagining novel DEVELOPMENT focus from
blocking for intents &
or failure and know end of the road super saturation survivaltogether alternative worlds & attempted survival struggles
drawing five jacks quicksand, every not even close, miss eleven fingers in the institutions together means
bricolage a boat made of
18 21 22
1 2 5 6 17 VISION BEYOND LIVING
STUBBORN FAILURE OF AT LIMIT OF BEYOND TOUGH TOUGHNESS & SHEER SURVIVING
Copyright 2003 by Richard Tabor Greene, All Rights Reserved, US Government Registered
25
57. Grondana’s Culture of Development

Grondana studied nations that developed economically throughout human history. He found
that all nations and groups that developed economically shared a common “culture of devel-
opment” that explained why the nations that did not develop. It all has to do with establish-
ing a reliable near future, that by being reliable, allows people to invest in future
developments. Where states, groups, leaders, or others establish such a reliable near
future, investment quickly leads to development. Where a reliable near future is lacking,
investment dries up and disappears.
Having a culture of development is having a culture of innovation, if you examine Grondana’s

theory in detail. To innovate you need to establish a reliable near future, a population of
strivers, infrastructures that enhance the scope of actions and their effects, via training,
tooling, and a tolerance3 for rivalry and differences. Certain technologies enable education,
democracy, partnering to combine to support these goals. Grondana, for example, shows
how the culture of the Roman Catholic religion, everywhere, denigrates wealth and teaches
people not to strive for it, except in France, where regular wars with Germany, largely prot-
estant, have forced France out of its Roman Catholic reluctance to pursue wealth. Gron-
dana shows how government attempts to do itself what a creating a population of strivers
should do, fails to cause economic development. Grondana shows how absence of a reliable
near future prevents investment. Grondana shows how infrastructures created without a
population of strivers to benefit from them, amount to nothing and go either unused or mis-
used. Innovation requires five components and absence of any 0one of them prevents eco-
nomic development.
establish a set of
“infrastructures” establish a
supporting your population “near future”
Self as it strives for its near via establishing various
futures:
Organizing education, democracy, reliabilities of person,
Economic partnering, technologies law, and system
that expand scope of action
Development of strivers, incrementally
System:
Venture establish a
Farming “population”
of local initiative takers
via training, entooling,
heresy and rivalry
tolerance/promotion
The interesting aspect of this theory is it is scale neutral. A single person, a team, a com-
pany, a sector of an economy, a nation, and a continent can all have a culture of develop-
ment or not. If some levels have such a culture and some levels do not, then the levels that
have such a culture have to compensate for the lack of supports below, at , or above their
own level. Of course, if all levels have such a culture of development, then development is
made easier and/or larger.
The nice thing about Grondana’s theory is it was developed without regard to particular per-
sons, firms, or nations, yet it helps us predict and evaluate their progress. Also, it concerns
merely economic development, yet it pertains to all other forms of development in a soci-
ety. The idea that innovation depends on having a certain culture of innovation, is interest-
ing and powerful if true. The idea that a reliable near future, a population of strivers,
infrastructures that enhance the scope of striver actions, training in and tolerance of rivalry
and differences, and education in democracy combine to make innovation appear, is inter-
esting since Grondana is reviewing history and the entire globe. You can examine your own
self and see if it handles these dimensions well.
Most nations, firms, and persons in this world today strive but without a reliable near future
and without infrastructures that expand the scope of actions taken. Facing these missing
supports, it does not take long for them to forget striving altogether. There also are lots of
people facing a reliable near future with good infrastructures for expanding the scope of
actions, but who have not the training, tools, or tolerance of differences to use them. Get-
ting all five together in one person, team, company, nation, economy sector, or region of the
world is rare, probably because it is difficult.
I myself worked for five global corporations, two in Japan, and three in the US, and I con-
sulted for three major European corporations for several years. These large organizations
had a difficult time getting and keeping these five components together. Every effort they
made to bolster one, seemed to make it harder to bolster others. No one in these compa-
nies had a view that all five were essential and had to be present at once. That is perhaps
the value added by Grondana’s theory. You cannot get by with one or two or three or four of
them. You needs all five present and healthy at the same time.
A big organization is composed of successful strivers who hate people below them in the
hierarchy still striving. In Europe and East Asia where cultures respect seniority and where
seniority has obligations to care for those below, seniors can work well with those below.
However, in the US, where senior are always threatened by those below, active work to sup-
port those below while work behind the scenes aims to throttle and hinder them is found.
Subordinates develop a skill of making their accomplishments and talents appear innocuous
to those above, so they can be noticed and promoted without fear and retribution. Subordi-
nates foolish enough to demonstrate their competencies overtly invite and receive active
suppression from those on high.
The culture of development has an interesting component--tolerance of rivalry and differ-

ence (to the extent of tolerating heresy). This is the door through which novelty enters into
persons, firms, and societies. We want leaders to project confidence, but if they do not
open themselves to rivalry and difference, their confidences may be dangerous. Leaders
have to be open and confident at the same time--a nearly impossible combination. If you
are confident in what you already are and know, you do not need and seek stuff beyond what
you already are and know. So you extrapolate too much from your own limited past experi-
ence. We see this again and again with CEOs who fail, who produce stupendous gains fol-
lowed by stupendous losses. They trust their own narrow experience base so much that
they do well with it till circumstances to which they are insensitive make their efforts
counter-productive.
All of humanity is a projection, a throwing forward, of scared small people in an immense

universe most of which they do not understand. Civilization itself is largely an encourage-
ment we structure ourselves to give to each other, to improve our plight in a huge pitiless
universe that we all learn does not have our interests at heart. The culture of development
is just a way of structuring us to try things--we need a reliable steady state to invest in, a
population of people motivated to attempt the impossible, infrastructures that multiply the
feeble efforts of lone individuals into bigger impacts, and tools and tolerance that allow us
to welcome diversity and competition. The culture of development is our way of creating
an artificial universe, between us and the real universe, such that our artificial one is more
reliable, more inviting, more supporting than the real universe. We buffer ourselves from
reality via alternate realities we build together.
Innovation is stymied when we believe that we are safe and have handled the universe. It is
needed when we realize how fragile what we have built really is. We innovate when we are
scared enough to see the need to change yet safe enough to have confidence to try the
impossible. Innovation is paradoxic in this way. It is pure paradox. We have to balance
fear with confidence. Too much of either one and we fail to innovate.
40 Attitudinal (Value) Factors That Distinguish Societies Capable of Development from Those
Incapable of It--Productive Daily Life is Divine
type factor anti-development value pro-development value
my relation religion preference for poor (catholic); preference for rich (protestant; wealth as sign of
to me not wealth as selfish, evil god’s favor
my relation
to society sins removed by religious authority sins removed by personal repentance and acts of
determines daily life disciplined contrition (not ritual obser-
things vances)
rule by distant religious bureaucracy rule by local congregation in which one’s own voice
impossible to influence and influence is palpable
individuals someone will take care of me only I will take care of me
cannot be trusted can be trusted
can partner only with trusted inner circle, can partner with anyone sharing vision, values, and
members of same culture, or family mem- wherewithal for particular needed project
bers
building our own firm is our only responsi- improving our suppliers and customers and infra-
bility in competing; we cannot help bad structures we use is part of “us competing”
inputs, customers, or infrastructures
morality exalted standards impractical in daily life practical standards that actually can be done daily
wealth as what now exists as what does not yet exist
wealth comes from favor of powerful oth- wealth comes from own efforts and work
ers
wealth is fixed sum, issue is distributing it, wealth is growable entity, issue is growing total pie
getting some not allocating or distributing differently
wealth comes from control of resources wealth comes from enhancing productivity of pro-
cesses
foreign investment is evil, controlling force foreign investment is free education for our future
workforces and managers
40 Attitudinal (Value) Factors That Distinguish Societies Capable of Development from Those
Incapable of It--Productive Daily Life is Divine
type factor anti-development value pro-development value
the future is competition is viewed badly as egotism and aggression is viewed as healthy and essential
the is inferior to solidarity and cooperation is superior to solidarity (striving outweighs envy)
present’s (envy outweighs striving)
agenda not
the present no local rivalry, only rivalry with distant or intense local rivalries
foreign firms
undemanding local customers easier to sell demanding local customers difficult to satisfy and
to than broader market customers sell to
justice distributive justice for those now alive only distributive justice for those alive now along with
those yet to come--future generations
propensity to consume propensity to save
work is less valued than intellectuals, leaders, is more valued than other social roles
and other social roles
heresy heresy as threat to all society heresy as boon to all society, sparking productive
diversity
unanimity is good contentious diversity is good
ideas stolen by nearby firms is an evil thing ideas stolen by nearby firms are counterbalanced by
their ideas we sometimes implement so all benefit
from idea leakage
one makes educating as inculcating values of dominant system as liberating self to self choose values to follow
oneself not teaches skills other than those needed for teaches how to improve personal and group produc-
society personal and group productivity improve- tivity
makes one- ment
self
utility shunned in favor of grandiose visions made central so all attractive ideas are practical ones
order and wanted as general imposition onto society wanted as something individuals apply to design of
discipline from its leaders their daily lives
subordinated to story telling virtues of wanted for reliable execution of promises to others
courage, magnanimity and respect for others’ needs
time focus on distant heroic past or glorious dis- focus on practically reachable near future
tant futures
rationality meaning from grandiose historic sized meaning from well executed daily life achievements
projects cumulated into wealth
authority power resides in “great” state or leader power resides in laws and division of powers
people responsible to discern the whims of people responsible to obey laws and make others
power and comply or fawn obey them
power from world irresistible unpredictable forces setting for human action
own accu- grand ideas and isms of all as solutions one’s own daily actions and accomplishments as
mulation of solutions
daily
accom- life something that happens to me something that I invent and influence
plishments informal personal relationships are essen- informal personal relationships are not essential for
not from tial to all business contacts and deals individual transactions but essential for inter-firm
society learning in clusters that spawn new ventures
without or
salvation effort to save oneself from this world effort to transform the world, make it better
history at
large progress giant leap of progress through giant self or daily increments of progress that “add up” to large
social project, fanaticism scale change after years of work
optimism someone expecting luck, the gods, or the someone ready to do whatever is necessary to make a
powerful to favor him difference
democracy as unlimited ideal good as carefully separated and balanced powers kept sub-
ordinate to laws, never trusted entirely
58. Darwinian Culture Evolution Model of

Innovation.
Culture is powerful but shallow. We must study and deal with it due to its power; but we
easily slip from being impressed with its power to thinking that power is deeply rooted,
when, in fact, researchers have trained non-members of various cultures in 20 minute ses-
sions, so they days later become indistinguishable from natives to that culture in perfor-
mance. Culture is powerful but shallow. Culture is perhaps an extrapolation. Natural
selection generates variety, largely neutral, harmful, or useless, till some environment
change suddenly makes some slight portion of such accumulated un-used variety, important,
life saving. Organisms soon learned that if they sought comfortable environments they
could avoid or reduce huge environment changes that might wipe them out in favor of organ-
isms having some random feature useless till the huge change happened. So organisms
adapt to environments by fleeing them, choosing them, and modifying them via territories,
nests, and shopping malls. Human culture is an organism inventing its own preferred envi-
ronment to live in par excellence.
This artificial organism-created environment, called culture, that humans erect to aid sur-
vival, is also another, faster inheritance of viable traits mechanism. Recent research shows
some Lamarcian inheritance through RNA of learned behaviors in cells, but still generally, lit-
tle ability to pass one organism’s learning onto offspring. Study of primate societies shows
cultures emerging and what is biologically important about them is they, the cultures, allow
one generation to direct school the next generation in what they have learned about sur-
vival. This is a great leap in the amount of experience/information that each generation
can pass on, in addition to each generation erecting/installing modifications of the human
culture environment that make it better at supporting human survival. We can imagine
humans getting so good at both of these functions that humanity stops evolving entirely--
manipulating environments protects them from environments that might force evolutionary
changes in human nature. The end of evolution this has been, not exaggeratedly, called.
So we have levels:
organism collects variations--harmful, neutral, or unused--which change perhaps

into value for survival when big environment changes happen
organism flees challenging environments, seeking out stable ones that are comfort-
able
organism adjusts environment conditions to make life survivable and comfortable
organism invents, in any actual environment, and erects his own artificial environ-
ment, more comfortable, stable, survivable
organism installs an artificial environment that allows experiential learning about
survival to directly influence next generation behavior.
Each level is a step towards ending evolution, by buffering the organism from threats from
his or her environments. Each of these is also a change of level from a population trying to
survive at a certain cost to its individual members, to individual members surviving by locat-
ing themselves within societies, cultures, artificial environments, or learning they find or
invent or select. However, the organism achieves the end of evolution by lots of diverse
adaptation and evolution mechanisms it installs around it. This is somewhat paradoxic--
ending evolution by doing more of it.
Viewing this overall we can see the saying is true--it is not the intelligent who survive but the
flexible. If you collect variants in your self (variant repertoire accumulation), flee certain
environments or environment aspects (adjust location within or among environments),
adjust particular environment conditions (modify parts of environment), erect artificial envi-
ronments to buffer you to outside environment challenges (erect artificial worlds between
you and the environment), install inter-generation inter-location, inter-role learning pro-
cesses within such installed artificial environments (change learning from whole population
to individual organism level), then you survive. It could not be any clearer that this is a
quite general innovation mechanism, just as practiced by corporations as by worms, by fash-
ion houses in Italy as by bacteria in Liberia.
Ending evolution by doing more of it--a contradiction that works

stop evolution by storing up variant traits that are harmful, neutral, or unused in your
present environment, but that could be valuable should the environment
drastically change
stop evolution by fleeing from challenging environments
stop evolution by adjusting particular environment conditions
stop evolution by erecting an artificial environment, within the environment
stop evolution by erecting an artificial environment that allows experiential learning by one
generation/organism to be passed onto another generation/organism
Cultures evolving
a population of cultures in individual minds, in contending groups, evolving under natural
selection forces
a population of subcultures within any one culture, in individual minds or in contending
groups, evolving under natural selection forces to make their overall culture
evolve
a population of unconscious and formal practices and contending concepts within a subcul-
ture, evolving under natural selection forces to make their subculture evolve
Culture evolution cycles (Thompson and Wildavsky’s “Culture Theory”)

fatalist (nothing can be trusted), communal (we must stay together the world is untrustwor-
thy), hierarchic (anything goes within specific limits), individualist (anything
goes the world is benign), anarchist (isolate self from all social forces, nothing
is worth doing)--are the five basic political cultures of individuals and groups
surprises--where reality does not confirm what the culture predicts--if big enough or
repeated enough--change one type of culture to another
major transitions observed--communal cultures exert such care they seldom err till benign
results accumulate across generations turning later ones into individualists
major transitions observed--individualist cultures act without regard to consequences till
disasters switch them into communal cultures
major transitions observed--fatalists try so little they collapse into anarchists
Culture use evolution

people use culture more and more as age and experience turn “being” a culture into “hav-
ing” it
uses include: hiding behind one’s culture (avoiding more stringent performance standards in
the world), saying “no” via culture (using it as excuse to not do), hiding
unpleasant realities via invented and maintained “cover” cultures (most busi-
nesses and so-called “leaders” generate such cover cultures), demystification
cultures (erecting cultures that look underneath other cultures for hidden self
interests and manipulations at work)
people evolve from defensive to aggressive uses as they age and gain experience
Culture self maintenance routines--cultures maintain themselves in being by

calling “a solution” only things guaranteed to perpetuate their deepest problems
solving all problems using culture-limited small narrow repertoires of actions and thoughts
(culturally defined “solving”)
declaring victory, solution, satisfaction using only traditional criteria of excellence embedded
in the culture so outcomes outside the culture are never seen and attempted
and achieved (culturally limited types of end state)
calling “a problem” only things that draw forth solving actions that change no fundamental
assumptions or blindspots of the culture
culture norms and rules that outlaw all alternatives not traditional to the culture, so systems
cycle among preset prescribed states allowed in the culture
parenting that declares “good boy” and “good girl” dozens of times a day when kids follow
culturally limited alternatives and procedures so all “other” procedures are
experienced unconsciously for early decades of life as “bad”
ostracism and scapegoating of divergences and divergers--social withdrawal and isolation of
those who differ so they cannot set up alternative ways and routines in others
culture fractal deployment--cultures form subcultures that deploy the same limited reper-
toires of differences of the parent culture, articulating the limited repertoire
in continuously updated realms, aims, and groupings of persons
Culture mutations
random variants in repertoires of permitted actions, thoughts, feelings of a culture
random variants in the self maintenance routines of a culture
surprises that move cultures from one type to another
ending evolution acts the unseen side-effects of which induce more change in any of the
above three than the changes they intended to prevent or avoid from environ-
ment influences/challenges
Culture inheritance
formal teaching and learning of routines etc.
unconscious copying of common practices
ontologic anxiety where the culture’s repertoires break down causing emotional crisis stories
that repeat and reinforce limits of the culture (do not go there bad things hap-
pen when you do)
ceremonies and celebrations of conformance--excellence judgements biased to unconscious
and limited culture repertoires
Culture competition for existence

threats from adjacent/encountered other cultures
threats from loss of vitality in cultures that opens the door to non-conforming new sub-cul-
tures
threats from new territory (media like the internet etc.) where subcultures can expand and
dominate and present challenges to the main original culture of a group
threats from measures--where the gap between reality and theory, life experience/alterna-
tives and culture presented experience framings and alternatives is made evi-
dent to all
Biologic inheritance systems

genetic--passing genes to other generations
epigenetic--passing RNA in cytoplasm, and gene unwrapping/wrapping mechanisms/settings,
on to other generations
behavioral--passing behaviors on via copying, modeling, learning, instruction mechanisms
symbolic--passing codes on plus passing how to compile practices into new codes and codes
into new actions
Biologic inheritance principles

more ways to inherit than genes
some nonrandom changes, hypotheses in effect, are inherited
some acquired info gets inherited
evolutionary change can come from instruction as well as selection
Major features of current post-modern Darwinian evolution synthesis

heredity is through genes and other transmissible biochemical and behavioral entities
both accidents and instruction cause variations that may get inherited--in genes, epigenes,
behaviors, and symbol systems
selection occurs on many levels--for any entities that develop variants that differentially
affect reproductive success of the entity and that can be inherited
Result: within cells, between cells, between organisms, between groups of organisms enti-
ties can be selected, inherited, evolved
Result: entities inherit systems for varying how plastic/variable their genes, epigenes,
behaviors, and symbol systems are, so drastic change can spawn rapid trait
evolution
Result: if variants are mistakes we ignore causes of them, but is some variants are pro-adap-
tation traits, instruction has to be considered a cause of variation
Result: heritable adaptive changes come from natural selection and from internal evolved
systems that generate pro-adaptive hypotheses in response to conditions of
life = a sort of Lamarcian inheritance
When cultures evolve there is not much that individual humans can do about it--thousands
and millions of people around them change preferences in the same direction, in the same
way, at the same time. The force of this is overwhelming as all the susceptibility of individ-
uals to social pressure, norms, models, trends, crowds come into play, many of these forces
acting unconsciously. Culture conflicts are quite the opposite of the familiar ideologic con-
flicts between rigid inflexible blind adherents to opposite poles--liberals versus conserva-
tives, Republicans versus Democrats, religious versus secular. Cultures come with their own
divisions into polar opposite choices and communities and with their own unique preferred
ways of seeing and relating to such pairs of polar opposites. Culture competitions are often
competitions between entirely different such polar pairs rather than between one pole of
any particular pair versus another. Culture competitions are evident when one faction sim-
ply does not care whether policy and people are liberal or conservative, because such dis-
tinctions, to them, are shallow, and inter-generative, liberals call into being their opponent
conservatives and vice versa. Consider a new religion conquering a society--from the reli-
gion’s point of view both liberals and conservatives are damned or saved--a new polar pair is
introduced that simultaneously and equally applies to both poles of the being-conquered
societal culture. Culture competitions are like this, not the choosing of poles favored by
some one existing culture.
Cultures move in when other cultures weaken or when they are forced out of old comfort-
able niches by invading other cultures. They fight other established cultures to plant them-
selves among the people occupied by those other cultures. Christianity, for example,
recognized the niching strategy of animals, in its deliberate targeting of those most disaf-
fected with Roman Empire systems--the poor, the discriminated against, the outlawed, the
low status ones. Communism similarly took advantage of the Great Depression of the 1930s
to target all those who lost farms and jobs. They both--Christianity and Communism--sold
belief systems with their own different polar pairs of the good and the bad or one good ver-
sus another good.
In an individual person cultures compete, and therefore, evolve, when sets of polar oppo-
sites compete--when a person wonders whether to worry about grace versus sin or liberal
versus conservative or kin versus non-kin. Also cultures compete when they treat such
polarities differently--show I choose liberal or conservative or should I blend liberal with
conservative or should I evolve beyond liberal versus conservative, for example. Cultures
are the abstract unconscious frameworks that determine what we judge it worthwhile to dis-
tinguish in our experience.
When we successfully defend our existing culture from an attacking one, we often do so by
reconfiguring, renewing, revising, or otherwise adapting our existing culture to the strongest
points and most valid points of the attacker culture. We “win” by so changing “us” that it is
a new “us” that has won. We get the pride of saying we won at the cot of self change we
otherwise, without attack, would never have undergone.
Technologies have cultures. Though the education of nerds, software people, and other
engineers responsible for many of them makes this undiscussed and largely unrealized, and
certainly unmeasured. So there are conflicts between interfaces, devices, standards, and
software systems that cannot be solved or understood without seeing the cultures at conflict
between them. The anthropology of technology solves this by making evident what cultures
are at work in particular technology commitments and which are in conflict when technical
devices and approaches collide. Culture evolution goes on within and among technical sys-
tems, so projecting futures is hard or inaccurate without the anthropology of technology.
This adds commercial worth to what otherwise would be a rather esoteric exercise.
A particular striking aspect to this is the flight of 1960s counter-establishment values into
the US West Coast Silicon Valley ventures, where technologies, not for money, but to democ-
ratize media and the world overcame East Coast technology ventures bent on money. Mis-
sion conquered money, West conquered East, T-shirt conquered blue suit, digital conquered
analog, egalitarianism conquered hierarchy, humans conquered monkeys. Business school
professors have constantly gotten it wrong by under-estimating, in ways typical of males, the
emotional and cultural meanings, driving forces, and effects of technical system competi-
tions. Though East Coast types celebrate hopefully every single stumble of West Coast ven-
turing, the long term trend is clear--stumbles have not stopped the immense victory of West
Coast mission over East Coast greeds. Those making a better world have conquered those
making better “me”s. The hand of God at work, some might say.
When, in the flow to find a home dynamics at the heart of Silicon Valley, an idea, person,
skill, technique, practice, technology, or set of funds tries to find a home for itself, to en-
niche itself somewhere, it does so by the dynamics in the model above--changing environ-
ments, modifying them, making them, and making them learn. When we have any of those
entities--idea, person, skill, practice, technique, technology, or set of funds--we can apply
all four of those operations to each of them till a stable home is found for them--change the
environment they are in, modify the environment they are presently in, making a new artifi-
cial environment within the environment they are in, or making them or the environment
they erect learn how to adapt and survive. This set of operations is a powerful tool for inno-
vation of all sorts. It is a toolkit for making ideas, technologies, etc. survive. Darwinian
culture evolution is a profound innovation strategy, almost never comprehensively and thor-
oughly applied, at present. Culture apply it without the humans in those cultures realizing
it.
59. Westney, Roehner, and Syme’s the Inno-

vation of Copying (Patterns in History) Model
of Innovation.
History is the history of everything that humans do. That includes business history, economy
history, invention’s history, and the history of innovation. History has suffered from subjec-
tivity--whoever writes it has such a limited viewpoint, life experience, and sets of data to
work from that the “version” of events he generates bear strong resemblance to his own
concerns and little to what he writes about--history becomes autobiography, in most cases.
We have all experienced this directly when some Harvard professor wrote up our own busi-
ness, distorting terribly everything, not just some things, or when a news reporter wrote up
something we were involved in, injecting all sorts of non-existent contents, and getting
wrong most of the contents included. If you have ever told a story to a friend and, a week
later, heard a version of it from another friend that was hardly recognizable, then you know
that history, both small and large scale, is largely myth, bias, wish-dreams, illusions, and dis-
tortion. This goes even more strongly for our own personal memory of our own experience.
Our history of ourselves is just as bad as our histories of everything else. Indeed, our history
of yesterday, our history of what someone five minutes ago said and did with us, is just as
bad.
The fallibility of memory becomes innovation, unwitting perhaps. It does this in several
ways. People generate history by copying what worked (or turned out to be survivable) in
the past. Even when they try to innovate, they often fall into analogies. They see present
circumstances as “like” past ones. Such case-based reasoning is very conservative in that
seeing a present case’s resemblances to a part case is often enough to hide all sorts of
aspects of the present case that are not like that past case. You get connection to past
cases at the cost of distorting the present case, perhaps by surpressing non-similarity-sup-
porting details. President Johnson of the US saw Vietnam as “similar” to Korea; President
Bush saw Iraq as similar to Vietnam. Analogies all too often turn out to be self fulfilling
prophesies--because Bush saw Iraq through the eyes of Vietnam, it became a quagmire like
Vietnam, one could say. Memory errors become innovations when people copy the wrong
part of a situation, when they copy it badly, then they implement it in environments entirely
different than the environments it came from, and the like.
Patterns in history are emergent consenses about what resembles what else in history. Often
this takes the form of what we call by the same word. If we call X, Y, and Z “revolutions”
then they exhibit some common pattern elements. Though we have a drive to seek the dis-
tinct, the different, the novel, we also labor, automatically, to assimilate the distinct, the
different, and the novel to the past. We seek the new while working hard to never encoun-
ter it by robustly assimilating it to the past.
The flaws of history/memory

remembering only what fits and supports our preferred pre-existing frameworkis/value-sets
assimilating a situation to an “analogous” case where what is similar is peripheral to the real
forces at work and at stake
interpreting past cases so as to justify present preferences
choosing which past cases so as to justify present purposes and preferences
assuming alternatives and contexts, environments and thoughts not really available in the
past
The levels of flawed history

distorted histories of ancient events
distorted stories of recent events
distorted seeing and explaining of present circumstances
inab ility or unwllingness of certain groups to see/handle certain past cases
inability or unwillingness of particular other people to see/handle certain past cases
inability or unwillingness of you yourself to see/handle certain past cases
The innovations of flawed history and remembering

copying the wrong thing
misconstruing what you copy when you implement it
implementing something in a very different context than it grew up in
improving what you copy before implementing it
stripping challenge from a thing in order to make implementing it “easier” or “faster” or
“cheaper”
reactions to early steps you do become a different environment of doing so each step is done
in a different context, not one uniform one
The repertoire effect

we have repertoires of past cases we draw from to spot, delimit, name, and interpret present
cases
we have repertoires of past actions we draw from to react to present circumstances
case based reasoning finds things in our past similar to things in our present and extends solu-
tions that worked in the past to handle differences in the present
what we are willing to call “a problem” is only things that do not painfully extend our reper-
toires of solutions
whatwe are willing to call “a solution” is only things that do not painfully extend our reper-
toires of solutions
The induction deduction abduction battle

it is the infinitesimal details that tell us a memory is accurate
accurate memory is bottom up emergent
accurate memory, however, produces sui generis isolated unique phenomena, for which no
general rules apply
we use analogy to allow past experiences to help us with present unknowns
the cost is a certain distortion of details--causing complete inaccuracy or causing destruction
of details that have value
we use deduction to notice in situations things induction would miss
the cost is the vastness of possible deductive frameworks to apply--no one knows which will
turn up the telling particular solution detail
we tune among induction, abduction, and deduction in orderto tune between accuracy, past
solution use, and spotting telling details
The joys of copying

copyingthe boundary
copyingthe context
copyingthe perceived function]
copyingthe actual function
copyingthe unconscious past assumptions
copyingwithout improvement and with improvement
copyinginto a similar context, an indentical context (impossible), and into an entirely differ-
ent context (the usual)
implementing by design what emerged bottom up in the past--cross scale contradictions and
missing supports
Unwitting copying
inventing what has already been done but you have not read or lived widely enough to know
it
repeating commonplace biases or fears in your reactions so you “invent” reactions as stunted
and conservative as others’
The monkey dynamics of copying

humans are monkeys
monkeys have elaborate abilities to copy actions of other monkeys in the context of the
intents/goals of those monkeys
means can be substituted for other means, keeping the same goal, when circumstances
change
there is a powerful mocking humor sort of copying too--joy in making fun by doing what
another monkey does, perhaps with deliberate distortions or exaggerations
Historic scale innovation--Japan rising economically, for example--is often criticized as

“mere” copying. Yet when a host of copied systems in Japan outperform the originals they
were copied from, “mere” becomes not exactly the right word. American rise by copying
Britain was critiqued in exactly the same terms as Japan’s rise by threatened Americans.
The threatened power critiques development as mere copying, while being truly threatened
by it--a contradiction. From the viewpoint of the developer, Japan 100 years ago, say, copy-
ing amounts to major innovation in present systems. Lacking context and education in for-
eign models, literal surfaces and components get copied without access to context.
inevitably this leads to all sorts of unwitting innovation. Furthermore, copying becomes
ever more selective of its targets--what is to be copied and what is not to be copied. This
selectivity alone also amounts to innovation as things are copied without collateral supports
and contexts essential in the original.
All creators start by copying the canon in their chosen field. They study up on their field’s
past leaders and innovations, perhaps spending as much as ten years doing so. This is an
inverse-U function, too little study and they fail to create, too much study and they fail to
create. Piccaso was ordered by his father to copy past masters, and he did so, but rebelled,
wanting to go beyond them when exposure to Paris showed him artists competing for distinc-
tion, uniqueness, and doing what “had never been done before”. Copying was the ground
upon which invention then arose out of a kind of revolt, refusal, and rebellion.
Copying someone else’s thing by us, in our contexts, with our tools and background attitudes
and history, will not by true “copying”. We know that. We “copy” something more
abstract--a function perhaps. We allow for different context, means, even differences in
how functions are useful or used. If we have a whole campaign of copying, perhaps copying
lots of things from lots of diverse sources, the whole campaign amounts to massive innova-
tion, though all of it is copied.
60. Bak’s Self Organizing Criticality Model of

Innovation.
Bak won a Nobel Prize for his theory in 1972. He identified systems that on their own
evolved till they were in a critical state where avalanches of change happened on all size
scales. Between total order where nothing happens and total chaos where every local
change affects global system state, there are one or more critical points where some, but
not all, local perturbations change whole system state. Bak said these dynamics are part of
all non-linear systems--which means, virtually every real system in the world. Not all sys-
tems self organize to a critical state, but many do and many systems that do not self-orga-
nize into such a state can be put into such a state. This explained the lumpiness of our
experience and world---why the same action gets nearly the same result except some rare
times when, instead, it produces stupendously different results. Tipping points, whistle
points, turning points--are some of the names for critical points in non-linear systems.
Approximately half of all folk sayings in all the world’s major languages refer to phenomena
of such non-linear systems--let sleeping dogs lie, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush,
and so on.
Note this is not a theory on how to innovate but on how the world by itself without human
intervention and ideation, innovates. Innovation, afterall, of the world invented the pro-
cess, natural selection, that created us. Innovation in the form of natural selection
invented human beings. The universe without humans is creative enough to invent humans.
So innovation is a trait of the raw universe, and the amount of creativity in that innovation
process, is, as of this writing, unmatched by human innovations.
The image Bak used was the simple sandpile. Drop grains of sand for a long time and a hill
develops of sand. At some critical angle, the slop of the hill is such that one additional
grain of sand will cause avalanches on all size scales that totally reconfigure the entire shape
of the sandpile. Though one next grain gets dropped in a way no different than tens of
thousands of previous grains, the result of it dropping is totally unlike the result those tens
of thousands of grains produced. And, we cannot predict which grain will cause this unusual
result, in the vicinity of the critical angle.
Getting a woman to have sex with you is similar. You say things, one day, not at all better or
different than you said before, but, for no apparent reason, you girl takes off her clothes
and invites sex. What you said “caused” this without having any special power or other
attributes. It caused this result somehow due to gradually accumulating contexts in the
relationship. The meaning of what you say is in that history of interactions that contexts it,
not in its literal content. So the history of the system causes an identical-to-many-others
input to change everything.
The bubbles of our finance system can be understood as a system that self organizes into a
critical state, wherein the bubbles collapse. Human psychology wants to get rich, and
wants asset and investment prices to rise, with few incentives for honesty and many incen-
tives for exaggeration and risk-minimization throughout the finance system and its laws.
Individual life bubbles in terms of investing in failing lines of action abound for the same rea-
sons--past investment necessitates rightness of itself as the past. We continue the error to
avoid admitting the error, making the error ever more expensive, turning slight pain into
disaster. Though the world and its systems be non-linear, it is the human mind with its drives
for novelty and maniacal happiness system that makes us strive for things that when
obtained no longer satisfy us, that generates avalanches, bubbles, critical angles, and all the
rest. Though sandpiles do collapse at their critical angles, human motives and investments
collapse too at their more subtle critical angles.
Criticality points in non-linear systems

most local changes stay local, at certain values of a certain not-necessarily-known system
parameter some local changes have global whole-system effects
systems operate between a frozen state of extremely local interactions and a chaotic state of
every local action having global effects--a a phase transition point complexity
of effect is maximal
at critical values of the so-called “system parameter”, extremely close values lead to entirely
different whole system results, the system bifurcates towards different end-
state types, called attractors
Systems that self organize into critical values of their systems parameters
some systems inevitably drift or evolve till their system parameter hits its critical value
some systems sometimes drift or evolve till their system parameter hits its critical value
somesystems have a critical value of a system parameter but never on their own, without
outside intervention, hit it
Self organizing criticality in systems--systems that self organize into critical val-
ues of their systems parameter have certain traits
the same or highly similar inputs produce similar outcomes nearly always except at certain
unpredicatable points when they do not do so
the history of a system constitutes a context around its present status such that something
“builds up” to a critical value where similar inputs no longer produce similar
outcomes
The Innovation of Reality Being Itself--that is Non-linear

if reality is always non-linear
if non-linear system all and always have system parameters which, at their critical values,
means similar inputs no longer do produce similar outcomes,
then, innovation (outcomes not expected from the history of the system thus far) is inevita-
ble in all parts of reality
then, humans are in no way essential for achieving innovation
then, the invention of humans themselves, are proof of the creativity of the universe and its
common laws and processes, its normal non-linearities
Harnessing the Essential Creativity of the Universe Itself

there is a rich history of people finding an anomaly, a mistake, a strange result and inventing/
finding a context that turns it into something valuable, a creation
example, some bread mold drops into a dish of bacteria and a day later the bacteria are all
dead--vaccines are invented
anomaly (simple non-linearity effects) plus repertoire of diverse frameworks = value found
for the anomaly, that is, innovation
There are three non-linearity models of innovation in this part of the book. This one points
to aspects of reality that tune themselves till surprise, novelty, and invention of new com-
plexity emerges--with no outside intervention being needed. People can innovate by recog-
nizing this innovation process in the universe and spotting possible system parameters and
possible regions of their values that might become critical values at which novelty emerges.
Whistle point finding this was called in earlier models of innovation in this part of the book.
61. Kaufmann’s Adjacent Beyond Model of

Innovation.
This model, like the one above, is astonishingly simple. All systems that can react to their
own products increase in complexity of system and product over time till humans and even
smarter things emerge. They create repertoires of components--products they produced
that stay around or the processes that produced them stay around. Any one new product
then can be combined with all previous ones to result in further complexity and innovation.
The number of such combinations increases exponentially as the number of accumulated
products/components expands over time. Eventually each additional product leads to bil-
lions and billions of possible new combinations, with all past accumulated products. The
border, ever expanding, of possible new combinations whenever one new product emerges
from the system is called the adjacent beyond of the system.
This, as a model of innovation, frustrates with its simplicity. All you need is any system that
can notice and react to its own past results. That does not require consciousness, just
noticing and reacting, say a bacterium that “notices” a sugar gradient stronger in a certain
direction and moves to where more sugar is. Such systems naturally increase in complexity
till they invent humans and even smarter than human results. Life, brains, civilizations, and
whatever they evolve further into are inevitable in the universe we are in. Nearly all sys-
tems capable of noticing their own results increase in complexity without end.
Of course if you try to make a practical human innovation system based on something so fun-
damental and simple, you face the problem of examining billions and billions of new possible
combinations and noticing which can be useful in some context. The universe has time--bil-
lions of years--but practical human innovation has to be fast enough for humans to live to
see it (for morale reasons in part). So to use the adjacent beyond innovation system in the
universe itself, humans have to short cut the consideration of billions of combinations. This
is where repertoires of abstract mental frameworks of maximal diversity allow humans to
cut through billions of possibles to find actuals.
Systems that react to their own results

if a system can notice it has results
if a system can react distinctly to distinct ones of its own results
then such a system inevitably combines any present result with some of its accumulated part
results to come up with still new, more complex, results
such a system inevitably increases in overall complexity
such a system experiences exponential growth in the complexity of results it achieves and
combines
Twin Sources of Innovation

new products of the system, recognized by the system as components that can combine with
prior products to make new ones
new products of the system, abstractly represented in the system’s mind, to form repertoire
that can recognize value in new combinations of prior products of the system
Taming brute combinatorial possibilities

accumulating a repertoire of diverse abstract frameworks
using those frameworks to discern patterns among immense combinatorial spaces
directing attention at regions of interest in immense combinatorial spaces
finding value in particular combinations
The Practical Adjacent Beyond

collect a model of all past process and product accomplishments of your system
abstractly represent each model
combine all such models to form new possible products
combine all such models to form new frameworks for finding value in past product combina-
tions
identify regions of possible value in combinations of past products or process performance
achievements
If you think about creativity and innovation---neither of them says anything about what kind
of framework, value, use is involved. A worm, a nose chemical, a metal fragment, a discus-
sion point, any and all of these may be creative or innovations, depending on the framework,
value, use involved. History is replete with useless anomalous things that someone noticed
a value for if they were to be put into some unlikely context. Often it is imagining the
unlikely context, not inventing a strange anomalous thing, that constitutes the major
impressive portion of creating or innovating.
Many formal innovation methods of the past had the flavor of this adjacent beyond model.
Zwicky’s morphological forecasting methods of building giant matrices of emergent tech-
niques and technologies as rows and inter-dependent human needs (often functions needed)
as columns and spotting hot regions of intersection to predict new technologies is virtually
the adjacent beyond model done on paper, for example. Fashion shows, concept car shows,
beauty contests, and all sorts of other selection processes also have the adjacent beyond fla-
vor of examining lots of combinations of ideas and past results, using diverse frameworks in
panels of judges. Delphi processes extend this by making whole populations the judges and
making not just decisions but reasons for decisions examined by other judges.
62. Wolfram’s Simple Programs Model of

Innovation.
What are the simplest thinkable systems? Wolfram has spent decades thinking about them.
One dimensional cellular automata are in many ways the simplest thinkable systems. If we
can explain the zebra’s stripes, the rings of Saturn, the methylation sheaths around DNA that
determine what proteins get made, and nearly every other clever and creative thing in the
universe using them, that constitutes a simple programs model of innovation. Consider how
the laws of Einstein’s physics breakdown at small size scales, where quantum phenomena
take over. This is like the smooth relations among analog variables breaking down at small
size scales when they are being generated by underlying digital systems. Maybe the uni-
verse itself, therefore, is basically a simple machine, a cellular automaton, whose workings,
are revealed at quantum size scales. Maybe space and time are emergent phenomena, gen-
erated by more fundamental underlying dimensions of such digital machinery.
A one dimension cellular automaton has a row of cells, a set of rules (for how configurations
of present states of cells become new configurations of states), some states those cells pos-
sibly can be in, and an initial conditions sets of the state those cells actually are in. The
rules operate on individual cells and the neighborhoods that link cells to each others (not
necessarily linking merely adjacent cells). Iterative application of the rules simultaneously
to all cells, is the fifth component of these simplest conceivable machines. Wolfram wrote
a 1000 page long book on how these machines, simple as they are, are capable of the most
complex computations of the most complex computers man can invent--proving it in his book
(he calls it the “general computational equivalence” principle). Since most of our universe
is made of such simple program machines and since most of we humans and our minds are
made of the same machines, we are not more complex than the systems and world we live
in, and hence, there will be a lot of situations for which no conceptual clever short cuts
exist--to know what will happen we will have to “run” such systems, no shorter description
or procedure will help us.
If you tried to design a jet engine on a simple cellular automata component basis, you would
quickly get frustrated. Simple programs, of the one dimensional cellular automata sort are
much too basic to constitute a jet engine. Nevertheless there is an approach to jet engine
design that mimics simple cellular automata and might work. It envisions a population of
components from whose interactions maximal energy gets released from chemical processes
in the engine. Combine nano-tech and designer chemistry and a population of nano-engines
interacting to release energy and you get engines far more powerful than contemporary
designs. Simple programs are a bottom up, population interacting till emergence way of
design. Consider finite element analysis, simulated annealing, neural net computers---
these are all divide and conquer means. They replace one big hard problem with dozens or
millions of entirely simple smaller problems that add up to constitute the bigger problem.
Do all the little individual calculations and do all the adding up and you get as a result an
easy way to solve hard problems. Computers enabled all the calculation involves and
expanded use of these means. Simple programs are just the elemental systems underneath
these means. ss
The Simplest Thinkable Systems--one dimensional cellular automata

iterative application of all the rules in a ruleset simultaneously to all the cells in an array of
cells
states those cells can be in
the array in which the cells are arranged plus abstract neighborhoods defined over that array
rules applied to cells in neighborhoods that change present configurations of states of cells to
new configurations
initial conditions--the pattern of states of the initial cells in the system
General Computational Equivalence

out of a few hundreds different types of one dimensional cellular automata, a few dozen are
capable of all the computations of any human-built computer
since most systems in the universe and most systems in humans including the human mind,
are constituted of these automata, humans are not more complex than the
universe they are in
this means humans will not be able to find short cut descriptions and explanations of many of
the systems in the universe
The Simple Programs Way of Innovating--a calculus of invention

seek and define and test th4e simplest system that does the core part of the functioning you
want to invent
scale up to interesting magnitudes and speeds by getting a large population of those simple
devices to interact
The Digital Underwear Showing Under Analog Approximations of Reality

at small size scales smooth relations between entities become jumpy, discrete, quant-ized
at small size scales two distant things without space/time contact can influence and/or cause
each other
at small size scales the smoothness and local-connectedness of time and space break down so
that near and far become inter-mixed
extent of all sorts is emergent for how next iteration distributions of cell states emerge from
present iteration distributions
entities that we sense as having place/time in extents are high level emergents from interac-
tions of smaller scale fundamentals in the automaton
The Brain as One Automaton Perceiving Another Automaton--Reality

consciousness is a show of smooth analog transitions causally linked (causality as an emer-
gent) from a digital base of pulsed rhythmic linkages among disparate self con-
stituting and world constituting modules of mind
neuron to neuron links as pulsed assemblages across populations of neurons that constitute
thoughts and deeds and consciousness states of mind
scale difference as our minds operate on digital automaton iteration steps and cell layouts
many orders of magnitude larger than those reality (space/time) emerges
from
The Simple Programs Algorithm for Human Scale Action

invent automaton cells/rules/neighborhoods that tackle the deepest most important functions
and challenges to those functions that your organization faces
scale up automaton power by multiplying to vast numbers of such cells
let controls, limits, direction emerge from bottom up emergents among interaction popula-
tion of cells
iterate rules to keep integrity of how lowest level automaton units operate = rigid bottom
layer, more and more fluid and flexible higher levels, turbulent top level
Analogs of Simple Programs in Prior Innovation Approaches

divide and conquer, problem decomposition, nearly de-composable systems--find lumps in a
system where local interactions are more and stronger than regional or global
interactions, handle the lumps first
calculus is the primary model--get rates of change or accumulated amounts via infinite num-
ber of infinitesimal small unit results accumulated
finite element analysis--define tiny simple elements that multiplied accumulate to handle
complex shapes and large scale phenomena
simulated annealing---unfreeze myriad small elements, allow fluid interactions--boiling out of
local optima to more global optima, then refreeze
genetic algorithms--define population of entities, diversify them with different code endow-
ments that specify their behaviors and different exposures to aspects of one
environment, let evolving environment traits differentially challenge the
behaviors and the codes that specify them, via better reproduction of surviv-
ing entities
neural net computing---define population of nodes, population of weighted links among
nodes, between percept input layer and action-taking output layer--then train
by rewarding “useful” responses
simple programs--the algorithm presented above
The basic impulse that this innovation approach is based on has long been a part of human
cognition throughout history. The progress, such as it is, that has been made, is in two direc-
tions--conquering larger and smaller scales of observation, and of intervention, and, more
precise and simpler and more abstract automaton component definitions. The Simple Pro-
grams model of innovation involves the simplest thinkable systems, capable of all that the
most sophisticated computers are capable of. The discovery of this is a matter of pruning
away all that is non-essential, defining “the system”, that is, “the cause” such that all com-
plexity, including space and time and causation itself, emerge as higher level results from a
simpler substrate. This takes tremendous abstraction and that, in the practical world of
business or art, means getting far beyond all happenstance and local prejudice and culture.
You think yourself and design and intervene with entities completely stripped of what you
grew up assuming was “basic” and “true”. Few people are capable of thinking themselves
beyond what their childhoods assumed was “basic”. Male-ness, nationality, femininity, age,
profession--all the cultures we “are” embed partialities and biases in what they assume and
call “basic”. Getting beyond all that is rare and hard work, often decades of work.
Then there is the patience of waiting for wanted results to emerge rather than short-cutting
Are You Creative? 60 Models of Creativity and the 960 Ways to Improve Your Creativity that They Suggest
The Simple Programs Explore

ModelSimplest
of Creativity
Universal Systems
Components of Simple Programs
Drop Traditions initial conditions = program
rules of transformation = computer
hardware
Apply New Commonsense’s 96 Intuitions layout options
point-of-action options
discovery--8 intuitions
simple programs--8 intuitions
a new math--8 intuitions
a new randomness--8 intuitions
continuity overthrown--8 intuitions
natural selection overthrown--8
intuitions
physics overthrown--8 intuitions
universe as a simple program--8
Select Appearance of Simple Programs
intuitions
mind overthrown--8 intuitions start with cellular automata model
a new physical law--8 intuitions remove assumptions in turn to get:
a limit on knowing--8 intuitions
free: will, math, & applications--8 intuitions
totalistic cellular automata
mobile automata
turing machines
substitution systems
sequential substitution systems
Imagine a Basic Exploration Procedure tag systems
cyclic tag systems
register machines
model your project as at right symbolic systems
operator systems
define all possible initial conditions
define all possible rule sets
(run your model with all possible
combinations of initial conditions
and rulesets, watching for:
which of 256, IC recurrence,
boundary emergence,
classes 1 to 4, signs of
Apply Simple Programs
look for layers feeding adjacent
layers
look for variety that could be
made emergent from one
Creativity
universality) automaton substrate
look for complicated layouts,
rules of transform, points of
action that add nothing
Choose and Design Substrate remember universal systems can
emulate each other but some are
very cumbersome and slow ways
to do things easy in others
purpose (what intend to invent)
allowed transformations (rulesets)
allowed initial conditions
choose/design automaton substrate Analyze Effects of Simple Programs
build automaton
most existing concepts and relations
(run automaton are emergents from simpler substrate
scan results of automaton runs automatons
spot interesting emergents and most continuity is randomness masking
universalities) underlying discrete automatons
look for randomness assumed from
environment but really inherent
look for repetition and nesting handled
by existing models that ignore
randomness and complex results
The Discipline of Mental Assumption Scouring identify which of 256 elementary
programs your results resemble
The Discipline of Adding Minimal New Ideas

1 Commonsense: humans are more complex than the world and universe we inhabit (humans are special)
Intuition: the universe and everything in it (we, the world) are cellular automatons, hence, the same level of complexity (humans are not special--science has always advanced by dis-
covering new forms of this).
2 Commonsense: phenomena are continuous so models of them should be in continuous maths
Copyright 2002 by Richard Tabor Greene, All Rights Reserved, US Government Registered 585
by commanding them. When you lack patience for the simple programs approach to innova-
tion, you short cut it in either of two ways--not setting up elemental enough basic units to
interact, or, commanding results rather than waiting for them to emerge from interactions.
When you short cut via commanding results---you do get results, but one commander envi-
sions, and those results are not founded on low level unit interactions and nearly always at
odds with them, thereby being continually undermined by reality. CEOs who escape with
millions before the first side-effects and consequences of their short cuts are in, symbolize
this kind of failing. All in reality undermines all that they “achieve” a few months after
their leave enriched for their harm by tens of millions. Of course this is mostly an American
failing--Europe and Asia knowing that low level units are much more responsible for lasting
results than showy egotistical top leaders. Americans do not like themselves or other Amer-
icans so they need heroic top monkey figures to worship, in a god-ful way, throwing millions
at them in lower monkey worshipping higher monkey adulation.
63. Jun and Wright’s Globalization Theory of

Innovation.
Email is free. You can send messages very quickly to anyone in the world with a computer
and net connection. Anyone can broadcast messages to part of or the whole world. The
developed world has invented forms of net and computer even the poorest of the poor may
soon afford. Software integration of bureaucratic computer systems has given way to soft-
ware automation and assistance of globally distributed business processes. Social indexing
application have appeared helping people find others via interest, need, and capability. At
the same time as all this information global integration there has been delivery integration
via cheap, fast, global next day and next few days delivery services. A person anywhere can
produce anything and find and deliver to a global audience. Outsourcing is one of the first
emergent new phenomenon riding these twin new global infrastructures. There will be
many more. As huge old traditional organizations write themselves into these twin new glo-
bal infrastructures, we get two worlds--globalized old stuff and globalized emergent new
stuff.
When so many locals get connected to such far away and different other locals, what
changes? That is Jun and Wright’s question and answer. Innovation happens--things do
change and in systematic, measurable, and somewhat predictable ways. Companies, indi-
viduals via their careers, and all else in civilization has to respond to the innovations that
globalization is continually caused to emerge. Most of the consequences are highly general
and highly abstract, cloaked and hidden by the happenstances of local forms they emerge
within. Therefore, concretion oriented business leaders usually miss them all and only
respond when a market is clobbered in unavoidable ways and magnitudes.
Invasion of Locals by Globals

positive feedbacks--each infrastructure that lubricates global extension generates global
experience/persons that call for and use more those global infrastructures
trade
immigration
internet
ads
investment
lifestyles
entertainment media
gaming
outsourcing
Higher level governing under pressure transforms

decentralization experiments
public supports for diverse local private sector experiments
Lower level governing under pressure transforms

private and public together fostering intermediary semi-private semi-public institutions both
emergent and devolved from above
private and public partnering to establish copies of Silicon Valley
INTERMESTICITY intermesticity--transnational relations at all levels of govern-

ment
trading among super-national blocs and sub-national regions rather than nations
competitive administrative support at sub-national region and supre-nation bloc levels
global environmental movements defining issues of sub-national regions
internet-supported global movements for helping particular sub-nationa regional issues
dramatic failures of blind globalization of “development without population assent” run by
local dictators
emergence of intermestic (international domestic combined) issues
CIVITAS civic governance--beyond voting to self-organizing of local civitas

emergence of civic approach to governance over the interest group, rationalist, and populist
approaches (enterprise zones, rural development conferences, etc.)
regional governance by higher level integration, public choice, stakeholder bargaining, give
way to governance by civic communities
PLURAL KINDS OF DECENTRALIZATION decentralization via incenting local initiatives

local initiatives without drag of central government approval processes
administrative decentralization of authority to lower ranked more local roles
political decentralization of authority from agencies to bargaining among stakeholders
de-concentration of administrative functions
devolution of decision making authority
localized program invention
citizen participation in policy process
SILICON VALLEY MODEL emergence of the self-organizing Silicon Valley model

local government incentives for global firm local investments
attempted farming of “industrial clusters” on global scale of replication
DIVERSE EXPERIMENT FARMING switch from standardization to diversity of

experiment
central stance toward local switch from standardization to fostering diversity and experiment
national tests and incentives for replication successful regional experiments
The Global as The Local’s New Environment

the global is the environment locally
governments have to reconfigure themselves to produce motivation, compliance, and cooper-
ation based on this new local environment
systems that produced motivation, compliance, and cooperation based on locals not pene-
trated by global alternatives fail and frustrate
all levels of governance--personal self control, local governing, enterprise management,

national and institutional governments are affected in the same way by this
new local environment of the global
Standards and uniformity are hard to maintain due to everyone’s exposure to alternative
ways. Local authorities used to be able to control context and hide global other ways from
their local domains. That is now gone and as a result, local citizens demand access to the
good things they experience outside of government approved channels. Governments that
control all channels do so at a cost of heavy-handed intimidation acts that hinder commerce
and growth, making control a large cost on wealth. It pays to let go of control.
FORCE CONSTRUCT FORCE CONSTRUCT
Strangely global
infrastructure stan-
decentralization
experiments
dards of commerce,
higher level
decisions to trade, internet, etc.
change
governing ways of
lubricate exposure to
governing fostering local more diversity which
diverse
experiments undermines local
global resources controls and stan-
entering local dards. Standards at
areas creating the global level fos-
civitas
decisions to
ter more local diver-
by trade, lower level
immigration, change sity by bringing locals
governing ways of into contact.
internet, creating
ads, investment, governing venture
lifestyles, Governments
clusters that
entertainment media
have a local tradition
of central control that value control over all else, do so at a huge cost in slower develop-
ment and being eclipsed competitively by societies that are comfortable admitting the glo-
bal IS their new local environment.
How does governing adjust to the global as the new local environment? A bottom up process
of reconstituting all existing services, systems, policies, and agendas on a new basis, having
new values, and new bases of comparison, new aspirations is what works. When all parts of
an old established systems reconstitute recontext themselves some sort of transition involv-
ing lots of consultation, negotiation, and emergent new initiatives and structures happens.
Interesting enemy societies that hate and kill each other’s members yet end up copying from
each other’s media, music, and other systems. Finally billions of people decide, in a new
more global context of alternatives, what they like, want, aspire to, say and do. And gov-
ernments have to adapt themselves to a population living in a new context.
64. Giddens’ De-Localization Model of

Innovation.
This is a theory that what a person is, is being globalized. The most emotive, interior, inti-
mate parts of the insides of each of us is innovating. If you are selling to consumers or
“motivating” employees you have to be interested in this locus of innovation.
The globalization parts of this theory are fairly obvious--new standard global infrastructures-
-internet, next day air delivery, flows of people--leads to an increased educativeness of daily
life (local context becomes the globe’s ways and alternatives). This causes two things--rel-
ativism--local values, ways, and authorities suddenly lose force and interest, do not explain
what people are exposed to daily--and people fleeing to homes in communities of practice--
as geography, extended family relations, and local authorities lose force and practicality and
power. Relativism has complex results--it causes people, losing belief in local groupings
and traditions because they are obviously narrow and not always as optimal as they tradi-
tionally presented themselves, to end up standing as lone individuals whose communal needs
are minimally met if at all by intimate relations with other lone individuals (so community is
deeply attenuated) and it causes people, not able to believe or benefit from identifying
themselves with local groups any longer, to build their own identities by picking and choosing
from a globally-accessible mix of possible interest and other groups, and it causes people to
invent their careers, ways, and relationships rather than following pre-built inherited pat-
terns. There is a cost to all this--a workload that is interior--continual endless self doubt
and self reflection. Meaning no longer inheritable from groups and local communities, has
to be built so weak people and communities end up with little meaning, and lives become
fragile and subject to any temptations or dangers locally and now globally available. Com-
munities of practice as the new homes for people no longer at home in traditional families
and communities, have complex results as well--causing careers to take place in cognitive
not social spaces, causing increased risk from narrow or rigid cognitive specializations of
mind and career earnings. The costs of these results of communities of practice homes is
yearning for missing authority, as betrayal by dependence on expert systems and the work-
load of choosing, comparing, and evaluating competing expert systems offerings weights
people down. Both of these costs have a consequence--they cause a huge paradox to
emerge--the emotive and cognitive workload of self reflection and plural competing expert
system authorities to choose from makes people yearn fora the traditional top down auto-
cratic systems they just worked hard to liberate themselves from. The strengths required to
be self determining and at home in knowledge not social communities are large and more
than many people have the will, energy, training, and hope to handle.
intimate
subworlds Cost One:
Self Reflection T
Causes self built Workload h
Relativism identity Paradox e
narcissistic loss of
New Increased inventing of meaning Wanting
Causes Educativeness not following o Causes What I
Infrastructure Diversity of Daily Life v Paradox Just
Causes cognition Cost Two: e Liberated
C of Practice career spaces Yearning for Missing r Myself
Homes From
Single Authority a
cognitive
locality risk
increased risk and l
fatalism with expert
(narrow systems l
specialization) r
e
sult of globalization of personality is fragility to persons. Persons and their personalities
break down more easily than they used to, though they are more flexible and can operate in
greatly wider and more diverse contexts than traditional selves operated in. This is
increased scope of operation at a cost in depth, resilience, and power.
Fragility of person means people have a hard time standing for anything and standing up to
anything and being self consistent. Chameleon-like they conform too well to whatever local
clime and circumstances they face, wearing values and principles like fashions, appropriate
for the moment, little carrying over from one moment to the next. When everyone is flexi-
ble in this way, reliability is rare and trust nearly impossible, reinforcing individualism, nar-
cissism, and isolation--the lonely crowd.
An interesting consequence of this is people going back and putting on really out of date,
bigoted religions and traditions, even neo-Nazi-ism, as a hiding place from the choice, anxi-
ety, disruptiveness, and unrootedness of modernity. Fundamentallism is this flight to putting
on the rigid past, so one loses responsibility and puts on an entire dead society arrangement,
reducing ten thousand choices to one overall choice to flee from choice and personal respon-
sibility. Russian immigrants new to the US told tellingly of being overwhelmed by meaning-
less choice--which of one hundred cereals, which of one hundred jobs, which of one hundred
clubs. Women newly liberated into work get similarly overwhelmed with career options.
Men forced to share power with more diverse lands and peoples get overwhelmed with not
being able to rely on their preferences and ways as the system’s preferences and ways.
All these forces still operate powerfully, changing selves everywhere every year. This form
of innovation constantly goes on, globally, it is the new environment we all operate in.
Companies that ignore this type of innovation get disrupted by it.
GLOBALIZED PERSONNESS How globalization affects the personal:

Self Built Identities Replace Social Built Ones: how globalization affects the personal, altering
the mechanisms of self identity
Self Reflection Work Replaces Social Embedding: modernization: institutional reflexivity,
reorganization of time and space, disembedding mechanisms
Doubt Replaces Authoritative Certainty: modernity as radical doubt inserted into everyday
life so all knowledge becomes hypotheses
PLURALITY COSTS REFLECTION Self reflection work is the cost of increased risk
amidst globalization’s plurality of choices, threats, authorities, lifestyles
Trust Enables Living in Smaller SubWorlds: trust shields us from overwhelming globalization
thereby enabling incremental globalization
Intervening Global Forces and Conflicts Among Authorities Increase Risk in Daily Life: moder-
nity as increased riskiness of daily life--global calamities can and do affect
localities, experts are conflicting authorities so believing them is risky, while
not believing is a risk too
We Handle Risk via Increased Self Reflection via Lifecourse and Lifestyle Planning: global
forces interacting locally create plural authorities, choices, underladen with
risk in response to which people reflexively engage in life course planning, via
choosing lifestyles, and developing them, a core component of modern selves
UNWANTED MEANING IS WANT-ED/ING Lose of public spaces sequesters unwanted

but essential parts of life so life loses meaning, orientation, guilt, and objective
social-role base of personhood
Pure Relating and Sex by Self-Disclosure (Intimacy Building) Replace Socially Mediated Relat-
ing and Sex: trust by mutual disclosure in a pure relationship unmediated by
institutions is a modern phenomenon
Daily Life Untainted by Unpleasant Fundamentals of the Human Condition Replaces Natural
Community: sequestration of experience occurs so that direct contact with
events and situations which link the individual lifespan to broad issues of
morality and finitude are rare and fleeting. Sequestration of daily life experi-
ence from madness, criminality, sickness and death, sexuality, and nature
Contact with Existential Questions Missing in Daily Lives: repression of existential questions
(moral questions too). existential questions: to be versus not be, finitude in
time versus eternity, non-being is a part of being (pour sois versus en sois),
others and the look; the project of creating daily self identity by keeping a
particular narrative going,
Experts Disembed Lives from Traditions: the knowledge to live is often stored in “expert”
systems--therapists, counselors, guides, managers--that dis-embed daily life
from local traditions and embed it in abstract plural “expert” systems
Shame Overtaking Guilt as Social Embeddeness Disappears: guilt as failing the constraints of
the super-ego, interiorized commands of others--boundary transgressed;
shame as failing the constraints of the ego ideal, one’s own best self image,
goal not being reached; shame is getting much larger than guilt as interioriza-
tion of external value sets weakens
Decline of Public Spaces Generates Narcissisms: the decline of publics and public spaces has
created a void space wherein personality develops rather narcissistic ally from
intimacy in ideal, unsituated, relations with others
RISK-INCREASING NARROWNESS Narrowness caused increased risk and depen-

dency
Local Focus of Expert Coasts General Blur and Increased Risk: expert systems focus the
expert domain clearly by blurring all other relevant domains making people
subject to blind unseen unpredicted consequences of actions.
The Fatalism of Temporarily Trusting Experts Develops: a certain fatalism to ride along for a
bit with an expert decision that you only partially trust or believe
Disorders of Compulsive Self Control in a World of Little Control: anorexia as tightly control-
ling one’s body in a world of plural, ambiguous, options wherein control of
one’s self is very difficult to obtain
PEOPLE WANT WHAT THEY LIBERATE THEMSELVES FROM Immense cost of

increased self reflection to handle losses of authority, unity, power, and person-
alness in modern globalized society
People Struggle for Characteristics of the World That Just Liberated Themselves From: dilem-
mas of the self: unification versus fragmentation--much reflexive work while
traversing many plural contexts; powerlessness versus appropriation--what
one appropriates a phyrric victory as still an overwhelming plurality of
domains in which one is nothing appear; authority versus uncertainty--with-
out authority one must do the reflexive work of balancing enough commit-
ment with enough flexibility to withdraw from errors; personalized versus
commodified experience--one struggles to be a person to be personal in a
world in which everything is standardized, mass produced, and bought.
Liberty without Freedom: liberty politics versus freedom politics--emancipating oneself from
aspects of the world versus collaborating with new sets of peers to invent the
wholly new and insert it into human history
Freedom from tradition and local community authorities allow individual choice to flourish,
but global repertoires of locally available alternatives make local choices increasingly frag-
mentary and narrow. People, their lives, and their self chosen communities across far-flung
media, become riskier because narrower because self chosen without communal constraints.
The is the “long tail” economy where quirky individual offerings and tastes can aggregate
across the globe at low cost into economically viable units and amounts. Things can be
profitably sold that in all of previous history were considered failings, evil, stupid, or other-
wise useless to economic activity. Standard norms become laughably narrow and moralistic-
--revealed as fearful of “most” of what the world offers--looking paranoid not wise.
65. Toffler’s De-Mass-ification Model of Inno-

vation.
Toffler, earlier than the above authors, identified four paradoxes of what he called at the
time de-mass-ification--paradoxically mass production, by going global, invades all locals
with diverse things from diverse origins. So this is the first paradox that uniformity ends up
creating diversity (global mass production of standard products invades each local in the
world using standard infrastructures of information and delivery). Then an effect of this is
institutions and product appear to all be the wrong size--either too large or too small. The
largeness that helps mass production generates bottom up diversity that is frustrated by
large uniformity. So a battle in the middle sizes develops with the middle finding the large
stuff too big in scale (and too boringly uniform) and finding the small stuff too small in scale
(and too quirkily and locally unique). Among the institutions suffering this fate of being
simultaneously too big and too small is the nuclear family--it is too small in that two adults
raise kids, it is too big in that the two adults act like little dictators, much too commanding
and harsh to kids (in history kids were raised always by dozens of adults sharing villages of a
few extended family groups). Nuclear families that are simultaneously too big and too small
result in people together in their loneliness--we are emotionally close to parents we do not
like and who do not like us all that much either. All these three paradoxes together create
a fourth paradox--that we yearn for the tightly-knit emotionally-rich communities we just
liberated ourselves from. All of our liberty does not enable us to compose and design, cre-
ate and collaborate but rather it weighs us down with too much freedom, too few con-
straints, too much isolation and loneliness.
We get
mass society’s standard systems frustrated
with lead-
invade localities as diversities speed up images & change ers
because
PARADOX: PARADOX PARADOX PARADOX their solu-
uniformity institutions & together in yearning for tions are
what you just
creates diversity product wrong sized loneliness; left
either too
centrality centrality institutions productsappear nuclearfamily liberation big or too
too too slow appear too too big & without
uniform response big & too little
too big &
too freedom small, and
little
little too slow,
regions
regions custom family seeking above and
frustration frustration
with leaders: above and designs extensions one new below
with leaders: localities replace mass home work
wrong sized too slow below production child labor “right” localities
solutions solutions way
appeaTThCitier in size
appear
because
localities are the wrong size for us, custom design replaces mass production, new extensions
to the nuclear family appear to correct for its being simultaneously too big and too small,
and people seek the “one right way” though they just worked hard for years to liberate
themselves from some past “one right way”.
This is the third theory of globalization in this section of the book: Jun’s globalization of
governance, Giddens’ globalization of personality, and now Toffler’s globalization of roles
and institutions. In Jun’s model mass production via making localities diverse spawns local
experiments and Silicon valleys; in Giddens’ model mass production via shifting people from
homes in geographic locations to homes in knowledge field locations, increases risk and anx-
iety from being narrow oneself and being dependent on other narrownesses; in Toffler’s
model standardization results in every existing role and institution being the “wrong size”.
Global standards lubricate globalization of production, migration, outsourcing and the like.
This establishes two forces--a top down force of mass coverage of all localities with diverse
products and images from across the globe, and a bottom up force of localities, their tradi-
tions and authorities undermined by exposure to global alternatives, experimenting and
finding existing roles and institutions the wrong size for them. Does this make all localities
eventually the same? Evidence is each locality draws responses to all this from a local rep-
ertoire of favored styles, attitudes, relationships, and so forth, re-inventing some and dress-
ing them up using new materials and images from across the globe, now locally available.
Though certain pasts are uniformly across the globe exterminated--early childhood death
from childhood diseases for example--most local traits are reborn, refurbished to embody
and handle new global images and alternatives. Differences continue but via reviving and
inventing, not by clinging to unchanged past forms.
PARADOX--UNIFORMITY CREATES DIVERSITY, CENTRALITY CREATES CENTRIFU-

GALITY the mass society created greater diversity
mass society created mass media, mass transport, global corporations
mass media, mass transport, and global organizations exposed everyone to diversity of values
and ways
mass media speeded up desire for change and actual changes
diversity plus speed up overwhelm central controllers of all sorts, increasing frustration at
unresponsiveness of central controllers and their slow reactions
diversity plus speed up de-mass-ify things: they make people more different than each other,
motives more different, styles more different
ALL INSTITUTIONS THE WRONG SIZE institutions become simultaneously too big
and too small
nations are too big, one policy for entire nations hurts major regions while helping others
nations are too small, one policy for one nation misses inter-nation effects as powerful as
within nation effects
families are too big, one “family” imposed on all misses individual needs
families are too small, two parents plus two kids, the nuclear family, fails to civilize kids and
overwhelms parents
all existing social structures become simultaneously too small and too big
decentralization and recentralization are both needed therefore
THE CUSTOM SOCIETY everything is customized instead of standardized

mass media become customer personal broadcasting
mass production becomes custom mass production
mass policy making becomes regional tunable policies
THE LONELINESS OF FRAGMENTATION, YEARNING FOR UNITY leaving becomes

easier than joining, mass society minds resist de-mass-ified society values
increased diversity and speed up means liberating from is easier than joining with, making
people lonelier, friendships harder, relationships more transitory, community
continually self built
fight between second mass wave and third de-mass-ified wave in attitudes, styles, policies--
people yearning for the central, stable, authoritative, mass world that is gone
Anomie was a popular word 50 years ago. It expresses a discomfort and anxiety when roles
learned in one social place and institution did not work well in others. Societies where
every role and institution were the same--autocratic, for example, or democratic, liberal,
say, or conservative--were without anomie. Societies where one part required different val-
ues or habits than others, were filled with anomie as people could not apply what the
learned in one place in life, safely in other places. We might revive this word, anomie, now
that we all are in globalization. The ways and attitudes we grew up with are undermined by
exposure to lots of alternatives and by exposure to our own localities, now penetrated by
those global alternatives. The rules we grew up with do not work so well in the environ-
ments our localities are now. As Giddens says, our localities are now knowledge communi-
ties not geographic ones, and extremely narrow ones at that, increasing risk and
interdependence on other narrow communities of knowledge.
Globalization makes intense demands on us as personalities and as minds. Choice explodes

and constraints and guides evaporate. As local roles and authorities and institutions are
found wanting, we do not feel we belong anywhere, yet we belong everywhere to a remark-
able extent. We have gained extent without depth, chance without power.
What Nine Social Theories Tell Us about How Societies Change
Social Interaction Social Capability Non-Linear Systems

Theories Theories Theories
Jun and Wright’s Glo- Fiske’s 4 Elementary Krugmann’s Order from
balization Theory Types of Social Rela- Instability and Random
4 changes in governance: de- tion Theory Growth Theory
centralization, experimentation,
sharing (group over members), competing waves of growth with 1 wave
civitas enlistment, venture clus-
ranking (higher over lower), recip- dominating becoming the unplanned order
ters
rocating (treatment over condi- appearing in the system; chain reaction
tion equality), pricing (allocate to making global effects from local actions at
contributors not members) critical value of order parameter till
unplanned order appears in the system;
random distribution of growth rates of
objects, big objects grow neither faster
nor slower than little ones at critical value
of the order parameter;
1 • a city-fication process: 2 • a city-fication process: 3 • a city-fication process: tune

generate new and more specify how relative empha- parameter values of competing
power, generated by replac- sis of these four roles consti- waves and chain reactions till better-
ing central command with tute problems and specifies than-expected results emerge
self-organizing power devel- re-balancing of emphasis
opment in plural centers of among them as solutions
initiative
Giddens’ Delocaliza- Grondona’s Culture of Malone’s Coordination Cost

tion Theory Development Theory Theory
educativeness of everyday life establish reliable near future, pop- technologies lowering coordination costs
increasing relativism and prac- ulation of strivers, action scope cause: coalitions of small ventures into big
tices as homes, 5 effects, 2 enhancing infrastructures; reli- ones on the net; vertical departments
costs, 1 paradox: intimate sub- able persons, laws, systems; via replaced by populations bidding for work
worlds, self built identity, invent- training, tooling, tolerance of on the net; coalitions of large firms
ing not following; cognition rivalry & heresy; education/ increasing overall firm size on the net
career spaces, cognitive locality democracy/partnering/technolo-
risk (narrowness); cost 1--self gies
reflection load, cost 2--yearning
for missing single authority; par-
adox--wanting what we just
worked hard to get away from

4 • a city-fication process: 5 • a city-fication process: 6 • a city-fication process: establish
individual persons self build- continual work to re-estab- missing-till-now locality and demos
ing their identity anew via lish a culture of development powers;
bricolage from what their (in various domain types) as
7 • a city-fication process: distrib-
city offers from around the new substrates, social and
ute governing functions to mass
world technical, undo parts of past-
events;
erected cultures of develop-
ment 8 • a city-fication process: establish
insight processes among mega-city
components;
Toffler’s De-massifi- Greene’s Diversity Gladwell’s Tipping Point

cation Theory Management Theory Theory
2 mass system effects, 4 para- unconsciously valued contents, non-linear dynamics: slightnesses, epi-
doxes, six subeffects, six results; automatically used contents, inap- demics, system wide avalanches, law of
diversity invading locals, propriate for current situations; the few, degree of connectedness, system
speeded up images/change; uni- undo unconsciousness/automatic- tippiness, butterfly effect;
formity creates diversity, institu- ness; see diversity--within self, human nature dynamics: situatedness (sus-
tions/products wrong size; across time, human condition; bal- ceptibility to non-verbal, emotions are out-
together in loneliness, yearn for ance--seen/unseen, participation side in, some people draw us into their
what just left; centrality too uni- evolution, polarities of life feelings, slight details symbolize care so
form, centrality too slow, institu- must be controlled, we blame human traits
tions both too big & too small, miss situational causes); structure of
products both too big & too human cognition (confirm our worth need,
small, nuclear family too big and make sense of things need, fit into daily
small, liberation without free- lives need); human group effects (12 in
dom; frustration with leaders-- sympathy groups, 150 in acquaintance
wrong size solutions, too slow groups, we store memories in other for
solutions; regions above and socially extended minds, we level,
below localities appear, custom sharpen, assimilate, stories that we trans-
designs replace mass designs, mit)
family extensions/intentions,
seeking one right way though just
left it
9 • a city-fication pro- 10 • a city-fication process: 11 • a city-fication process: operate

cesses: get operations on since the reflection load of on cities through technologies of per-
cities done in a fractal man- encountering diversity is far suasion, help city democracies oper-
ner, across plural size scales beyond capacity of current ate bottom up through technologies
tools, invent new tools for of persuasion; and get city policies
fractally engaging “other- grounded in how the human mind
nesses” articulated in 64 or so works;
specific dimensions
66. Fiske’s 4 Social Relations Model of

Innovation.
Fiske has a simple theory of four ways humans relate to each other, plus the idea that
humans evolve from sharing through ranking then reciprocating, to pricing. That means each
part of life evolves, though at different times and speeds, along these dimensions.
The Four Elemental Types of Human Relationships

An example will immedi-
ately demonstrate the prac-
SHARING
tical power of what Fiske is
importance: importance: importance: importance: saying. Consider young
categorical scale treatment efficient
non-distinction group over higher
equality of members over over allocation Japanese girls who sell
condition & treatment
infancy lower condition to access to their vagina for
ranks equality contributors
RANKING over $300 to middle age men,
+ordering members without much in the way of
ordinal scale
distinct distinction trauma or guilt. They have
inequality of treatment
and condition moved vaginas from recip-
age 3 rocating domains of relating
RECIPROCATING to the pricing domain.
+intervals and addition
Consider Japanese business-
in
interval scale
cr
distinct conditions not treatments men who, being busy, hire
ase
equality of treatment
in
someone to attend funerals
g
age 4
di
for them. This is recipro-
ffe
PRICING
enr
+multiplication and distribution and ratios cating realms being trans-
t iat
ratio scale
i
formed into pricing realm.
on
distinct conditions and treatments
inequality of treatment and condition mediated by contribution degree We are all morally and cul-
age 9 turally offended when a
practice traditionally han-
dled by sharing is instead
moved to being handled by ranking, or any other move from sharing toward pricing. The
motion from sharing through ranking and through reciprocating to pricing is a move to more
abstract representations. In the abstracting that that involves, old moral dicta and cultural
norms are dropped by people, making individual decisions about what “value” is and how to
handle it. Why would people move vaginas from reciprocating relations to pricing relations?
What benefits and profits accrue to them?
When you ask them they tell you--it is “natural” for them. That is each new generation,
especially ones raised in cities, sees contradictions and dissatisfactions implicated in behav-
iors of adults, where certain values and norms are sacred. Adults treat vaginas as sacred
but they also treat them as fun and entertaining as well. Indeed they “say” vaginas are
sacred but they all too often “act” like they are entertainment. Kids see this gap between
word and deed and, given more child exposure to and interest in global alternatives and
images than adults have, the kids decide to take the “entertainment” that is pricing inter-
pretation. The costs of moving a part of self or life from the reciprocating type of relation-
ship to the pricing one, are not counted and assessed by kids. They often see the benefits
without seeing the attendant costs. Yet the adults often exaggerate and apotheisize the
costs so much, kids find the adults non credible.
Innovation in Fiske’s model is the evolution of parts of life from sharing through ranking
through reciprocating to pricing. There are forces, whether media or generational or global-
ization in nature that urge parts of life along this continuum. As globalization, for example,
undermines local authorities and norms, movement from sharing through pricing becomes
easier. As globalization changes each person’s psyche, with images of alternative ways, that
person finds it easier to move parts of his or her life along the continuum from sharing to
pricing.
A lot of the content of religions and cultures is dicta, commandments, rules, habits about
treating certain parts of life as sharing and others as ranking, some as reciprocating, and
some as pricing, some as ranking and some as reciprocating. People invoke gods and demons
to keep something shared and not ranked, ranked and not reciprocated, reciprocated and
not priced. Since the costs of not doing so are largely social we never really know whether
the dicta are worth all the trouble and threats involved. The group says treat X as shared
not ranked, and punishes you if you do not do so, but what harm would happen if it were
ranked is never made entirely clear--instead gods and demons are invoked or heros and bad
guys or insiders versus outsider ways.
The Four Elemental Social Relation Types

equality market
communal sharing authority ranking matching pricing
defini- equivalence transitive asymmetrical egalitarian calculative in terms of some
tions standard of exchange value
people merged so people differentiated by people are distinct but people are valued as price in
boundaries of individ- importance, or status coequal some standard of exchange
ual selves become indis- determines
tinct
group is more important higher ranks encompass turn taking; in-kind reciproc- demand supply balanced by
than members (rule, control) wider scopes ity; eye-for-eye vengeance; price system; bids and con-
of other people and compensate in equal measure; tracts; cost benefit calcula-
resources distribution into equal parts; tions; discounted future
matched contributions of returns; payments for risk
same kind and quantity undertaken
people feel they are all people feel they are not at people feel they are equiva- people either bargain value
the same all the same lent for purposes of treatment or accept fixed pricing
though not the same schemes or insist on a fair
price for value
kind, kindness, kin deferential, loyal, obedient intersubstitutable, inter- commodity, exchange
changeable, correspondent among different preference
sets
distribu- give what can, take what superiors preempt and give and receive the same, exchange currency in the
tion need benevolently care for with delay amount of price for item
approac
hes commons--all belongs to higher equals more posses- all are equal allocation by ability to pay
all sion and choice
no record of individual responsibility of seniors contributions matched in assessed by fixed ratio, rate
contribution for juniors amount
tasks done by voluntary superiors design and direct taking turns or equal alloca- wages paid for time or out-
participation not alloca- work of others tion of tasks put involved
tion
posses- keepsake items prestige items standard shared possession optimum items for resources
sion set available
markers
motherland estate allocated plots investment
ways of eternal relations precedence relations reciprocal relations efficient calculated relations
relating
consensus deciding fiat deciding one person one vote auction deciding
conformity obedience going along incentives
united by solidarity united by charisma/fear united by peer group united by competitive group
personal identity from personal identity from vertical com- identity from keeping even, identity from occupation/
styles relations pliance horizontal compliance achievement
intimacy motive power motive envy motive achievement motive
altruism might is right fairness due process
The Four Elemental Social Relation Types

equality market
communal sharing authority ranking matching pricing
fault, misfortune from pollu- misfortune from disobedi- misfortune from fortune misfortune from calculation
error, tion ence failure
and vio-
lation out group genocide empire expansion wars tit-for-tat feuds economic interests wars
types in group out group crite- rank determining rules appropriate delays and equiv- when to trust markets when
ria rules alent exchanges to legislate rules for them
ritual unifying event rank ordered spatial arrays ritual reciprocal exchanges behavioral bids from low
marking of relations for marking relations achievers to high achievers
mathe- categorical/nominal ordinal scales interval scales ratio scales
matical scales
style
subsets equal set hierarchy of subsumed subsets equal each other subsets proportional to some
subsets attribute of each other
darwin- altruism to kin serves obedience to leader pro- evolutionarily stable strategy allocation to most fit serves
ian ratio- one’s own genes tects own genes of tit-for-tat own genes
nale
time of exhibited in infancy exhibited by age three exhibited by age four exhibited by age nine
origin
This model of innovation encourages us to take each relationship of our life and work and see
which blend of the four types are in it and what forces are pushing it along the continuum
from sharing to pricing. We can then let some relationship evolve as forces urge it to, or not
as we see fit. We can even initiate a change from one type to another, for one or another
relationship we have. Many a venture business has been invented by moving some human
relationship from one of these types to another. If we account for the costs and benefits
carefully in doing these transitions, people can prosper from our work.
Fiske’s model, when seen in relation to the four prior ones in this section of the book, gives
us a way to be quite specific about globalization’s affects on relationships and roles. More-
over the model’s emphasis on a preferred direction of evolution in relationships, throughout
history, adds much to our understanding of innovations globalization will spawn. Ventures
appear when a transition is made by pioneers from one type to another in any specific
human relationship or role.
67. Page and Greene’s Diversity Model of

Innovation.
There is some simple deep relationship between diversity and creation, between diversity
and innovation. Innovations are, in fact, somewhat like compressed diversity. You take dis-
tant, different things and get them to combine and interact in close quarters. Each new
such invention then becomes a recognizable entity unto itself that can be distant, and dif-
ferent, and hence, combined with other such entities to make still more inventions--the
adjacent beyond model of innovation, described above in this section of the book. A ques-
tion, however, is what kinds of diversity work best for what kinds of innovation? There is
diverse fundamental values systems and worldviews--these tend to create conflict and wars.
There is diverse ways of thinking--these tend to define the best problems and come up with
the best solutions of them. There is diverse experiences and frameworks--these tend to
make the best predictions. It is all important what type of diversity you are faced with or
trying to use.
What makes diverse fundamental value systems harmful is the word “fundamental”. When
we say diverse fundamental value systems are being brought somehow together, we are say-
ing the people involved are unable or unwilling to stand outside what separates them
because they each define it as “so fundamental I will not examine it or live without it”.
Such differences, prevent a standpoint beyond them all from emerging and therefore, if they
are pressed to combine, create conflict and war. The nice thing about fundamentalists of
all sorts is they tend to like killing each other; the bad thing is they are all too willing to kill
non-fundamentalists as well.
Below I present two models of handling diversity--my own model and Page’s model.. Page’s
model shows how, for certain types of task, certain types of diversity, when handled in cer-
tain ways, produces better results than less diversity. More than this, he shows how and
why more diverse types of diversity outperforms less diverse types of diversity. My own
model concerns how to handle diversity so that certain types of it when applied to certain
types of task, performs better than less diversity. Most of the talk and handling of diversity
in the world around us, does not distinguish types of task, types of diversity, and types of
ways of handling diversity types. Because of this, most such talk and handling produces dis-
mal or few useful results. We get little from diversity because we lack ways of handling its
types well and its application to types of task.
The commonsensical distinguishing of types of task, types of diversity, and types of handling
of diversity types, done by Page, is the elemental clearing of junk needed for knowledge to
develop in any topic area. Page finds four layers of variables: 1) culture, race, age, gender
etc. types of diversity 2) identity, preference, and their impact on cognitive diversity (this
latter empowers solving and predicting, if it is relevant somewhat to the task at hand) 3)
experiential., demographic, training diversity as sources of cognitive diversity 4) kinds of
diverse cognition: perspectives, interpretations, heuristics, predictive models 5) effects on
collaboration, communication, application, and spread of mental tools = driverless costs 6)
overall cost-benefits of having/using diversity of certain types for certain types of task 7)
coordinated differences (cultures etc.), by fitting in we become different but in a group
where differences are nil because all are like us, only when outside our comfort “fit in”
zone, do our differences by coordinating with others like us, become of worth for things
beyond ease and automaticity of execution. By understanding benefits of diversity relative
to type of diversity and type of task and type of handling of diversity, and also understanding
costs of diversity relative to the same three sets of types, he shows how overall cost-benefits
can be obtained making benefits larger than the costs they entail. The failure of previous
researchers and the failure of large expensive industry efforts to promote diversity and train
for handling it to produce consistent large benefits, he says, comes from not making those
three distinctions of types: of diversity, of task, of handling ways.
Three points in Page’s model stand out. First is his layer two of intermediate more abstract
types of diversity--of identity, preference, and cognition--through which our usual common-
sense types act to affect outcomes. Second is--accurate prediction from inaccurate individ-
uals grouped--his crowds of models that are diverse outperform average and best models of
individuals result--a crowd of people with only so-so accurate models that are diverse will
out solve and out predict experts and the average and best models among them. Crowds
that are diverse have the power to reach optimal results on certain tasks (solving and pre-
dicting) that the best individuals and the average individuals of a population cannot match.
Third, since democracies have few incentives for voters to develop accurate predictive mod-
els (of policy results) they must thrive due to diversity of voter models but that may require
a diverse economy that fosters wide and many specializations and special sub-environments,
including overseas ones if the crowd of not-very-accurate voter models is to outperform
experts and averages. Political democracy is dependent on a viewpoint and way of thinking
diversity generating engine that foreign trade and capitalist economies seems to furnish.
This may be the missing link between market economy and democracy success. So China via
its market economy development is preparing a substrate of diversity of experiences, ways
of thinking and views that will later support good-functioning democracy.
Forces in Greene’s Theory of Managing Diversity

Un- Balance
see do in space across time
now diversity within undo your background the seen and unseen conse- emotion flows
yourself quences
time diversity across un-automate your behav- participation flows expectation flows
time iors
the eternal diversity in human- un-bound your actions polarities in life extrapolation flows
ity
Greene’s is a model of how to handle diverse types of diversity. It comes from models of
how people penetrate cultures foreign to them. Diversity is not a problem if it is con-
sciously wielded by self and others--we can talk about and adjust it in real time. However,
the main reason diversity has large costs is most diversity is unconsciously executed routines,
imbibed in past years, socialization, parenting, schooling, and related processes--we learned
lots that we were not aware we were learning and most of what is in us operating is not
available to consciousness and we might not like or agree with it were we to see it con-
sciously. If diverse perspectives (encodings of situations, what we notice), interpretations
(the ways we structure, categorize noticings and what we link them to), heuristics (ways to
approach solving known types of problems), and predictive models (ways of linking cause
with effect) are mostly unconsciously operating within us, we can genuinely deny them,
counteract them, apply them biasedly, and otherwise mishandle them without feeling blame
or concern. Page’s model slights this aspect, calling it “coordinated differences” in this epi-
logue, and he also slights the literature on tacit knowledge, particularly John Seely Brown’s
work on how knowledge flows well through communities sharing common practices and flows
only with great re-interpretation across different practices/disciplines/professions. “Coor-
dinated differences”, learned by us fitting in to groups around us, are not of much conse-
quence unless they are largely unconsciously operating inside us and others. This is slighted
by Page.
failure of The omissions of Page’s
us
current see diversity:
model--the cultural, that is
io
sc
automatics to
on
unconscious, nature of diver-
fc
handle diverse within self
el
situation across time sity and the poor flow of
es
m
in human condition diverse contents across peo-
co
Be
ple who have not together
current undo: made unconscious routines of
automatic Undo acquisitions of such contents--both depend
beliefs and growing up ly on the unconscious nature of
us
habits automatic responses c io
ns diversity’s content. Because
bounds co
se
lf it is unconscious, we are not
ve fully aware of and in control
Li
do of who we are, what is in us,
Un
values so getting beyond differences
balance:
acquired
seen and unseen
can be really difficult, requir-
unconsciously
participation ing profound introspection.
while
growing
evolution Because it is unconscious, the
up
polarities of life traits of one profession con-
front the traits of any other
as one unconscious unknown iceberg contacting another.
Add to this an idea in a book Brain and Culture that mom’s by telling us we are good boys or
girls when we learn our group’s ways (so we grow up thinking all other ways are “bad boy”
ways), and an idea in Nisbett’s book Geography of Thought that Japanese can be made to
master US ways, however, intimate, unconscious, and interior by a little as 20 minutes of
training, and we get a fairly complete picture of diversity, its relation to culture, and perfor-
mance.
If a person is a master of abstracting, they can slough incidental details of a local case where
some phenomenon appears and represent key features of the case abstractly, thereby spot-
ting similarities with vastly different domains and their cases. Differences, if met by such
abstracting, can conceptually be managed rather well. The issue is surprise--we have to
become aware of what is operating inside us before we can abstract from it to something
more general that lets us find conceptually similar things in diverse others.
Page’s model comes from economics, political science, and sociology results about differ-
ences and their effects on performance. Politics looks at elections where huge numbers of
people make policy and candidate decisions. Economics looks at markets where huge num-
bers make product decisions. Sociology looks at crowds and populations who, by choosing
cities to live in, products to purchase, and styles to follow expand diversity in a society until
accelerating creativity characterizes it.
These theories--Page’s and Greene’s--fit nicely to the prior ones in this section of the book.
We had theories about globalization’s effects bringing and causing differences around the
world, and now we have here a combination of theories about types of differences, types of
task, and types of handling of differences to get high performance out of the different types.
When we insert, into Page’s model, Greene’s model of handling diversities, we get something
like a full model. And, it turns out the resulting model could be said to be a model of han-
dling differences, diversities, or cultures--any or all of those three. What unites differ-
ences, diversities, and cultures is the iceberg aspect--they all are troublesome only to the
extent they are large and unconsciously in us. We do not know our own difference, diver-
sity, culture contents, but they are there operating inside us, easily, automatically, and
quickly. That is the problem with them. Moreover, all of our effectiveness in life depends
on the turning of conscious new stuff into fast automatic unconscious routines. Compiling
new facts and knowledge into procedures by which we think and do things is omnipresent as
what we call “learning”. We want our routines to be fast, automatic, and unconscious--that
frees up mental space for imagination, invention, and learning new procedures. But that
has a cost--we become filled with routines the origins of which and the current value of
which may not be consciously available to us. This, of course, is particularly bad for those
routine put into us while we grow up as partially formed children, unaware of what we learn
and its implications. We end up at 20 years old, largely unaware of what is inside us and
largely unwilling to change much of it. Page’s model does not handle how we handle differ-
ences and diversities--though he has guidelines due to what his model says causes differ-
ences to make predicting and solving effective (they act by increasing cognitive differences
and one person or a crowd with many cognitive differences can outperform an expert of a
few people with fewer cognitive differences). What is more, hiring the best people is out-
performed by hiring the most different people, as long as those differences are relevant to
the tasks involved, and as long as the tasks benefit from differences (like predicting and
solving and inventing do) and as long as the cost of differences are effectively handled by
good handling types. Greene’s model goes further--suggesting that handling differences
requires dealing, primarily, with their unconscious operation, by undoing socialization pro-
cesses that put stuff into us while growing up that we are not consciously aware of, and
undoing automatic unconscious operation of routines inside us now in situations, and by
undoing bounds we imagine and live in because we experiences such limited parts of life
while growing up somewhere as somebody, and by balancing what we see and what is unseen
by us in every situation we face. To these four treatments of differences we can add two
more, for a total of six--undoing the implication by mom that ways other than our own are
“bad boy” ways, and resetting our own ways via deliberate training that demonstrates how
shallowly rooted differences really are. These six treatments, added to Page’s model, make
for a rather complete model of how to handle differences so as to make sel f and other
effective.
The table below on “30 Skill Dimensions for Handling Diversity” goes far beyond Page by
summmarizing the skills that a set of people renowned for handling diversities well shared.
The skills are quite specific and the set of them is rather comprehensive. If you read each
one carefully and think about it you find that each skill is handling some particular conse-
quence of the unconsciousness of differences inside us all.
30 Skill Dimensions for Handling Diversity
category
function
skill method
recognizing plural possible reactions to diversity sce- scenario judging

narios;
dimensions
recognizing your own propensities along ambiguous dimensions of response to culture self assessment
diversity;
recognizing social, cognitive and other dimensions to responding to diverse situa- skill dimensions
tions;
recognizing your own stage of penetrating a diverse situation/culture; culture penetration stages
recognizing your own stage of personality development; personality development
manage values
stages
strata
recognizing cognitive step sequence in responding to diversity; stratified responding

recognizing illusions all people have about the nature of values and cultures; culture illusions
recognizing the uses to which culture is put in business situations; plural culture definitions
cultures
recognizing the other guy’s way of doing things; learning to do things the other learning cultures
guy’s way;
undoing unconsciousness of costs of talents; counter neuroses
transfer & shift de-behave de-socialize
undoing unconscious value commitments made in the process of growing up being educated
(socialization);
undoing power given over to outsider institutions while growing up; de-myst, myth, constructing
undoing commitment to plans and process not outcome; problemlessness
manage self
undoing casual dropping of self-reflection in daily life; personal quality checklist

undoing automaticity of response to situations; response stopping
undoing ignoring implicit culture supports and blocks to business practices; transplanting business prac-
tices across cultures
undoing common bounds and intensities of doing mundane work tasks; being stretches
undoing information shifts to diversity results rather than people shifts; leadership shifts
balancing how management functions are delivered where and when and in the JIT managing
amount needed;
balancing costs of improvement among people at work; pain sharing
interests
balancing (and recognizing imbalances among) dynamics of various comprehen- manage by balancing
sive models of all the diverse elements at work;
balancing types of remarks in meetings; meeting behavior plotting
manage groups
balancing causal analysis types; causal diversity

meetings
balancing types of topics, types of treatments of topics, and leaders of treat- democratic rules of order
ments in meeting and work process assignments;
balancing public display of excellent word and deed with functional appearance polis
opportunities for employees at work;
balancing emotional infrastructure in support of needed transitions with rational community quality cabaret
requirements;
events
balancing need to specialize with need for organizational learning and parallel managing by events
processing;
manage scripting what you are having feeling about emotion mapping
flow scripting the interplay of different frames for viewing the same action stream comedies of expectation
scripting the market principles inherent in outrageous products/services that extreme product extrapolation
already sell well in some market
Where is the innovation in handling differences? It is everywhere. Differences cause

crowds of average people to outperform expert performers and they are essential as the
basis for creativity. What happens, then, when we handle differences as above? They go
away, in part. They reconfigure, in part. So using differences to create, to solve, to pre-
dict, has the negative side-effect of reducing them, hence, reducing long term creation,
solving, and prediction. Nasty world! But differences can reconfigure, appear at other
levels, more concrete and more abstract, This, however, takes time and delays further use
of them for solving, prediction, and invention.
This has powerful and very practical consequences. Technology companies all over the
world for several decades have sold systems that further connect people. These at first
improve solving, predicting, and inventing as differences find what they differ from. How-
ever, all these systems suffer from a gradual decrease in both quantity and quality of use.
People get used to them and learn what to expect--differences repeatedly encountered lose
their “difference”. So these systems, long term, destroy invention, prediction, and solving,
by destroying differences. The time needed for differences to reconfigure themselves on
other size scales is never taken into account by the technical systems being deployed glo-
bally. So far, not one technology company sells systems for furthering isolation, and spawn-
ing new surprising differences.
The practical issue, is twofold--first the above point that systems are being sold only for con-
necting, never for isolating people. These systems will destroy and weaken differences,
thereby hurting solving, predicting, and inventing. Second, differences have costs as well as
benefits and for a final cost-benefit ratio to be favorable, the differences have to be han-
dled well enough that the costs do not dominate the benefits. Handling differences well
enough to do that, using perhaps the 30+ tools above, is the second issue. That much inno-
vation would come down to handling differences is a testament to the tendency of people to
become narrow and to fit in with what others believe. Differences matter because people
avoid and flee them all too often, or condemn or bully others because of them, out of fear of
them.
68. Florida’s Creative Class Model of

Innovation.
This is a theory of mobility--that there is a class of people, the “global creative class”, with
high education levels and global interests and ambitions, who flow among the world’s cities,
living in any of them for some few years till attracted by another. Cities compete to attract
this class of people and the jobs and new business ventures they spawn. They compete by
making themselves into the sorts of environments the global creative class wants to live in--
having certain school quality, neighborhood variety and liveliness, burgeoning arts, and high
technology opportunities and friends. What exactly does this class seek and what, exactly,
therefore, should cities erect to attract them? Florida’s answer is; establish the three T’s
and one L-- technology (measured by innovation and concentrated high tech firms), talent
(measured by portions of workforces in creative occupations not just education levels), tol-
erance (places that welcome diverse values, lifestyles, family styles, ideas and integrate
them rather than segregate them); and liveliness (tolerance permits this to develop, that is,
permits surprising diversities densely packed in districts with unique themes for a fractal
pattern of mixing laced like necklaces, criss-crossing urban areas).
Florida has organized consults to determine what procedures can a city undertake that pro-
duce such traits.
cultivate and reward creativity
invest in a creative ecosystem of diverse creative venues
embrace diversity
nurture the creatives
value risk-taking by creating a “yes” climate
be authentic by knowing what assets are unique to you and what value you can add
invest in and build on quality of place

remove barriers to creativity
take responsibility for change in your community, make things happen
ensure that education makes creativity something everyone can actually try for
(Memphis Manifesto Summit, 2003)
Once we agree that cities are not primarily facilities, bricks and mortar, but living assemblies
of organisms, we direct our attention to the living that goes on in them, rather than the real
estate in which that living goes on. What is most salient and central in “what goes on” in
cities includes creativity, on all size scales. Cities are where populations interact to create
or fail to create, where neighborhoods interact to create or fail to create, where institutions
interact to create or fail to create, where interests, politicos, social clubs, ideas and ideolo-
gies, new technologies, and nearly all that humans think and do interact to create or fail to
create. Cities that manage to be creation continually going on are full of city-fication pro-
cesses. Cities that manage to avoid creation continually are missing city-fication, they are
cities, as facilities, shells, without the living organism that generates those facilities and
features of those shells.
12) • a city-fication process: to establish an inter-population, inter-city, inter-neighborhood, inter-family,

inter-firm, inter-person = inter-X insight process
We can be quite literal about this image. Cities literally execute the precise process steps
of the same insight process that goes on inside the heads of individual inventors, creators,
authors, artists, and the like (Simonton, 2002; Sternberg, 1995). There are a number of
models of the insight process as it occurs in the minds of creators. Here I take one particu-
larly well articulated and comprehensive model of insight processes (Greene, 2004).
Cities are alternate application of intense engagement with intense detachment to ever
more abstract renderings of phenomena encountered and of interest. During this alterna-
tion of engagement with detachment on ever more abstract targets, failed solution attempts
accumulate, till they are so numerous and puzzling that cities build indexes of what is com-
mon to what is failing. They then reverse the traits of what failed in these failure indexes,
to inversely specify what traits any eventual solution must have. In doing all this cities oper-
ate not on single problems or single attempted solutions but on entire populations of related
problems and entire populations of proposed solution approaches. Cities tune the interac-
tions among the members of these populations of interacting ideas (most of which have par-
ticular people and interest groups attached to them), adjusting how tightly members are
connected, how diverse those interacting are, what types and amounts of initiative-taking
are distributed among members, until better-than-planned results spontaneously begin to
emerge from much noisy interaction. Cities then carefully notice and prune away noise to
reveal the eventual solution hiding among the clutter from many idea interacting. Finally,
the spontaneous emergence of entire solutions and the gradual recognition of it amid much
clutter often happen suddenly as “eureka” insight events, because only when cities entirely
despair of ever reaching a solution with any of their existing knowledge and frameworks, and
hence try out entirely new ones, does the solution suddenly come into view. Despair is the
doorway to solution in insight processes. Cities not in despair of all that they know failing,
are not ready for finding solutions. Mobilizing many parts and aspects of cities into such
insight-producing interaction is the city-fication process at work.
Insight as
Exhausting First Impressions Depth Struggle Victory
Generate Reduce and

Try Existing Stop Existing Specify New Candidate Test
Frame Frame Frame Solution
Components
Generate
The Represent the Unrepresent the Represent Solutions and Combine Solution
Insight Problem Problem Points of Failure Solution Components
Process Components
Engagement, Detachment, Inductive Model Inductive Model
Inductive Model Model Breaking Building (of Detachment, Model Building (of best
Building, this and Expanding, Failure Points), Breaking and solution
problem consists things that are X things that are Expanding, what combination),
of X have not been X don’t work about trying X things that are X
Select 1. Select Prob- 6. Select 11. Select Solu- 16. Select Parallel 21. Select Combi-
lem Assumptions tion Attempts Project Involve- nations
both problem and (Implicit in the that failed thus ments of partial solutions
features of the problem, you, far multi-task in wildly and solution ele-
problem to your background) different projects to ments gained from
attend to refresh frames, con- analogies with
texts, morale, other domains
images
Abstract 2. Abstract Fea- 7. Abstract Con- 12. Abstract 17. Abstract Analo- 22. Abstract Pat-
tures straints Failed Hypothe- gies in Other terns from combi-
from problem (witting and ses Domains nations and
descriptions of unwitting) abstract hypoth- to find what is com- analogies to try
others and new eses from failed mon about problems
descriptions you solution attempt across domains and
generate potential solutions
across them
Index 3. Case Index-- 8. Context 13. Failure 18. Discourse 23. Partial Solu-
Match Cases find Index--Switch Index--Specify Index--Seek Out tion Index--
past problems Contexts Causes of Fail- New Discourse Part- separate helpful
similar to cur- and activities ure ners from unhelpful
rent one state why and and discuss your patterns among
how each stuck-nesses with solution elements
hypothesis failed them
Insight as
Exhausting First Impressions Depth Struggle Victory
Generate Reduce and

Try Existing Stop Existing Specify New Candidate Test
Frame Frame Frame Solution
Components
Generate
The Represent the Unrepresent the Represent Solutions and Combine Solution
Insight Problem Problem Points of Failure Solution Components
Process Components
Engagement, Detachment, Inductive Model Inductive Model
Inductive Model Model Breaking Building (of Detachment, Model Building (of best
Building, this and Expanding, Failure Points), Breaking and solution
problem consists things that are X things that are Expanding, what combination),
of X have not been X don’t work about trying X things that are X
Stray 4. Represent 9. Apply Outside 14. Reverse 19. Apply Out-of- 24. Specify What
Problem of Field Failure Causes Field Solutions Part of Each Pat-
in multiple ways, knowledge, reverse causes Components tern Works
as many ways as images, tech- of failure to find inside your own field and does not work
possible, both niques what each tells
careful and play- you about nature
ful of eventual solu-
tion
Invari- 5. Find Repre- 10. Find Repre- 15. Find Even- 20. Find Invariants 25. Find Invari-
ants sentation Invari- sentation Vari- tual Solution in Aspects of Par- ants Among Work-
ants ants Attribute Invari- tial Solutions ing Patterns
to problem across what varies as ants that work partially as your overall
various represen- you change ways find invariants in solution
tations, these to represent the all solutions tries
will be rather problem that failed and
abstract all reverse speci-
fications of
eventual solu-
tion
Page, the author of the previous section’s theory of good solving, good predicting, and good
inventing from diversity, dealt with cities as sites of productivity improvement, and second-
arily, invention. He showed how preference diversity results in under-provision of public
goods (so many African nations, broken by tribal groups, under-provide education and eco-
nomic infrastructure), because preference diversity leads to diverse goals; Cultural diversity
correlates with growth but racial diversity does not because the latter has cognitive toolbox
diversity and preference diversity within it and the latter prevents agreement on goals.
Underinvestment in public goods can be seen as societies having reduced cognitive toolboxes
due to poor health and education, so grouping people together does not result in much due
to poor toolboxes of each person. Also, preference diversity leads to societies with parts
seeking different fundamental goals, so communication becomes hard and laborious. Ethnic
diversity puts a society into a difficult middle ground--too much splitting into ethnic domains
hinders common goals, communication, and infrastructure investment, because people’s dif-
ferences are not interacting under common efforts, yet too much aggregation increases the
costs of differences about goals. Economies of scale by combining many ideas from many
diverse sources are powerful and splitting a community misses them. Identity diversity in a
city is mixed in results on innovation because we have to manage it and the data indicate we
are mixed in handling it--sometimes handling it well and getting invention from it and some-
times handling it badly getting trouble and conflict from it. The big lesson is we can com-
bine Page’s and Greene’s theories of handling differences with Florida’s theory of the global
creative class’ technology, talent, tolerance, and liveliness requirements with the former
showing us how to benefit from the latter.
John Seely Brown and his technology anthropologist colleagues has researched ideas flowing
within communities of common practice and across such communities, such as across differ-
ent professions, and found that ideas flow well across companies within common communi-
ties of practice but slowly and with difficult across the different professions and their
associate practices within firms. For cities, housing lots of diverse communities of practice
and professions, but operating for decades and centuries, this may not mean much as there
is enough contact and time for slow flows to yet impact historic scale results. Florida does
not deal with this micro scale of the conditions for ideas from diverse sources (professions
and communities of practice) to mix and combine, but Jane Jacobs in her historic book on
The Death and Life of the American City, laid out the neighborhood scale of conditions
needed for just that. She pointed out, with immense practicality, how old run-down neigh-
borhoods, if mixed with nearby good ones, are essential as their low rents are where the
future arrives in cities and when cities are all gleaming and new, rents are too high for the
future to take root. A certain scale of run-down-ness succeeds where gleaming new stuff is
suicidal in the long term, she found. Mixture is the key--too much run-down-ness and gangs
and organized crime explodes, too little run-down-ness and the future bypasses a city.
The city is a machine for innovation, both in historic scale time and in shorter term single
business venture scale. Florida has a theory of how and why cities create. It can be
applied by creating micro-cities in companies, in single departments of companies, in sites
of an organization, in a geographically split community of friends on the internet. Technol-
ogy, talent, tolerance, and liveliness combine to create. This theory is simple but with sub-
stantial empirical data support for it.
69. Krugman’s Order for Free Model of

Innovation.
Krugman is an economist examining spatial creativity, such as city formation and develop-
ment. He is also primarily interested in complexity theory, and wants to edit and prune
from it, certain enthusiasms and excesses and the sloppy thinking they gave rise to. The
miracle he examines is complexity for free--complex systems and relationships that emerge
without any human planning or intending them. This should not surprise us but it did sur-
prise all the world about three or four decades ago. It should not have surprised us because
we ourselves were invented by a non-human process operating in the universe, natural selec-
tion, and it increasingly appears life itself was invented by that same process operating, in a
more abstract form, before living things were around. The universe itself is the most cre-
ative system we know because it invented both life and us, and natural selection is the most
creative process known because it invented us, and the myriad components of us that all of
our human technology work has failed thus far to match. From this point of view it should
not be all that surprising that all sorts of non-human systems give rise, suddenly, and without
plan or intent, to new complex operations.
This can appear as a theory of luck. It has two parts. The first part is the same as Bak’s
self organizing criticality theory--systems that self organize till the point where a whole sys-
tem change of state results from local slight perturbations. The second part is about power
law type growth at critical values of the “system parameter” of some systems of many inter-
acting units. This can come from three slightly different sources--waves of growth compet-
ing till one dominates the others with its frequency determining some overall resultant
pattern that emerges, slight perturbations that switch a system from heading for one
“attractor” to another so an avalanche of whole system change occurs from some slight
change in input value, and, thirdly, a chain reaction making global effects from some slight
local action when the system is at a critical value of its order parameter. The first part is
about feedbacks from above and below that nudge a system till it reaches the critical value
of its “order” or “systems” parameter, and the second part is about what happens then and
there--that power law growth happens from any of three sources--competing growth waves,
attractor switchings, or chain reactions among local effects leading to global effects.
Critical Value of
Feedback that Drives Some Order Param- Feedback that Drives
Order Parameter to Order Parameter to
Critical Value From eter
Critical Value From
Below Above
Waves of Growth with Slight Perturbation Switching Sys- Chain Reaction Mak-
One Wave Dominating tem from One Attractor Basin of ing Global Effects
Others Till Its Regularity-- Its State Space to Another: Seen from Local Actions
Frequency--Becomes the as Sudden Avalanche of Whole at Critical Value of
Order the System Pro- System Scale Change to Order Order Parameter
duces
Power Law Type of

Growth at Critical
Value of Order
Parameter
Objects Grow Random Distribu- Big Objects Grow

tion of Growth Neither Faster nor
Slower than Little
Rates of Objects Objects
Structure (Ordered Pattern) that Self Emerges Without

Any Basic Unit in the System Planning, Intending, or
Wanting It
Creativity and invention and scientific discovery, are all emergent--the sudden recognition of
a complex single pattern from amid much noise. They are all getting more than 4 from 2 +
2. They require many diverse things interacting, plus careful tuning of the system of their
interactions, so that something between a frozen ordered state and a chaotic “everything
affects everything else” state results. At some value between these extremes, patterns of
unplanned and unintend great complexity emerge on their own. This is the creativity of the
universe appearing in our midst.
You can imagine the individual employees within one organization interacting till such
results emerge--but this theory is so abstract it tells you nothing about what sort of people
with what sort of interacting produces what sort of complex unplanned results. You can
imagine individual ideas interacting within one long human conversation or meeting of peo-
ple, till better than expected results suddenly emerge, but this theory tells you nothing
about what sort of people, with what sort of ideas, interacting in what sort of ways, produce
what sort of new insights. In short, this, as all non-linear dynamics theories, is useless due
to its super-abstract nature.
Think of Mandaville’s Fable of the Bees cynical book centuries ago, about how good emerges
from people intending individually only selfish bad things--the miracle of the economy to
Americans is this--getting good for free from bad inputs (though Asians and Europeans find
that Americans ignore the social and cultural poverty that their abstract approach to eco-
nomics causes). Adam Smith called it the “invisible hand”. Now think about Schelling’s
Micromotives and Macrobehaviors book on the basis, in part, of which he won a recent Nobel
prize, in which he showed the opposite, how people with good values and intents, in inter-
acting, can yet cause bad results to emerge. This “good” and “bad” for free phenomenon is
Krugman’s non-linear twin forces at work--complex results that no one planned or intended
appearing on their own from many actors/entities interacting.
This is really a matter of scales--many things interacting one one size scale result in pattern
they did not imagine, intend, or plan on another larger size scale (or smaller). The sur-
prise, the amazement comes from the different size scales involved. We are interacting
intensely on one size scale and may or may not notice a complex pattern we did not plan
emerging on another size scale. Policy makers miss this all the time--their “solving” actions
on one size scale produces unplanned consequences on another size scale, that they fail to
plan for or notice, till too late.
Self-Organizing Systems are where patterns appear, that no one planned or intended, on one size scale, as a result of
actions on a different size scale (usually local actions resulting in unplanned global effects though global actions result-
ing in local unplanned effects are also interesting). This can also be called “order for free”.
Order from Instability--Spin Glass Style Systems (lattices of nearest neighbors “spins” affecting adjacent spins, produc-
ing global patterns across the lattice that no local intends):
Von Thunen-Mills Model (of spatial self-organization):

Components: crop yields per acre, intensities of farming per crop, transportation costs per
crop, how allocate land around town to minimize costs of producing and trans-
porting foods for town? trade-off between land rents (high near town) and
transportation costs (high away from town).
Result: concentric rings around town for particular crops. This structure “emerges” without
any local farmer intending or planning it.
BUT rings emerge around a town “assumed”, so this is not self-organizing.
Central Place Theory (of spatial self-organization):

Components: evenly spaced population using something; producers of the something needing
economies of scale (equals concentrated location); trade-offs between scale
economies and transport costs
Result: centers (hierarchy of centers in refined models) with hexagonal market areas (in
refined models) self emerge without any local consumer/producer intending
them.
BUT this model provides no “micromotives” to explain, that is “cause” emergent “macrobe-
haviors”; this is description not causal explanation
Schelling’s Segregation Model (of spatial self-organization):

Components: mild preferences by individuals (for own color) produce severe segregation of
housing; integration is unstable for random perturbations; chain reaction of
moves after a few individuals move
Result: short, local individual actions create large scale structure no one intended, planned,
or even likes, once noticed
BUT this model handles only two populations (blacks and whites), not more than two popula-
tions
Edge City Dynamics Model (of spatial self-organization):

Components: tension between centripetal forces (towards center) and centrifugal forces
(fleeing center) with range of centripetal (attracting people to centers) forces
shorter than centrifugal (repelling people from centers) forces; even distribu-
tion of people/firms to geography is unstable to slight imbalances in initial dis-
tribution pattern; waves of different frequency constitute initial slightly
uneven random or other distribution of resources along geography, with the
most unstable wave growing fastest till it dominates, determining number and
spacing of centers that emerge
Result: even distribution of centers along geographic dimensions with number of centers
independent of initial distribution; the smoother the initial distribution of
resource the more even the final distribution of it among centers
Order from: waves of allocation among locations (not yet centers) till one frequency of wave
gets selected as dominant resulting in even distribution of centers; frequency
of most unstable (fastest growing) wave determines final distribution and
number of centers;
NO BUTS: this model shows self-organization not from initial conditions or locations but from
internal logic of the system itself
Order from Random Growth--Percolation Style Systems:
Power Law Systems (number of cities whose population exceeds some size S is
proportional to S to some negative power)--city sizes, meteorites, earthquakes--
Zipf’s Law, the rank-size rule:
Components: Zipf’s law: the population of a city is inversely proportion to its size ranking
among other cities (terrifyingly exact fit with US data after the first two or
three big cities, and “capitals” in non-US nations, are dealt with; terrifyingly
exact fit with US data 100 years ago); we need to explain this universal law on
city sizes, two things about it need explaining: one, why the relation is a
straight line, and why the slope is -1;
Explanations Thus Far--the hierarchy of central places theory but: 1) this is lumpy and the
power law is smooth; 2) modern cities are not tied to agricultural land spacing
as in central place theory; 3) hierarchy theory depends on certain parameters
being constant that are not really ever constant like size of span of control of
managers 4) the assumptions of the hierarchy theory are too close to its con-
clusions (assuming number of people in a lower office is same at each level) 5)
hierarchy may explain why cities obey power law of some sort but not why
they obey one having straight line of slope -1
Possible Alternate Explanation of Zipf’s law: power laws are all over the world--meteorite
sizes, earthquake sizes, animal species sizes, city sizes; three conditions com-
mon to all these cases--1) objects subject to growth over time 2) growth rate
of any individual is random so population of range of different sizes results 3)
the expected rate of growth must be independent of scale (large objects grow
neither faster nor slower than small objects)
Result: These conditions set up 1) critical values of some “stress-like” variable exist 2) near
the critical values the kind of growth specified by the 3 conditions above
exists 3) such systems tend to evolve towards such critical values; Per Bak
won the Nobel prize for explaining self-organized criticality in systems like
sandpiles getting higher, earthquake zones, and so forth
Simon’s Theory of Zipf’s Law: Components: population arrives in cities in lumps; new lumps
arrive to start new cities or to join existing lumps; the probability of a given
lump attracting new lumps is proportional to its population;
Result: Simon’s model generates a power law distribution of city sizes; an economic interpre-
tation is--entrepreneurs stay near where they get their original ideas
Weather vortexes, animal morphogenesis

Bjerknes’ explanation of why weather is not smooth flows but contains vortexes and so forth
is “smooth flow is unstable to random perturbations of wide extent but small
amplitude”;
Alan Turing considered systems of: 1) two chemical system 2) one chemical catalyzes its own
production and production of the other chemical 3) the second chemical
inhibits production of the first 4) the two chemicals diffuse at different rates
Result: Small fluctuations in the initial chemical distribution will be amplified over time till
one “wavelength” is selected; the regular frequency of this chemical can act
like the coordinate system of a morphogen chemical telling cells in embryos
“where they are” so they know “what kind of tissue and limb/organ to
become”
NOTE: This reaction-diffusion model of Turing resembles in idea and math the edge city
model earlier
LEARNING: self organizing systems tend to be dominated by their most unstable fluctuations;
break a ceramic urn against a wall and the pieces obey a power law with the
exponent telling you what shape of ceramic object was thus broken--from this
we learn that: order from instability, random growth somehow produces sim-
ple frequency distributions, exponents in power laws tell us something impor-
tant about growth processes--these three are nearly everywhere in science
Technology Competitions (as temporal self-organization)

Components: we have stable first nature and dynamic second nature erected by humans on
it; two conditions: each unit’s reactions are discrete and there is mixture of
positive and negative feedback (attraction and repulsion among basic units,
excitation and inhibition); complex phase space “rugged” landscape with mul-
tiple “attractors”; two technologies each of which “wins” market share in
feedback relation to success--if more people buy it then more stores will stock
it and more suppliers will build software for it, so more people will buy it--
[increasing returns to scale]
Result: gradual changes (improvements to) in one technology produce gradual market share
response till a critical value is reached, after which [avalanche] of massive
flight from one technology to another by consumers occurs “Punctuated Equi-
librium”
Order from: random growth; two orders from disorder--order comes from disorder, and sim-
ple regularities describe accurately the type of order that emerges (for exam-
ple: the power law of city sizes as a function of size ranking)
Goodman’s Non-Linear Business Cycle Theory (as temporal self-organization)

Components: investment encourages (other) investment in the short run but discourages it in
the long run {resemblances: encourages other investment in short run resem-
bles firms want to be in cities with other firms in edge city model, discourages
investment in long run resembles land rent and congestion in edge city model
forces making firms want to not be near other firms};
Result: there is a single fixed stable point where everything balances but it is unstable to
small perturbations so instead we see business cycles; business cycles are like
vortexes in the atmosphere,
Scheinkman and Woodford Model of Economic Fluctuations (as temporal self-

organization):
Components: economy is layers (of suppliers-customer links); an order sometimes produces a

chain reaction of other layer orders to still other layers, depending on inven-
tories; there is critical level of inventories below which chains in chain reac-
tions become infinitely long;
Results: the level of inventories will always be near that critical level; because if higher, no
chains so each order depletes inventory amounts overall till they approach
critical level, because if low, each single order results in long chains of further
orders and attendant inventory building tending towards the critical level of
inventories
Meaning: this is percolation theory in physics: lattice of hole, with some but not all neigh-
boring holes connected, each potential connection is either closed or open
with probability p so what is the size distribution of connected regions; at
some critical probability p, the size of connected regions becomes infinite;
when p is near its critical value the upper tail of the size distribution follows
power law; WHEN p is near critical value, a random growth process of con-
nected regions takes place with rate of growth independent of volume of
regions
Metaphor Map: if holes in rock are firms, and connection is closed if upstream firm (hole) has
inventory unit, then inventory chain reaction equals water filling rock region
size. Even an almost steady flow of demand will result in fluctuations on all
size scales when probability that two holes are connected approaches critical
value.
Global Phase Locking Model (as temporal self-organization)

Components: many large national economies with small (2%) exports components among
each other; if one economy goes into slump when another is near slump
amounts of capital, it will slump too; from Scheinkman and Woodford we get
both economies automatically evolving toward critical value so sensitive to
slight effects
Result: two economies too small to influence each other by exports much can yet synchro-
nize their business cycles over time; order from slight effects
70. Malone’s Coordination Costs Model of

Innovation.
Professor Malone and his MIT group have looked abstractly at what happens to the current
form and processes of work when costs of coordination drop precipitously. This is just a
throrough and serious examination of the implications of email, sent world-wide, being free.
This is a rather contorted set of relationships unwinding. We have local area nets that
became wide area nets that joined to form a global internet, that, empowered by personal
computers and cellphones, enabled everyone to message everyone else for free. Now this
infrastructure is changing the form, processes, products, economics, and imaginations of all
those organizations that created it and that now use it. Malone’s research group is asking--
are there law-like predictable directions of change in all this that humans can detect, mas-
ter, and use to their benefit?
Lowering of Coordination Costs I

n
t
e
r
e
Actor 1: pioneer Actor 2: large firms Actor 2: large firms s
individuals Response: form t
Response: fluid Response: embody fluid coalitions i
coalitions of populations bidding between firms so n
ventures on the net in internal markets larger competitive
units arise g
l
y
s
Core: guilds i
Periphery: temporary job Core: partnership track Core: competitive competence
coalitions Periphery: outsourced functions n
employees
Core: net savvy people
Periphery: welfare non-net Periphery: non-track employees c
savvy people e
Self-organizing management Self-organizing management Self-organizing management
Emergent results BUT Emergent results BUT internal Emergent results BUT little re- t
requires great standards systems career paths jam self organizing organizing by large units h
e
Danger: all time spent bidding Danger: loss of standards based Danger: inability of outsiders s
leverage on external market to compete reduces internal e
quality, value, speed
Welfare: need new “guilds” Welfare: existing system okay Welfare: from govt. to firm
c
Emergence (self organizing) replaces design, command, & management
h
a
n
g
es involve humans, it is not a matter of some scientific constraints acting on some physics-
like entities--because human beliefs and expectations can cause things, even if the beliefs
and expectations are mistaken or based on mistaken impressions or statements. We, individ-
uals, groups, entire societies form impressions, expectations and thereafter images from all
we experience that guide our noticing and responding. If we see this emergent internet
infrastructure as a global pipeline through which information flows, if we see it as a chemi-
cal dissolving the bonds that hold organizations together, if we see it as a single giant global
library replacing all other documents, devices, and repositories of information in civiliza-
tion--entirely different things happen for each such image. Budgets get different, employ-
ment changes, and the world ends up using and developing the internet differently for
different purposes (because guided by different images).
As we have seen in earlier theories presented in this section of the book, professors tend to
start by distinguishing types---in Malone’s case, types of organization that might differ in
how they respond to the internet. Pioneer individuals forge ahead, linking the ventures they
invent and combining them on the net into large entities, cooperative societies, and emer-
gent large combines. Large firms dissolve and they form coalitions with other firms. They
dissolve by replacing fixed departments or firms doing things with markets where entities bid
to do things. They form coalitions by firms linking to tightly with customer and supplier and
regulator even competitor organizations that massive overall organizations emerge. These
three responses are the big ideas in Malone’s theory and the rest of his ideas are derived
from them.
Malone’s is a theory of innovation after and because of another innovation. It is a theory of

innovations caused by a massive single global innovation--the internet. That single big inno-
vations cause other innovations is apparent and a major cause of overall innovations. This is
just a re-statement of Kaufamann’s Adjacent Beyond model of innovation.
Once you realize, quite deeply and sincerely, that innovations cause innovation, it changes
how you look at innovation. It makes survey work important, a key input into innovating.
Afterall, you have to know what other innovations just appeared this morning in order to
have all the tools you will need to innovate today.
coordination technology sets, three of them: foot-horse-boat, rail and telegraph, pcs and internet.
size consequences of the 3rd technology set reducing the cost of coordination:
same work, smaller organizations (networks of small firms)

units bid for work in market of competing bids defined by standards of interaction
winners evaluated by venture capitalist-like core groups
coalition assembles and does work then disassembles when work is finished
results self-organize from unit interactions
same organizations, more work

existing corporations de-mass-ify into coalitions of ventures competing
headquarters becomes venture investor in corporate ventures
farming of ventures becomes managerial content
results self-organize from unit interactions
more work, larger organizations (virtual countries)

global command and control hierarchies expand into assemblies of one firm from every major
type of industry (becoming keiretsu)
welfare functions transfer from governments to these new keiretsu
citizenship functions transfer from nations to these new keiretsu
results self-organize from inter-industry interactions
function consequences of the 3rd technology set reducing the cost of coordina-
tion:
things done internally via bureaus now done externally via markets
markets once things outside of firms now introjected to become how firms operate internally
self-emergent outcomes replace designed/commanded outcomes
retained earnings spread by evaluating project proposals replaced by venture capitalist eval-
uation of venture business proposals
standards of interaction replace commanded processes and routines of work
organization consequences of the 3rd technology set reducing the cost of coor-
dination:
split into core and periphery inside firms and in entire economies--core = partners, core =
net savvy, periphery = part-timers, periphery = non-net functions
managing competing populations of units where today we manage single units doing a func-
tion
economy trends in how work is organized possibly caused by or accelerated by

3rd technology set’s reduction of cost of coordination:
1) Net Spawned Coalitions: coalitions of volunteers and standards across the internet create
Linux and the internet itself
2) Multi-Company Jobs, Multi-Simultaneous Job Persons: more people choosing part-time
work and working from home
3) Scope Replacing Scale: firms sloughing peripheral functions, outsourcing every non-com-
petitively-essential function, becoming nearly virtual
4) Increasing Returns to Scale Based Mergers: big firms merging into bigger in order for
increasing returns to scale phenomena (learning costs, interfacing costs) to
have scope of action
5) Coalitions of Firms the Competitive Unit: multi-industry coalitions of firms, alliance capi-
talism, becoming the competitive units replacing single corporations
6) Competitive Markets Inside Companies: big firms structuring themselves as professional
service firms composed of hundreds of partners, in two tracks: partnership
track and non-partnership part-timers
7) Firms Breaking Up into Markets of Competing Ventures: Italy Prato and Brazil Semco firms
survive by giving equity to employees in ventures formed by breaking up par-
ent firm, forming coops among ventures for purchasing and the like.
blocks to network of small firms scenario:

welfare--have to grow up “guilds” from professional associations and unions to smooth
income, professionally develop, and furnish community
community--same as above
mindset--Resnick notes centralized mindset that causes people (in the US) to see leaders
doing all things (bird flocks seen as following leader birds for example)
sales cost--small firms bidding constantly may spend all effort on getting business and little
effort doing work well or developing future capabilities
This theory presents an unsupported hypothesis--that organization form comes from coordi-
nation technology sets. It distinguishes 3 sets of coordination technologies. Size, function,
and organization consequences of the 3rd coordination technology set are presented. Size,
function, and organization all indicate a split occurring as coordination costs decrease
greatly--a split between core and periphery in firm and economies. Seven economy trends
possibly validate this theory. This theory prefers a small firms networked scenario of the
future. Blocks to that scenario include welfare, community, mindset, and sales cost. We
can get clarity by stopping the insistence of this theory that radical new things are emerging
because of PCs and the internet, that is, because of coordination costs lowered by a technol-
ogy set. Let us assume that a major change occurs. We can expect on a purely logical basis
that some new organizations may arise based on it, that existing organizations may evolve
some new ways based on it, and possibly some new coalitions or larger groupings of organiza-
tions may arise based on it. That is there is no reason to neglect the last two for the sake
of the first possibility. This theory as presented consistently shows a bias towards the first
possibility, slighting when not ignoring the other two. This chapter’s view (as contrasted
with Malone’s) is a view from the vantage of actors, that exist, and how they react to
changes. When big changes occur, some pioneers invent new things, existing institutions
modify things, and sometimes institutions use the changes to change scale or scope by coop-
erating with each other in new ways. That is coordination among individuals, within existing
firms, and among existing firms is affected when new infrastructures for coordination
appear. So, when I present, this theory’s relations among key concepts, I must distinguish
those relations as presented by the theory’s authors, and those relations as I, more dispas-
sionately perhaps, see them.
The key relations in this theory are, simply:

reactions of pioneers to fall of coordination costs--form new style populations of competing small ventures economy
reactions of existing institutions:
1) internally embody new style of populations of competing small ventures

2) form alliances on new basis with other institutions to expand scale or scope.
Another key relation is:

coordination by means of self-organization among units.
The key results of this theory are:

split into core and periphery for single organizations and entire economy
welfare erosion by networks of small firms uninterested in it or giant keiretsu in command of
it.
Careful examination of this theory shows little difference between its virtual country and
network of small firms scenarios.
71. Gladwell’s Tipping Point and Blink Model

of Innovation.
Gladwell recognizes that we all live in a non-linear world filled with tricky surprising ava-
lanche events, butterfly effects, and exponential power law growths. He also recognizes
something that stands between us and that non-linearity zoo of phenomena--human endow-
ment (the gene specified capacities we have as evolved by how we actually got raised--till
our brains lost much of their plasticity). We humans have two huge types of endowment--
communicative requisites and pre-/non-conscious noticing and acting. There are only cer-
tain ways to get out attention and get messages actually heard by us; there are judgements
we make in a “blink” of an eye that are more accurate than what weeks of careful study can
do for us. Gladwell weds the non-linear nature of our reality with the non-linearity inside
us, as mechanisms, that tilts what we notice and how we respond in systematic ways, that
we can learn and take advantage of, in handling our own selves and the selves of others.
Gladwell says this is a theory of how we can create, intentionally, our own epidemics, by tip-
ping systems so they change overall state and direction, using tiny, slight changes of input.
This is innovation by launching certain non-linear effects--avalanche events--by taking
actions that tip systems balanced at their “critical points” as previous non-linear dynamic
models of innovation, presented above, have shown. What Gladwell’s theory adds is that
non-linearity is not just out there, in the world of people and places we want to impact, but
we, our very selves, are non-linear systems too. Our nature, the non-linearity inside us,
means we notice messages taking specific form much more than messages without that
form. It also means, we judge certain types of things pre-consciously, better than we judge
them via conscious controlled investigation. These phenomena come from the non-linearity
within us, in our minds. We are non-linear systems noticing and responding to non-linear
systems around us.
NON-LINEAR SYSTEM DYNAMICS

The Tipping Point
SLIGHTNESSES
The Critical Value of the
System’s Order Parameter
Epidemics Law of the Few System Tippiness

Degree of connectedness The butterfly effect: system
System-wide avalanche in the system between chaos sensitivity to slight distur-
events and stasis is critical value bances or initial conditions
HUMAN NATURE DYNAMICS

NON-LINEAR MENTAL DYNAMICS
HUMAN SITUATEDNESS:
unconscious susceptibility to
non-verbal and immediate HUMAN GROUP EFFECTS:
situational aspects STRUCTUREDNESS
emotions are outside-in and OF HUMAN COGNITION: two social channels:
contagious 12 in sympathy groups
certain people draw us into we need : 150 in socially relate groups
their emotions and micro- to confirm our worth we store memories in others
rhythms = persuaders to make sense of things socially extending our minds
slight details symbolize care to fit things into our we level, sharpen, assimilate
& importance we operate in daily lives and purposes stories we transmit
we blame human traits hence
miss situational causes Stickyness & Context
Determinants
Result: Create Your Own Social Epidemics
Unfortunately Gladwell does nothing to show us how to find tipping points in a society, mar-
ket, company, or group of any sort. Tipping points are there, and we experience them, but
Gladwell knows nothing about how real people find them. When Gladwell presents the non-
linearity within people it has a little flavor is him getting confused about whether that non-
linearity within people is some sort of way to find tipping points out there in society around
us. In fact, his model has two distinct domains--both non-linear--the domain outside and
around us, of non-linear systems in the human world and the domain inside us, of non-linear
systems within each of us that determine what we notice and how we respond to messages.
There are methods of identifying tipping points in society, but before presenting them, I wish
to wrap up my treatment of Gladwell’s theory.
You create your own social epidemics--trends if you wish that term--by directing messages at
people that penetrate them as non-linear systems, and that get those people to interact, in
large populations, in ways where results you need emerge, from myriad interactions. To get
that emergence you do not plan and design, not passively wait for things to emerge, but you
“tune” the interactions in the system, by adjusting certain whole system parameters--con-
nectedness, diversity, distribution of initiative.
Location, location, location are the keywords for operating effectively in non-linear systems.
It is where you locate, in space, society, and time your inputs that is all important. Your
inputs, themselves, merely have to be carefully crafted so as to penetrate and affect human
nature. Other than they your inputs can be quite small and simple. In other words, Glad-
well’s recipe for affecting the world, for innovation by inventing your own trends, consists of
locating the tipping point in a system and inputting there something packaged so as to grab
and get noticed by people at that tipping point.
Gladwell has an intermediate layer of certain types of people--connectors, mavens, and

salesmen, certain traits of messages that stick to people affecting them--capacity, confi-
dence, daily life, purpose, and participation fits, and certain social constraints on humanity-
-outside in, mad copying of others, context power, and trend riding. This is a kind of human
technology you must master to get a message to affect someone (who you choose as located
at a social whistle point).
Law of the Few
Connectors (people collectors)

Diversity
Spread
Comprehensivity
Second Order Connectedness
The Power of Weak Ties (ideas or people near connectors are powerful)
Mavens (knowledge collectors)

obsessive knowing
obsessive helping
knowledge trading
powerful influencers
Salesmen (emotion spreaders)

non-verbal cues overcome verbal ones
we are not aware what determines our commitments
subtle slight cues tilt our commitments
emotion goes outside-in
emotion is contagious
certain people express emotion better hence infect others with their emotional states
we mimic the emotions we see in others
drawing others into your own microrhythms persuades them
conversation is a rhythmic dance
The Stickiness Factor

Customer capacity fit
example: Sesame Street pre-schoolers view for understanding not word play wit that loses coherence
for them
Customer confidence start
example: Blue’s Clues starts with easy clues that build viewer confidence
Customer daily life fit
example: Levanthal’s ads won by showing place and time for inserting new behavior into one’s daily
life
Customer purpose fit
example: Wunderman beat an ad company with his putting of a gold box on print ads that TV ads
showed how to use to get something cheaply
Customer participation-need mystery-need fit
example; Blue’s Clues has long long pauses, long enough for kids to answer themselves before the TV
shows what is right
Power of Context
Supercritical system (person) principle
Broken windows principle (symbols of care and importance start and end trends)
Emotions are outside-in principle
The blame reaction (blinds us to situation influence)
The immediacy of situation principle
Situation control illusion of personal traits
Social channel capacity (sympathy and sociability sizes 12 and 150)
Social extensions of mind
Trend Piggy-Backing (meta-trend creation)

Innovators, Early adopters, Early majority, Late majority. Laggards
Attitude conflict between Early adopters and Early majority (risk liking vs. hating) creates
need for Translators
Translators do:
leveling--drop detail
sharpening--particularize detail remaining
assimilating--fit context (make sense to) of those transmitting an idea (Early majority)
This is a theory of how you can have influence in the world, how you can create a best-sell-
ing novel, how you can start a new fashion trend, how you can take a stalling trend and tip it
into vast expansion of epidemic proportions. However, this book does not directly package
itself that way, missing one of its own principles, thereby--the customer purpose fit principle
above. The names Gladwell gives to his points are not very helpful. They are neither
“sticky” nor all that informative. The Law of the Few represents connectedness in systems
(human social ones here). The Stickiness Factor represents actual links in those patterns of
connectedness, actual use of the links in ways the nodes, connected by those links (people
and groups) notice and act on. The Power of Context represents the Law of the Few, the
Stickiness Factor, as well as something on its own. Slight differences in one’s connectedness
are one’s situation; slight differences in the packaging of the messages one receives are
one’s situation; slight differences in one’s physical, social, and physic context are one’s situ-
ation. In others words, slight connectedness differences, slight packaging differences, and
slight environment differences “tip” trends into epidemics. We have 3 factors presented to
us hiding two underneath them: connectedness degree in a system, and nearness to critical-
ity in the system (capacity of the system to react gigantically to slight disturbances). These
concepts are common knowledge in non-linear system dynamics theory the last 30 years.
Woven among this two-factor system dynamics model in Gladwell’s theory are
various research-established aspects of human nature:
1) susceptibility to non-verbal influence and immediate situational features we are
unguarded for and unaware of
2) emotions come to us outside-in rather than inside-out, as contagious things
3) certain people draw us into their emotions and microrhythms, hence, influence us
4) we need confirmation of our worth, to make sense of things, to fit things into our daily
lives and purposes
5) we blame human traits hence miss situational causes
6) slight details symbolize care and importance commitments we operate in
7) we have two social channel capacities: 12 in our sympathy group and 150 in our socially
can relate to group
8) we store memories in others, that is, socially extend our minds
9) we level, sharpen, and assimilate stories when we transmit them to self and others
This theory claims that if we:

get connected (weak ties are power for people and ideas)
arrange messages and environment details to drive systems toward criticality points
account in doing the two above steps for 9 aspects of human nature
RESULT: we create our own social epidemics.

Jun and Wright’s Glo- Fiske’s 4 Elementary Krugmann’s Order from
balization Theory Types of Social Rela- Instability and Random
4 changes in governance: de- tion Theory Growth Theory
centralization, experimentation,
sharing (group over members), competing waves of growth with 1 wave
civitas enlistment, venture clus-
ranking (higher over lower), recip- dominating becoming the unplanned order
ters
rocating (treatment over condi- appearing in the system; chain reaction
tion equality), pricing (allocate to making global effects from local actions at
contributors not members) critical value of order parameter till
unplanned order appears in the system;
random distribution of growth rates of
objects, big objects grow neither faster
nor slower than little ones at critical value
of the order parameter;
1 • a city-fication process: 2 • a city-fication process: 3 • a city-fication process: tune

generate new and more specify how relative empha- parameter values of competing
power, generated by replac- sis of these four roles consti- waves and chain reactions till better-
ing central command with tute problems and specifies than-expected results emerge
self-organizing power devel- re-balancing of emphasis
opment in plural centers of among them as solutions
initiative
Giddens’ Delocaliza- Grondona’s Culture of Malone’s Coordination Cost

tion Theory Development Theory Theory
educativeness of everyday life establish reliable near future, pop- technologies lowering coordination costs
increasing relativism and prac- ulation of strivers, action scope cause: coalitions of small ventures into big
tices as homes, 5 effects, 2 enhancing infrastructures; reli- ones on the net; vertical departments
costs, 1 paradox: intimate sub- able persons, laws, systems; via replaced by populations bidding for work
worlds, self built identity, invent- training, tooling, tolerance of on the net; coalitions of large firms
ing not following; cognition rivalry & heresy; education/ increasing overall firm size on the net
career spaces, cognitive locality democracy/partnering/technolo-
risk (narrowness); cost 1--self gies
reflection load, cost 2--yearning
for missing single authority; par-
adox--wanting what we just
worked hard to get away from
4 • a city-fication process: 5 • a city-fication process: 6 • a city-fication process: establish

individual persons self build- continual work to re-estab- missing-till-now locality and demos
ing their identity anew via lish a culture of development powers;
bricolage from what their (in various domain types) as
7 • a city-fication process: distrib-
city offers from around the new substrates, social and
ute governing functions to mass
world technical, undo parts of past-
events;
erected cultures of develop-
ment 8 • a city-fication process: establish
insight processes among mega-city
components;

Toffler’s De-massifi- Greene’s Diversity Gladwell’s Tipping Point
cation Theory Management Theory Theory
2 mass system effects, 4 para- unconsciously valued contents, non-linear dynamics: slightnesses, epi-
doxes, six subeffects, six results; automatically used contents, inap- demics, system wide avalanches, law of
diversity invading locals, propriate for current situations; the few, degree of connectedness, system
speeded up images/change; uni- undo unconsciousness/automatic- tippiness, butterfly effect;
formity creates diversity, institu- ness; see diversity--within self, human nature dynamics: situatedness (sus-
tions/products wrong size; across time, human condition; bal- ceptibility to non-verbal, emotions are out-
together in loneliness, yearn for ance--seen/unseen, participation side in, some people draw us into their
what just left; centrality too uni- evolution, polarities of life feelings, slight details symbolize care so
form, centrality too slow, institu- must be controlled, we blame human traits
tions both too big & too small, miss situational causes); structure of
products both too big & too human cognition (confirm our worth need,
small, nuclear family too big and make sense of things need, fit into daily
small, liberation without free- lives need); human group effects (12 in
dom; frustration with leaders-- sympathy groups, 150 in acquaintance
wrong size solutions, too slow groups, we store memories in other for
solutions; regions above and socially extended minds, we level,
below localities appear, custom sharpen, assimilate, stories that we trans-
designs replace mass designs, mit)
family extensions/intentions,
seeking one right way though just
left it
9 • a city-fication pro- 10 • a city-fication process: 11 • a city-fication process: operate

cesses: get operations on since the reflection load of on cities through technologies of per-
cities done in a fractal man- encountering diversity is far suasion, help city democracies oper-
ner, across plural size scales beyond capacity of current ate bottom up through technologies
tools, invent new tools for of persuasion; and get city policies
fractally engaging “other- grounded in how the human mind
nesses” articulated in 64 or so works;
specific dimensions
72. Excellence Sciences Model of Innova-

tion.
This is the last model covered in this book for a reason. It is more basic than any other
model. It is historic from its very beginning, going back past Confucius, past Plato, going
back to define “the good” and “excellence” in modern global decent ways--not politically,
not ideologically, not philosophically, not religiously, not in the way of any one culture. This
wrok is already in bits and pieces going on here and there in minds and conferences, policies
and promotions. For the web, global media and transport, mass migrations from global
warming, are mixing the cultures, the races, the various rigid rightnesses, the ideas of good,
the ideals of excellence from many. The result--a messy unsatisfying soups of incompatibles,
each one of which does MOSTLY harm except from the one locale that gave birth to it. What
a mess!
This model of innovation works in layers:
1. 54 Excellence Sciences--routes to the top of nearly any

field
2. 30 Creativity & Novelty Sciences--ways to bring the new
into the human world
3. 120 Models of Creativity--a grammar that creates new
ways to create
4. 72 Models of Innovation--a grammar of changes that
change entire fields and history
5. 420 Silicon Valley dynamics--layers of anti-cultures that
ocuppy imagined and future worlds not yet real
6. 420 Natural Selection dynamics--how everything evolves,
including what created life and humanity itself.
This is a giant mapping operation, a kind of super Glass Bead Game of pieces, idea pieces on
intellectual boards, that when moved around, blend and split, coordinate and kill, making all
that emerges that amazes in our world. Each of the 30 Creativity Sciences can similarly be
turned into large model repertoires. Each individual Creativity Science or Innovation Model
can be articulated as 420 dynamics or one sort or another.
HOW DOES THIS RESULT IN INNOVATION AND WHAT INNOVATIONS? Research on great
designers, great innovators, including Steve Jobs, great composers, and smilar others, finds
in their creative processes “singularity points”, pauses, where the creator is unsure what to
do next. Changes of context or aim or method or process are contemplated, investigated,
even putting off next steps for days or weeks. Eventually whatever is at stake gets resolved
and the creative work resumes. What is being selection among at such points? Research
confirms it is what models of creativity, or what models of innovation, or what models of
design to go with in the next portion of the process. Moreover, meta-cognition, which Flavell
and others found improved mental performances, has an analog in meta-creation--creators
aware of the creativity models they used and omitted were, on the whole, more creative in
outcomes produced than ones unaware of those things. Developing from creators, reper-
toires built of all the variety of model they use, can improve creativity of individual cre-
ators. But it does considerably more. It enables Creativity that Leads---by spotting models
used and omitted in individuals and groups, models can be added that precisely undo biases
and fix limitations in models used--improving creativity of whole research organizations and
troops of performers, for instance.
THE ARGUMENT ENTIRE IN ONE ARTICLE. Below is a full complete 20+ page treatment of
this last model of innovation. Read it carefully--it is what the web--as a whole--is creating.
1) release THIS version with coverXXX, table of contentsXXX, references

2) ultimately make 30 to 50 page article of this entire book
3) add TOOLS all 70 in small paragraph table form (like 60 Create models)XXX
4) add 3 section how to apply like first half to all
5) add related other books page at front and back
6) add ONE more to make 70 models---combine the jobsy ones from 46 to 55
7) BUILD POLYGON 7 by 10 or 6 by 12 (72) of all MODELS organized one or two way
MULTIPLE MODELS OF CREATIVITY
Affiliation
Richard Tabor GREENE
De Tao Master's Academy, Beijing;
Keio University, System Design & Management, Japan
Synonyms
Creativity models, innovation models, model repertoires, fractal pages, structural cognition
The Idea of NOVELTY & CREATIVITY SCIENCES

This article introduces 1) the Novelty & Creativity Sciences (creativity, invention, innovation,
design, composing, business venturing, and others), 2) the idea of multiple models of each, 3)
with example multiple models (Meta-Models) of creativity and innovation, 4) and more
detailed models than are usual (here a 64 item model of the most creative process known—
Natural Selection). The model of creativity models that this article presents is the most
comprehensive and detailed such model yet published, at the time of this writing--a prior
article on 42 models and book on 60 exist (Greene, 2001, 2005). This article also presents
four size scales (compared with Levels of Invention in this Encyclopedia) as contexts around
and under Creativity & Novelty Sciences: Excellence Sciences (scale 1) some of which are
Novelty & Creativity Sciences (scale 2), one of which is creativity (scale 3), 120 models of
which are presented here, and another of which is innovation (scale 3), 54 models of which
are presented here. Finally, 64 dynamics of one of those 54 innovation models (scale 4), of
the single most creative process known, Natural Selection, is presented.
Rather than summarizing the other creativity models in this Encyclopedia (see Theories of
Creativity, Innovation Systems and Entrepreneurship), this article presents an intellectual
tradition, centered on developing large diverse repertories of models, and tools specially
invented to support the development and use of such repertoires. One such tool, a proposed
replacement for prose itself, is presented at this article's end (the model, from Michod, of 64
natural selection dynamics).
Academia educates creator-designer practitioners into a tradition of one right-y model, righter
than all others. The multiple models tradition in this article contradicts those practices and
their academic source. In the history of science (Eamon, 1996) European world-wide
collecting produced collections categorized in museums, that later scholars “explained” via
causal models. Modern journals refuse categorical models (and the size of article they
require). This article attempts to open up: 1) multiple Novelty & Creativity Sciences and 2)
multiple models of each of them, 3) highly detailed such models--as new contexts and
frontiers for practice and theory. The costs of our mania for single right-y models and benefits
of switching to repertoires of diverse models are included here. Figure 1 shows one pattern
among the Novelty & Creativity Sciences (also see Creativity, Design, and Innovation).
Figure 1
The NOVELTY & CREATIVITY SCIENCES
Study of all the ways the new gets into society in relation to each other:
VERSIONS OF LEVELS OF LIBERAL/SOCIAL ARTS OF
Creativity/Discovery EducatedPersons(CreatedSelves) History of all 16 in 1st 2 cols.
Design/Invention Creating Selves Literature of
Innovation Creating Careers Philosophy of
Founding Tech Ventures Creating Systems Politics of
Fashion Creating Others (Leading) Culture of
Evolution Creating Cultures Design of
Composing Stories, Games, etc. Creating Quality Economics of
Performing/Exploring Creating Knowledge Practice of
(from Greene 2011 and De Tao Master's Academy 2011)
Tools for Non-Narrow: Thinking, Professions, Academe, & Outcomes
Herbert Simon wrote that exponential increase in knowledge volume meant professions,
disciplines, theories, and professional people were, relative to the totality of that knowledge,
becoming smaller and smaller fractions, with severe effects, namely, that all our major
problems fell in the cracks between our increasingly narrow persons, professionals, and
disciplines (Simon 1996). System science failed as a solution (Bartanlanffry 1969). Total
quality worked better—horizontal processes replacing vertical ones, continuous improvement
replacing giant innovation leaps, kansei engineering of delight quality frontiers of customer
imaginings of future requirements, statistical measures replacing management by rank opinion
(Greene 1993; Lillrank & Kano 1989; Ishikawa 1991; Cole 1995, 1999; also in this
Encyclopedia see Creativity, Innovation, and Quality Assurance). Lately systems
engineering has arisen as design of systems of systems (Maeno, Nishimura, Ohkami 2010;
plus Creativity and Systems Thinking in this Encyclopedia). From these “binding”-other-
fields or Meta-Fields, tools for handling plural diverse models have arisen (Greene 2010;
Nakano, 2011).
Structural cognition (Zwicky 1969, Kintsch 1998, van Dijk 1997, Meyer 1982) is another
Meta-Field that addresses this issue of ever narrower people and professions in a world where
problems are wider and wider. Where ordinary science seeks one right-y model; structural
cognition identifies diverse repertoires of models that explain a phenomena, with each model
in each repertoire of models compensating for weaknesses of the other models. In doing this,
Structural Cognition sees itself as midway between Asian causality (10,000 bee stings to
move an elephant; and Western causality (find the one tipping point in a system where slight
inputs have huge outcomes). Both aim at predictive capability---but one seeks a single model
while the other seeks diverse well-balanced repertoires of models.
Structural cognition tools are especially suited to crowd-source and swarm intelligence
arrangements on the web. The tools encourage application of blends of diverse models,
enabling:
1. more comprehensive coverage of a phenomenon
2. more diverse aspects of a phenomenon distinguished from each other
3. more detail handled at the same time as more comprehensiveness is achieved

4. more accurate and localized diagnosis, assessment, and strategic direction done
5. more adaptive alternative responses and ways to go at crisis points
6. more common ground possibilities for reducing first apparent conflicts/differences.
A Creativity Theory Support of Many Diverse Detailed Creativity

Models
Torrance (Torrance 1974) in his famous work to measure creativity chose three mental
capabilities:
1. FLUENCY---the total number of interpretable, meaningful, relevant ideas generated in
response to a stimulus
2. ORIGINALITY---the statistical rarity of the responses generated
3. ELABORATION---the amount of detail in responses generated.
We might, then, ask these three traits of our models of creativity: 1) how many models do we
have and use? 2) how rare are these models? how diverse from each other are they? 3) what
is the level of detail of elaboration of each model? Creative modeling of creativity, it would
seem, would involve us in having 1) many 2) diverse 3) highly-detailed models, not single
right-y models of great abstraction lacking detail and specificity. This little exercise makes us
clear that academia's aim for “rightness” of model gets in the way of “creativity” of model.
Perhaps, mono-theism drifts into mono-theory-ism, culturally.
The Idea of a Novelty & Creativity Sciences School

Colleges and corporations today split the Novelty & Creativity Sciences into different
departments, centers, sites, and degree programs. No journals reach all creativity sciences.
Therefore, each Novelty & Creativity Science is being learned, studied, presented, and applied
on its own, for the most part. What might improve were they all studied, taught, applied
together? That is the concept behind creating a Novelty & Creativity Sciences School (and
Research Center).
The few initial experiments in this direction—primarily at De Tao Masters Academy in China
and Keio in Japan---show these results:
• intense formats—9 Creativity & Novelty Sciences taught in one 18 day period via 2-
consecutive-days per course (so interactions among them are intense)
• the graduate student insight—students get, after initial frustration of their habit of
seeking one right-est model, the insight that no one model is powerful, unbiased,
comprehensive, or accurate enough to be trusted
• discovery of mental hiding places—instead of all teams depending on “brainstorms”
and all individuals depending on “insights” (see Brainstorming and Invention and
The Role of Intuition in Creativity), dozens of particular new ways for new ideas to
enter life and work are found (social design automata, stratified responding, and
others)
• what one Novelty-Creativity Science teaches others—we ask designers to invent and
they find “over-specification” a problem; we ask inventors to design, and they find
“under-specification” a problem—each develops wider new approaches, stretched by
experience someone else's ways.
Multiple Models from the Practitioner's Point of View
Industry CEOs find two great weaknesses in single right-y models: one, it is too risky to
assume that “our” present consultant-academic's model is the right one and all others are
wrong; two, the best most statistically-valid single right-y models, when fully, expensively,
sincerely applied by competent private sector organizations produce laughably tiny
improvements in creativity. A recent Harvard article reported copying a Japanese hit product
8 years later as the creative result from changing 40+ environment variables to create a
“creative” and “innovative” environment (see Measurement of Creativity). Delayed
copying is not a robust useful result. Single models however right-y are usually useless.
SIX META-MODELS
Below 4 levels of repertoires of models (meta-models) are presented, without discussion—54
Excellence Sciences (Figure 2) many of which are 18 Novelty & Creativity Sciences (Figure
3), two of which are 120 Models of Creativity (Figure 4) and 54 Models of Innovation (Figure
5), one of the innovation models being 64 Dynamics of Natural Selection (Figure 6). This
demonstrates both vertical and horizontal dimensions of the structural cognition program of
tools for thinking as broadly as our problems without losing specificity and application power.
All the models come from 8000+ people from 41 nations and 63 professions interviewed over
a 6 year period, the resulting capability models linked to nearest-match theories from 4000
research books on Novelty & Creativity Sciences. At first re-doing Plato by asking high
performers in many fields who was top in their field and how they got to the top, produced 54
Excellence Sciences in the below table, many of which were Novelty & Creativity Sciences.
The same data also defined capabilities of highly creative people, great innovators, great
designers, and for the other sciences.
Meta-Model One: 54 Excellence Sciences, Some of which are
Novelty & Creativity Sciences too
Figure 2
54 EXCELLENCE SCIENCES
Routes to the Top of 63 Professions in 41 Nations from 8000+ Respondents
Combining Tacit Knowing, Practical Intelligence, Knowledge Evolution Dynamics, Declarative & Procedural Knowledge,
Theory and Practice Knowledge. Items with an * have books presenting sets of capabilities that define them.
SOURCE De Tao Masters Academy Creativity & Novelty Sciences Studio Plan, 2012)
Perfor- Compila-
Person Adaptation Diversity Reflection
mance tion
KNOWLEDGE TRAITS
educatedness* diversity* structure* (social & cases humanities & arts between
(handling it) cognitive) of knowing knowledge
META-KNOWING
EXPERIENCE
formats
REALITY
MODEL
SELF
BASICS
effectiveness* complexity system* theories natural & social between

(handling it) sciences of knowledge
knowing categories
creativity* error (handling it) quality expertise
professions & across knowledge

engineering of explicitness &
knowing consciousness
KNOWLEDGE LOCALES
management leading & artfulness global humanities & arts across cultures
functions* innovating* (handling effectiveness META-DISCIPLINES of 1 discipline
constraintlessness) (Western, Eastern,
both)
PRODUCE
MANAGE
GLOBALITY
STYLE
management composing/ coping power types natural & social across

PRODUCTIVITY
levels* design* (handling constraints) sciences of 1 selves/personaliti

discipline es
management performing* paradox morality
domains (handling (establish solace
incongruency) systems)
professions & across systems

engineering of 1
discipline
META-PRACTICES
influence data entrepreneurship fashion practice: across knowledge

TRANSFORM
(collecting sources* (idea/method) liberation context & size

INFLUENCE
& analysis)
DISCOVER
LEARNING
gaps
CHANGE
GAPS
careers* research manage by events ecosystems & practice: freedom across knowledge
(+job finding) (processes) clusters & historic dreams sequence gaps
(of ideas & practices)
technology venture organizational practices practice: novelty across knowledge

(social life etc.) (founding) learning (movements of conserved surprises &
change)
novelty noticings

Meta-Model Two: 18 Novelty & Creativity Sciences
The below Figure 3 presents 18 Novelty & Creativity Sciences in rough order, showing top
level relations among them. Creativity is the root of them all because it is what generates
novelty into them all. The structure of the table below suggests:
1. that evolution goes on in all Novelty Sciences, that narration and other liberal-social
arts of each Novelty Science derive from evolution dynamics in each
2. that multiple models of creativity apply to all other Novelty Sciences
3. that selves and knowledge together capture the levels Novelty Sciences apply to
4. that experiment & discovery, art & invention, expression & exploration capture what
is applied to those levels (each of those pairs expressed via multiple models of
creativity involved in them)
5. that 8 Novelty Sciences (creativity, evolution in, story-comedy-history-philosophy of,

selves, knowledge, experiment & discovery, art & invention, expression &
exploration) somehow support and apply to twelve other Novelty Sciences
(educatedness, careers, creating others, systems, cultures, quality, innovation, ventures,
design, composing, fashion, performing).
6. that it is all about Novelty in the end---each Novelty Science is about bringing the new
into our world
7. that each Novelty Science differs from others in having a sort of basic direction:
a. tries---in the experimenting and discovery involved in innovation and venture building
b. builds---in the art and inventing involved when people design and compose
c. roles---in the expressing and exploring of self and other involved in fashion and
performance
d. formats---in the flows of knowledge in systems, cultures, and quality achievement
e. persons---making and made in educatedness, careering, and leadership.
Figure 3
THE 18 NOVELTY & CREATIVITY SCIENCES
Creativity generates Novelty which generates Selves, Knowledge, Discovery, Invention,
and Exploration
1) The Liberal Arts of Each Novelty Science Come from EVOLUTION STORY-
the Evolution, Natural Selection dynamics, of Each; IN COMEDY-
(Natural HISTORY-
2) Novelty Comes into the World via FIVE Types of Selection PHILOSOPHY
Creation and TWELVE Levels of Creation dynamics of): OF
CREATIVITY
Educatedness (self
NOVELTY
creating persons)
SELVES Careers
Creating Others
(Leadership, Parenting)
Systems
KNOW- Cultures
LEDGE
Quality
EXPERI- Innovation
MENT & Ventures
DISCOVERY
ART & Design
INVENTION Compose
EXPRESSION & Fashion
EXPLORATION
Perform
Meta-Model Three: 120 Models of Creativity

The table below presents 120 models of creativity. These came from three sources: 150
eminent creators in 63 professions and 41 nations, 8000 eminent people similarly distributed,
and 4000 books and research articles on creativity from academics.
There have been some meta-models of creativity model types: (Harnad 2006) method,
memory, magic, mutation types of creativity theories; (Styhre & Sundgren 2005) 4P creativity
model types: process, person, product, and place (see Four P's of Creativity). However, the
model below of 120 creativity models, is the only published model, derived from empiric data
from creators, yet with nearest match academic models indicated for each, this comprehensive
and detailed. Remember each of the models named below, in its full form, printed elsewhere,
has 20 to 60 well-ordered components.
Figure 4
120 Models of Creativity
from 150 Creators, 8000 Eminent People, & 4000 Books and Research Articles
People from 63 diverse professions and 41 nations were sources of the below.
[A book of detailed models for 60 of the models below is available from scribd.com]
Academic models that correspond with each empirical model below are noted in each box.
This Model of Models is the basis of a 4 semester course at KEIO SDM in Creativity Models.
The Comprehensive First 60 Models The Partial Second 60 Models
Each model below purports to explain ALL of creativity Each model below purports to explain SOME KINDS of creativity
NOTE a book on all the below was published (Greene 2000) NOTE the below are being tracked closely for eventual generality
THE SOCIALITIES THE BRAIN MIND

OF CREATING MENTALITIES OF MANAGEMENT EXTENSIONS
CREATING OUTSIDE BRAINS
CATALOG EXPERIMENT SEEK EXCEPTION ENTOOL MENTAL
OPERATORS
RECOMMENDATIONS SOLUTION CULTURE EVERYMAN DECENTRALIZE
create creative life (by creators articulate to SCIENTISTS, INTUITIONS each group
making interior & exterior themselves their chosen HYPOTHETICALITY and era has its own
room, and embracing field as a failure culture; (BAYES) creators become characteristic intuitions,
paradox enough to enable then they reverse all aware of limitations and which creators notice and
mental travel), accumulate dimensions that tendencies in how they reverse or change; when
subcreations till they characterize that failure view the world (what they central control by leaders
become creation machine, culture to invent a solution notice and miss), they is assumed, creators
your creative life uses culture, which they then consciously seek imagine many actors self
your creation machne to apply to realize aims the frameworks for getting organizing without central
create Gardner , field has failed thus far to beyond those limits in self exchanges and specially
Simonton, Sternberg, attain. Jonathan and others, they develop designated leaders;
Root-Bernstein, Feinstein, Greene, Marx, exquisitely precise and Resnick, Papert, Minsky,
Arendt, unusual hypotheses, then MacDermott
invent ways to test them;
artists do science. Bayes,
Judea Pearl, Bunge,
Sloman, Eamon
TRAITS creators vary via POLICY BY ENDISH MEANS CHANGE MIND MAP
being ingenue, problem EXPERIMENT creators creators embed ends they TOPOLOGY creators
seeking, violating bounds, take all that exists as aim for in the means they assimilate ideas into
bricolage, then they hypotheses not established use to seek those ends, so models and arrangements
combine ideas via truths, they play around that trying for goals, on paper or in their minds,
metaphor, abstraction, with, experiment with incrementally actuallizes but they take another step
indexing, and multiple what now is, including them; they liberate and transfer whole models
worlds mappings, then present trends and themselves from past of ideas from one
they select combines via thoughts; they structure ways, then in no man's geometry type to another,
finding saturated fields, work not to make systems land seek out other ones viewing the same set of
countering intuitions, work but to learn from liberated from the same ideas from diverse
articulating, applying whether they work or not, realities, with some of frameworks Herman
aesthetic rules. Guilford, how the universe whom they dream dreams Hesse, T.S. Eliot,
Sternberg, functions. Deanna Kuhn of a replacement for old Foucault, Parsons,
(us as intuitive scientists) ways. Mao Tse Tung,
Joseph Campbell
QUESTION FINDING CREATION EVENTS EXTREME BRIDGE COMPETING
creators find vital tipping creators turn distributed CONCENTRATIONS NETS creators just do
point questions via finding sloppy unorganized latent creators do normal social work in this model:
gaps (reverse trends, processes of thinking into thoughts, feelings, and they put networks of
depersonalize, undo intense, events, either of actions but continue them people and thought into
successes, expand two ways, by tweaking in to ridiculous extremes contact that before were
models), via finding points parallel several emerging which cause them to not at all in contact, and
of high leverage (fully processes and getting attract great attention and by how much contact,
represent, socially index, them to inter-relate, or by change frameworks and where, of what sort,
seek intersections, change getting the right parties expectations of others, creators create a particular
models), via changing together in the right being declared “creative”. flow of ideas. Ron Burt,
representations of context and roles. Greene Arnold Ludwig Gladwell
situations (change:
measures, scales,
causes/effects, models),
via changing logic (relate,
imply, unify, cross
domains) Einstein and
Infeld 1938, Runco
DARWINIAN SYSTEMS FRACTAL MODEL IDEA FARMING creators AVATAR WORLDS
creators vary, combine, EXPANSION creators plant in minds, their own creators in imagination or
select, and cause idea map all that is known and and collaborators' possible using new media see
reproduction across tried about some idea or new ideas, then nurture themselves or their
persons, creative works, topic in highly organized them in various ways, favored ideas in
fields, and domains (so and regular diagrams, so letting them compete as alternative worlds relating
persons, works, fields, and nothing already tried is they grow, till some of in ways not of this world
domains all 4 can either omitted or distorted; then them tower over the others to other ideas and persons;
foster or hinder creativity, they regularize these maps and more interesting or exploring new contexts
by supporting or hindering to make what is vital and powerful or unusual; that around and relationships
the 4 functions: vary what is peripheral visually means creators multi-task with ideas in these other
combine, select, self evident; finally they among diverse ideas imagined world contexts,
reproduce) expand the dimensionality planted. Edison, reveals aspects of ideas,
Finke (pre-inventive of the diagram on all size Kurzweil combinations of ideas,.
forms) scale so they imagine new Dashavatara, Chip
items associated with Morningstar,
EACH past item. Abbott
COMBINED THOUGHT SOCIAL AUTOMATA s, USE/MAKE ACROSS META-CREATION =
TYPES creators create by This is creating by tuning SCALES creators attend RECURSIVE
combining 16 distinct interactions of populations to and act on smaller and INNOVATION creators
types of thought: getting of entities, varying their larger size scales of space study how other creators
inputs via empathy, doubt, connectedness, diversity, and time than others, create and modify their
observation, and parttern depth of contact, Root-Bernstein, own ways of creating
recognization, abstracting neighborhood size, till Margulis (and Sagan competitively based on
by associating, arranging, creations emerge. Greene, spouse, she small, he those observations; this
playing with, and Scott Page, Gilbert, large scale) includes making a science
representing ideas; Melanie Mitchell, out of things other creators
grounding ideas by Wolfram treat as arts. Flavell,
abstracting from cases, Demetriou,
concretize idea in cases,
extracting from routine,
and creating new routines
from ideas; outputting
creative works by
generation of—images,
analgies, syntheses, and
causal models. Root-
Bernstein
GARBAGE CAN creators CREATE BY SYNCHRONIC INTERFACE
establish and notice 4 BALANCING creators DIACHRONICS creators EVOLUTION most
cycles: new tools enable map all the dynamics of study the past, map its interfaces and bodies of
new thoughts inventing an area on polar sequences of innovation, knowledge, most teaching
newer tools; successful dimensions, often many at express those as and explanation are
works change self/other a time, and notice what movement along abstract organized by past
expectations making more poles are now emphasized dimensions, then create categories and fits new
boldness making more and aimed for and which new things by adding things into those layers of
success and two other are slighted or missed; other dimensions, going to accumulated past context;
cycles. Amabile, Baer & Greene extremes not done thus far creators create new
Kaufman on past dimensions, and interfaces re-contexting all
interpolating between we know Liskov,
items of past dimensions; Norman, Talcott
Altshuler did this to Parsons,
patents to invent the TRIZ
system. Altshuller
BLEND SYSTEM JAPANESE REPETITION POWER,
AESTHETICS SOFTWARE
CULTURE MIX many NON-LINEAR SYSTEM DELIBERATE ISOLATE FUNCTION
perhaps all creations are creators set up systems of IMPREFECTION create FROM MEANS modules
done, without anything ideas, persons, works, to make world world not encapsulation; creating
creative happening as far groups, domains that to make world mind or modules is a constant in
as the creator is involve many things mind world; AWARE (ah- all forms of creation---
concerned---the creator interacting, they creators ness of things, empathy isolatiing the behavior or
simply operates in another set back and tweak towards things, sensitivity effect we want from how it
culture doing what is parameters of those to impermanence of is produced; this allows,
perfectly easy and normal populations and their things, MUJO encourages exaptation and
in his or her own culture interactions, or they set (impermanence of things), briocolage. Mitchell &
but those in the other them up to reflect on and WABI, SABI appreciation Plotkin (existential types,
culture are amazed tune themselves; the world of emptiness) Sen, Rikyu, modules)
declaring the results outside of creators is such Okakura
“creative”- Holyoak & populations of things
Thagard, Koestler, interacting non-linearly
Richard Florida, Gordon and the world inside each
creator's head is also such
a population of things
interacting Par Bak,
Gladwell, Cowan, Casti,
Kaufmann
DISCIPLINE MIX DARWINIAN the most BEAUTY OF REUSE & SPECIALIZE
creators often perhaps creative single process in BELONGING & NOT taking something and its
always are ones who come the universe is the one that BELONGING create by effects and behaviors and
from one domain to created life, and us, showing the in-ness of relationships and making
handle issues in another humans, that is natural outs, and the out-ness of larger or smaller, faster or
domain---here too they selection, common images ins; SEIJAKU (lost in slower versions of it—v
can be creative without of natural selection are one's thought but more Dahl & Nygaard
trying hard or doing nearly 100% wrong; lost in reality, in a scene), (simula)
anything that is not easy correct models, collecting IKI (a clear, stylish
and natural to them, in neutral traits libraries till manner and blunt,
their original domain; some are found adaptive unwavering directness),
Koestler, (Heilman, when environment shift FUKINSEI (unbalanced,
Nadeau, & Beversdorf, substantially, Simonton, non-symmetry,
2000) Melanie Mitchell, DATSUZO (freedom from
Dawkins habit, tradition; KOUKOU
(the majesty transmitted
from past greats by
withered remnants)
Donald Keene, Saito
Yuriko,
TUNING creating is a SYSTEM EFFECTS HIDE WHAT YOU EXAPT: REUSE IN NEW
tuning operation of creators seek unplanned SHOW indicate not CONTEXTS
finding precise delicate emergent delayed express, hint not display; every new thing every
mid-value along poles of distributed system effects, USHIN (discrimination, creator invents can,
opposite value---too much inventing by building exquisite distinction), recombine with all past
of X and too little of X ways to deliberately SHIBUI (beauty that things, some of which
and you get not creativity, provoke and benefit from appears only when gazes combinations will
but some mid-value them. Schelling linger); YABO (the themselves be creative:
causes creativity---this is ugliness of the court of especially when deployed
the inverse U function of Louis !4th in France—the in distant remote unlikely
creativity. Sternberg ugliness of directness, new contexts and
opposite of IKI), JO-HA- environments Levi-
KYU (slow, break, Strauss, Root-Bernstein
sudden), EN Haga
Koshiro, Tadao Ando,
PARADOX DOOR SURPRISE creators PRESENCE OF CODE INVENTING
creators seek out surprise others after NOTHING create by CODE creators that create
anomalies, paradoxes, surprising themselves and minimal word-less things that create, that
contradictions, things that their own minds, via suggestion MIYABI combine, that fuse, that
are not working---they liberating from what all (things polished so split, that invent, multiply
struggle to make sense of consider essential, anything vulgar is their variation,
them and have to let go of combining with others removed); YUGEN (dim, combination, selection.
their own selves and thusly liberated, to invent deep, mysterious; fully They make themselves
attitudes and educations replacements that need recall from slight hint of more creative. Creators
into new views in order to protecting from things), HONSHITSU (the deploy initiative and
handle them—paradoxes established old ideas- felt not thought essence of creating/designing from
et al are doorways to forces Arendt, Rollo things), David Oden, their own selves into
getting beyond what is in May, Wildavsky, Fiske Onishi Yoshinori, embeddings in what they
oneself. Michael create, so what they create
Parsons, Kegan, creates. Shannon, von
Marianne Lewis Neuman, Turing,
Kaufmann
SCALE BLEND creators ADJACENT BEYOND SUBWORLDING living OPERATE ON PRIOR
use or invent new tools to the universe itself your fantasies in order to RESULTS Similarly,
expose phenomena on invented natural selection invent bridges UKIYO recursion power: creators
new size scales, larger or the most creative process (the fantasy only world, of who apply operations not
smaller---they track results we know—so do/can pure unhindered human to similar inputs but to the
on other scales —trying to humans create the same desires), ANIME (the results of that or other
invent an all scale result or way the universe creates? sudden decisive make of a operations, extreme-ize
theory that explains or each new creative work feeling in a reader by One catapult beyond norms and
generates the two scale combines with all prior Stroke), OTAKU (the expectations = create.
and single scale results. ones making exponentially culture of narrow Turing, Von Neuman
Root-Bernstein more combines--a self- development from self out
scaffolding process. not social constraints in);
Kaufmann, Boden COSPLAY (putting on
lives via putting on
clothes) Nobuyuki
Takahashi, Shimokawa
Oten, Seitaro Kitayama
IDEA MARKETING POPULATION SUBSPACES create OPERATE ON
creators market ideas and AUTOMATON creators sacred secular spaces STRUCTURES OF DATA
possible solutions to their set up populations of where the essential creators who apply
own minds, and use things interacting non- nothingness of things is operators whether
creative works to market linearly whose interactions unobstructed. SAKURA physical, emotive, or
ideas to their own field of they tune, till better than (the dependable annual cognitive not to single
people, and market that to planned results/patterns transience of things), items but to ordered
the history. Palombo, emerge, on four levels: SADO (a special patterns of such items,
Noice & Noice, thoughts, solutions/works, exceptional world within multiply effects in variety,
creators, domains our world where rank and scale, and scope and may
interacting thusly. each crude exaggeration have end up creating as a result.
level has its own generator no play), MUGE (the N. Wirth,
of paradoxes—negation, ultimate beauty of full
hubris, feedbacks, focus meaning no longer
from parallel engagements blocked by ego, and
Duncan Watts, Svyantek worldly shallownesses)
& Brown, Gavriel Bodhidarma(Bloodstrea
Salomon m sermon), Gautama
Buddha (flower sermon),
Huike, Huineng, Myoan
Eisai
GROUP PURITY SENSE EXTREMA DEMOCRATIZE
MEDIA
COMMUNITY OF SUBCREATIONS　in this CONSTRAINT CUSTOMERS AS OWN
IDEAS creators put model creators invent ACCEPTANCE SUPPLIERS—APPS
together ideas into tools, facilities, images, Creators study and creating is making
community dynamics, representations of organize constraints, customers the makers not
among those ideas--- competitors, that by seeing how others mere consumers; it is
associations, conferences, gradual accumulation overcame similar ones and making things that turn
arguments, taxonomies, expand the scope of finding new constraints to everyone alive into a
processes, sequences, creator productivity, add to force unseen before designer, producer,
events, fusings, imagination, cleverness, answers. Jon Elster, performer, creator;
branchings and many and density of idea creating is inventing pre-
more; they control these realization in various inventive sub-creations
idea community dynamics media, till an amazing that use to become
via meta-cognition creation emerges on its invention. Jobs
operators. Minsky, own. J. R. R. Tolkien, L.
Hewitt, Montuori & Konzack(games),
Purser,
SYSTEM MODEL PRODUCTIVITY MAP PAST CUSTOMERS AS OWN
creators are not all that creativity is a side-effect DIMENSIONS creators SUPPLIER—INFO wiki
create in this model— of immense productivity create by mapping all past creators create shared
creation comes from a in this model; one of the creations and inventing spaces where ordinary
creator person interacting first battles any creator has unique frameworks for people in crowds can
with creative works (past, and wins, is the battle for ordering and interpreting design and invent what
present and imagined free time often won by them; creating is simply formerly was designed and
future), with creative personal inventions to free an operation on all past invented by central elites;
people in a field, and with up time for creating; creations, understood and creators invent tools that
the knowledge of his or statistics show that the represented very allow entire populations to
her chosen domain; more historically most famous abstractly, revealing create, tools that make
than that creators interact creators are often even dimensions in their readily fusable and usable
in and across fields, usually the most evolution never noticed the diversities of mass
creative works interact, productive too. before. Ritchey, Zwicky populations; Jimmy
creative fields of people Simonton, Wishbow Wales, Malone,
interact, and creative 1988 (poets 5 years
domains of knowledge prep), Hayes 1970
interact; so people, works, (painters—6 years prep)
groups of people, and idea
domains can foster or
hinder creativity
Csikzentmihalyi,
Feldman; Styhre &
Sundgren
SOCIAL PERFORMANCE VACUUM POWER this CUSTOMERS AS OWN
COMPUTATION creativity is ideas is Lao Tsu's style of SUPPLIERS---THINGS
creativity in this model is performing in this model, painting in ancient creators invent things that
a computational process at first performing inside a China---painting spaces serve as tools and devices
among a group of people; mind for your own self, not objects, breaking that encourage and enable
one way to see this is as a then for imagined perfections-symmetries- ordinary people to create;
complex flow of parallel competitors, imagined balances deliberately; this involves changing all
intersecting steams of heroes of your own field creation is pure negation products and services in
small events/meetings in past and future, failed in this model---it is non- this world so that their
what people meet people, ideas perform in your participation in the habits, final form and next
ideas meet ideas, funders mind for you to see views, and enthusiasms of version comes from how
meet people, with some patterns among them that a field or tradition; Ando, people use them MIT Fab
events spawning, shutting hint at solutions; possible Lao Tsu, Merleau-Ponty, Labs, Malone, Toffler
down, and coordinating works perform in your Marx
other events, King and mind; Sawyer,
Anderson, Payne, Stanislavski, Stella
Montuori & Purser, Adler, Lee Strasberg;
SOCIAL MOVEMENT INFLUENCE creating is ISOLATE SENSES by CUSTOMERS AS
creators find whistle a social process of seeing along one sense PUBLISHERS creators
points, where slight inputs amazing a group of people only you lose habitual invent media by which all
change entire systems, via usual influence constraints from other ordinary people can
then they design seeds that mechanisms, context senses and see aspects of perform for others, can
release the forces in such setting, and selling reality not noticed before; compose for others, can
whistle points in a society avenues; varied types of it is Einstein seeing the invent for others, can
or profession and manage person combine to speed of light as a final entertain others; creators
via public and private create/influence a field— speed limit in the universe spread creating from
dialog tactics what pioneers, translators, (as Maxwell in 1882 central elites to entire
emerges from the scholars, tinkerers, suggested) and working populations; John Milton
movement that results; network hubs, glib out what that one seeing Aeropagitica 1644,
Thomas Kuhn salespersons, Kuhn, changes (it changes all of
(paradigms), Eamon, physics it turns out).
Christensen, Ramachandran, Suzuki,
Zeami.
SPACE SHARE creativity INVESTING creating is INNER/OUTER SOCIAL DOERS creators
emerges when a certain investing in idea streams REVERSALS this going make devices works and
intensity of sharing of in this model; you create out and finding that tools that enable groups to
intellectual space happens, by managing a portfolio of changes what you notice see and do what formerly
in analogy to nuclear interests, some of which inside and going in and only individuals saw and
fusion happening when you develop into ideas and finding that opens out new did; creating is taking the
particle interactions are actions; you invest outsides to understanding heroics out of creating by
“confined” enough for a interest, research, —is THE method of all accumulating mass
certain density of imagination, tool creating, in this model; population steps and
interaction energy to be invention, collaboration, creating is going in to insights into stunning
reached, causing central and more; Runco and make new outs and going inventions; MIT Fab
elements, stripped of Rubenson out to make new inside Labs, Malone, Toffler
peripheral ones, to fuse. (psychoeconomic model), models and ideas and
Segel, Schrage, Perkins, Sternberg and Lubart, ways Joseph Campbell,
Zwicky, Gruber & Hayak, Penrose, Jung
Wallace
PARTICIPATORY ART & INFO DESIGN creators OBSERVE SELF PARALLEL MEDIA
DESIGN you create by create by operating on OTHERS creators merely UNIVERSE creating is a
liberating people, ideas, information—representing observe more and set of tools that liberate all
devices, or the world from information, modifying differently in this model; from boring jobs and work
central controls and mass info types (causal, they pay more attention and into full time
media messages controlled qualitative, etc.) and info and high quality attention creating--6 billion TV
by central elites; creation topologies (logic, to things not attended to producers, virtual work
is making audiences into hierarchies, networks, before; creating is worlds, creators entool
performers, and reversing etc.) Shriver, Tufte, watching without getting every last person alive till
message flows. Shina sucked into as others are everyone is creating all the
Minoo —it is highly detached time for each other;
comprehensive reflective Toffler (de-mass-
watching. Carravagio, ifications)
Brad Blanton,
SOCIAL SELF BRAIN ADJUSTMENT WORLD MIXES
MASS SOLVING creating COURAGE creators have UN-INDEX creators see RAISING NOT
is always the gradual a drive for truth that raw reality by shutting PROGRAMMING
deployment of a particular thrusts them into intense down the outer cortex of creators do not specify
kind of mental protocol--- encounters with reality the brain which usually correct procedures but
a solving process---across aspects poorly explained indexes what we see so we instead create entities and
a large population from by current systems and see tiny fractions of what tools that themselves learn
whose variety innovation knowledge, and creators our senses get and we see the world and how to
possibilities arise as the practice courage of only meaningful entities operate it and by doing it
common process spreads; reaching beyond normal not raws inputs: certain anew without human
you can imagine Newton, beliefs to raw phenomena, autistic people lack the attributes, discover or
Leibnitz and others for truth. Rollo May, index around brains and invent, design or make
exchanging letters and bits Betty Cannon, Tillich directly access raw creative outcomes humans
and steps of that eventual sensory inputs—these would miss; you create by
solving process spreading become savants, Mark not creating but by making
among them Ohno, Kano Batey; Ken Heilman; things that interact to
Alan Snyder themselves create in this
model. Rodney Brooks,
Minsky
PROCESS ANXIETY CHANNEL SHUT MODULES MANAGE POPULATION
DEPLOYMENT creators unleash anxieties monks who shut down in EMERGENCES
creativity is the spread of of existence normally meditation the brain designing populations of
other or any protocols (not hidden from, fled from module for being-in one's intelligent interacting
just solving ones) in this and use that energy to see own body, fly. Creation is agents from whose
model. The variety of their chosen fields deeply what you get when you interactions emerge,
what you spread the and newly, Rollo May, work on something with unplanned, designs is how
protocol over generates Kegan, Betty Cannon, key parts of your self and you create in this model;
the variations from which Joseph Campbell, Tillich mind shut down. That is creating and designing and
the group selects why people report semi- inventing are operations to
influenced by steps in the conscious states of mind tune the interactions of
protocol they all share. as fostering creation the intelligent populations---
Kano, Akai most. Davidson & Dalai whether software, robots,
Llama; or people---in this model;
Casti, Cowan, Holland,
Kaufmann
OPTIMIZE IDEAL EXTEND SELF WATCH MIND Some PROSTHETICS the Borg
FLOW creativity comes DEVELOPMENT meditation regimes in Star Trek II are what
from designing work, creating is something involve sitting and merely this model is about---
processes, and systems so every human does--- watching your own mind adding machinery into
that energy flows only in creating their own self--- at work; months or years brains that allow new
intended directions, so that but only a rare few reject of this result in despair of sensations never in
the ratio of that energy the self they inherited and ever reaching insight or biology before and the
over side-effects is replace parts with better happiness while led opposite adding bio stuff
optimized, and so that it is things of their own around by your own mind; inside brains similarly---
optimized over a linear invention or choosing despair at your own mind all creating is just
function of values not (educated people); leads to practice bypassing extending mind operators
single point values so creators are people who its signals and categories with tools outside of
results can be tuned extend this process from —this leads to immense brains in this model. E. E.
without loss of generality; creating a self themselves creativity Davidson & Smith(lensman, 1933),
Einstein designed all of to making the self they Dalai Llama, Rex Jung; Project Pitman at Los
physics optimized around create a creative self, Ken Heilman; Alan Alamos
the speed of light as an MacKinnon 1961 Snyder
ultimate Genichi Taguchi,
Collcutt
META-COGNITION INTEREST ECSTASY INPUT EXTREMA SMART DUST creating is
creativity comes from deft creators create interest in Creativity comes from distributing over the entire
changing of approach, things no one else is exploring to find the universe communicating
aim, method, what is interested in---they invest extremes of what each thinking imagining entities
noticed throughout their intense beam of sense and cognitive or extensions of human
creator process of woven interests in tipping facility can handle---the such functions till human
creating, due to this dual point places where slight lowest possible light mentality and all that exist
—being in but not of their inputs can have huge visible, the most complex think, feel, see, imagine,
process of creating. outcome effects; possible pattern to make together. Pister
Flavell, Fisher, Csikzentmihalyi, Ypma; imagine.
Shimamura; J. Jonathan Feinstein, Ramachandran
Feinstein;
SOCIAL CAREER INVENT DE-CONCEPTUALIZE BRAIN AMPLIFIERS
CONNECTIONISM creating is merely creators do what we all do machines inside or around
creators get ideas in frame inventing your own career except they refuse the brains that amplify what
contexts (idea solids = rather than moving along a categories we all use--- they can do or react to =
every idea a defined fixed career path invented by they categorize anew from all in culture and all in
place), by getting them someone else; they do zero in all matters of civilization; creating is
into intense interacting, this for the career that interest; Zeami, Rikkyu, amplifying this or that
those frame are stripped individual ideas have, that Lao Tsu; Ken Heilman; operator in brains, with
off, so ideas flow between individual traits inside Alan Snyder social, intellectual,
frames (liquid phase), till creative works have, that cultural, physical tools and
ideas form a frame-less creative works have, that systems; all of civilization
gas, till the ideas lose creators have, that people is such a tool in this model
peripheral contexts/ have; Klar et al, Simon Hooper
associations to become an Ghiselin, (cyberware)
idea plasma, coalescing
into entirely new frames =
creation; J. S. Brown,
Duguid, Lave, Wegner
DEMYSTIFICATION PERFORMANCE JIGGLE (ADD NOISE) INFORMATED PLACES
creators demystify—that CREATIVITY creators set creators jiggle mental & TIMES creators are a
is all; that means they up nine performances: frameworks and reality history-long process of
recover powers given to ideas in minds, traits in dynamics, inducing noise taking the all from
aspects of the world while works, works in fields--- and randomness to unseat everywhere and making it
growing up; assumptions those 3 repeated in 3 concepts and phenomena appliable in each local
made, limits on alternative levels: in the creator's from their habitual time and place; Zuboff,
ways imagined, filters so own mind, others enacting contexts and settings; Altman & Sivo(Loopt)
we miss parts of reality, the creator's ideas as this resembles super-
hidden selfish motives and performance, and third, renormalization group
interests behind public audiences experiencing operators in physics.
services and boons, Illych, these three; when all 9 Ramachandran, Remy
Foucault performances happen at Lestienne,
once—creativity occurs
and the secular is made
doorway to the divine;
Alice Isen, Mattis,
Poincare; Sawyer
(improv)
KNOWLEDGE MIND SCALE EXTREMA RADICAL
EVOLUTION SUBCREATIONS
DIALECTICS creation is INSIGHT alternating EXTEND SUBSTRATES STRUCTURAL
a generational process in detachment and you create by COGNITION TOOLS
all fields---the younger engagement on more and standardizing new (cognitive list limit
people to overthrow the more abstract substrates so that hundreds expansion) creators learn
dominant old people, go representations of what can study and combine to apply ordinary mental
back to what was does not work results in them and learn from each operators to many times
conquered and accumulating a failure others' experiences (bio more ideas at a time than
subsequently belittled in index the inversion of fab copying wafer fab); others---they invent tools
the past, resurrecting those which specifies what you create by inventing for enabling them to do
ideas in new contexts to eventual solution has to be substrates that many can this and do their thinking,
dislodge established ideas like till creation suddenly use instead of just a few,. designing, solving work at
and powers in their chosen occurs as sheer insight. Langton (alife) many times the per time
field. Marx, Hegel, The Despair Doorway is unit of productivity of
Abbott, opened by losing hope that others. Entwhistle, Pask,
who you now are, how Kintsch, van Dijk,
you now think, will ever Meyer, Flowers &
solve this X---then a Flowers
pattern in your failures
shows solution. Wallace
Guilford Hadamard;
Pasteur
COMPILATION CYCLE COGNITIVE TACKLE IMPOSSIBLES RADICAL INCREASES
you create by compiling OPERATOR EXTREMES you create by tackling IN SOCIAL INDEXING
knowledge from one creators apply normal impossibles---ending creators notice that all
model to another from one mental operators to ideas death---knowing that steps current ways and societies
level of aggregation to BUT at extreme levels and in such bold directions operate with people
another from one level of degrees; the scale, force, will, by being outside of knowing and using tiny
explicitness to another, agility, unconventionality, all extant realistic contexts fractions of the needs,
from one level of bias, expression, packing surprise, amaze and interests, and capabilities
consciousness/unconsciou of mental operators can all perhaps, be powerful of people around them---
sness to another---such be carried to extremes; creations in some other and they pioneer tools that
changes of format and Weisberg context than the context expand how many of the
form reveal gaps and that generated them needs, interests, and
patterns hithertofore Kawasaki, Jobs, capabilities of those
unnoticed = creations Kurzweil around them, people can
Nonaka and Takeuchi notice, remember, and use;
Thomas Vander Wal
(web tags),
RELOCATING IDEA MAKING SENSE by EXTEND DOER SCALE CULTURE
ECOSYSTEMS observing critically and new technologies and PENETRATION AS
transplanting whole sets of skeptically human systems substrates change the cost INSIGHT PROCESS
inter-related ideas from of belief, expecting many and expense in money, creators penetrate the
one idea ecosystem to of them and much of them attention, effort, resources, culture of eras, fields,
entirely different ones and to be built on sand, and time of doing certain theories, problems—that is
making analogous and creators by spotting the functions---creators are the same alternating of
new links with the ideas in ones of weak foundation those who organize people detachment with
that context results in find towers of illusion and to operate a new speeds engagement on
creation. Fauconnier & delusion to puncture with and size scales based on successively more abstract
Turner (conceptual single well placed actions these capabilities Jeff representations of that
blending), Thomas Ward and works---creating is Howe (crowdsourcing), culture that all insight
puncturing perpetual Beni and Wang (swarm) processes are and that is
human towers of self the same gradual
supporting delusion accumulation of failures
Drazin 1999 that when abstractly
indexed specify what a
solution must be like,
more and more till a
solution is suddenly found
Bohannan(anthro)
IDEA WAVES sets of PERCEPT INVENT INVENT NEW SOCIAL STRUCTURAL
ideas pass in 8 year creators invent new ways HUMANS creators see AUTOMATA creators set
periods across all fields, to perceive and new things and solve the future now up automata like protocol
finding great creative to perceive---they create —so they use stem cells processes, among existing
applications in some and and invent by seeing what and DNA knowledge to groups and structures and
no creative applications in no one else sees---they do design new forms of events in their field or
others; creators are people this by varying human body for when we society---till creations
who first notice such frameworks, levels of all have to live on the appear. Epstein & Axtell,
waves and who deploy detail, associations, and moons of jupiter after our Prietula & Carla
their idea contents to other things that allow sun expands to red giant
appropriate parts/problems them to see realities no size; creators operate
of their domain; one else sees; cannot. under bold constraints
Huczinsky, Tomasello, Wittgenstein, others will not face for
Merleau-Ponty generations; Kurzweil
FRACTAL EXPERIENCE EXTEND TARGET REVOLUTIONIZE

RECURRENCE victor REALIZATION creators SCALE creators take all OLDER MEDIA creators
ideas incorporate loser make a hero story for we have and imagine and examine the oldest most
ideas as components till themselves and their imagine them a million assumed and used media
later generations of youth culture: they launch fields times bigger, a million and from entirely current
revive them to overthrow on the hero journey of times smaller, a million and future perspectives
old dominant ideas; going beyond past ways times faster, a million redo reinvent them---so all
creators learn these idea into no man's land, times slower---they the basics of thinking,
dynamics in their field and fighting monsters till they wonder what we “get” if feeling, and acting are
with great timing lead one realize the monsters come things are done at other revolutionized---creators
or more of the forces that from inside them, then scales and speeds; the US replace prose, replace
produce such repeated they come back to their military is paying for bird meetings, replace
idea patterns. Abbott, field bearing magic sized autonomous flying discussions, replace
powers from self devices then insect sized feelings Eamon,
transformation; Einstein, ones, then bacteria sized McLuhan, Negroponte,
Picasso, ones----intelligent dusts, Maeda
for example; Hayes et al
1987 writers
SIMPLE PROGRAMS SUBSTRATE UPDATE THE CALCULUS MOVE STRATIFY
creators invent the the world is an ever faster finite elements, RESPONDING creators
smallest simplest fewest series of new substrates renormalization groups, slow down and separate
interacting components to for doing basic functions cellular systems, grid each within-the-mind layer
generate all the better faster cheaper easier computing, cloud of reacting---what do we
complexity of some and for doing functions computing---all these are notice, what feeling does
phenomenon in their never possible in history breaking something into each noticing evoke, what
field---they create by before---creators are those millions of simple pieces association does each
controlling, predicting, who are first to redo a key and accumulating feeling evoke, what
modeling the most with function of their field on calculations simple for framework comes with
the least. Wolfram, new substrates and the each piece into complex each noticing and how
Klahr(machine first to discover entirely bigger scale shapes does it determine how the
inventing) new field functions made impossible to calculate noticing makes us feel,
possible by such recently directly—all creating is what new framings are
installed new substrates. calculus of a sort; conceivable, possible,
Isse Miyaki, Stephane Leibnitz, Newton, optimal, invent-able and
Leducs, Arber Nathans Hrennikoff & Courant; what new noticings,
& Smith (nobel) (finite element); Ernst feelings, framings,
Stueckelberg and meanings do they
Andre Petermann in generate---creators re-feel
1953 the world--Freud, Betty
Cannon, Husserl, Ellis &
Beck, Ken Heilman;
Alan Snyder

Meta-Model Four: 54 Models of Innovation
Another Novelty Science is innovation. Plural models of it can be obtained from both
academics and from innovation practitioners, as described above.
Figure 5
54 Models of Innovation
How people make creations impact society and real human needs & situations
Academic models that correspond to the empirical ones below are indicated in each box.
NOTE: a version of the below just as detailed as the one for 120 Creativity Models exists but it is not presented in this article for reasons of space.
This model of models is the basis for a four semester course at KEIO SDM on models of innovation.
FUTURE PRESENT IDEA SOCIALITIES IDEA ECOSYSTEMS
FIGHT
CATASTROPH PATTERN TREND SOCIAL LIVING IDEA FARMS
E SPOTTING SPOTTIN RIDING PHYSICS INNOVATIONS
G
abstraction inversions inhabit the future code changing educatization Silicon Valley clusters
action factors
DISRUPTION SUCCESS CAREER STEP RIDE GO OUT = GO IN AUTOMATE INVENTION---
missing competitor FAILS moving one's KNOWLEDGE globals invade locals, nurture circuits among in-
caused disruption- core bribes career forward not DYNAMICS locals invade globals = process projects, power of
Christensen firm to ignore by competing for using knowledge all locals global—Jun absurd concentration; many
periphery = established fixed dynamics, & Wright tries, many fails = many
future--Bower positions and roles dialectics, pole- invents--Edison
but by inventing swings, loser
the entirely new enbeds---Abbott
--Greene
SEARCH VALLEY SELL PASSION MOVEMENT SELF BUILD VALLEY--flows of ideas,
search in possibility INSIDE venture as successive ANGST people, funds, techs seeking
spaces--Perkins Silicon Valley enthusiasm successor- educativeness burden home to love them + tiny, fast,
introject (inside package & contexting social of daily life+self- smart, adaptive coalitions of
you)--Nevens presentation— movements— build= flee to what specialties--JSBrown
& Lee selling Welch at GE fled from (authority)--
motivation--- Giddens
Kawasaki
CUSTOMER SUCCESS TRUST BANKS SOCIAL DEMASSIFY VENTURE---anti-big, anti-
INVENTORS RIDING ethnic-immigrant REVOLUTION de-mass-ify=global East, from zero = new ways
democritize niches finding/ trust-bank social revolution standard items make with new techs; anti-passive,
innovation= riding niches--- ventures-- via liberty, free locals globally diverse anti-money---Greene, Jobs,
empower lead Greene Granovetter invents, public make institutns. not
customers--Hipple happiness, historic fit---Toffler
dream, conserve
novelty--Arendt
sociality social co-evolution co-adaptation social grammar Natural Selection
cognition
PRACTICE UNORGANIZ FIT TYPE MENU INVESTMENT RE-SOCIAL-IZE RECURSIONS--- natural
GEOGRAPHY E info ecosystem CULTURE social relation type selection systems within natural
social life of info— innovating = device species culture of mixes: share, rank, selection organisms--
Brown & Duguid de- proliferation— development: reciprocate, price-- exaptations--Michod
organizing--- Davenport & reliable near Fiske
Sutton Huber future--Grondana
NETWORK SPREAD ONE TAP GLOBAL CULTURE LEVERAGE LEVELS---evolve repertoires
INVENTOR HOME RUN DIVERSITY FARMS DIVERSITIES of neutral traits, till envt.
net not individual INSIGHT open business, culture farming— use diversities: un-see change makes some vital;
hero--Hargadon mental invention raising ecosystems un-do, balance in evolve levels not fitnesses--
practices of outsourcing-- of evolving space in time diffce Kimura
inventors--- Chesbough cultures---Darwin, type/task type---
Schwartz Boyd & Richerson Greene, Page
FOLLOW RE-SEE PAST PRODUCER MISCOPYING ATTRACT SOFT-HARD LEVELS----egg
PROBLEMS FROM CUSTOMERS orthogonal CREATIVE ELITE computer, DNA program, junk
ACROSS FUTURE media copying in new tech, talent, tolerance DNA control statements,
radical invent by microcosmization context = = attract creative elites wrapping modules; behavior to
innovation=mix managing = all consume all invention--- —city-fy as insight software, firmware,
frame, anomaly, mental models produce in all Westney, Roehner, process--Florida hardware---compile un-
tool, crisis research; —Wind & media --Jenkins Syme changeds to hardware—Gould,
patron research Crook Dawkins
mixed with cllent
research = combine
artists, scientists,
designers,
engineers---Steffik
non-linear emergence wave catching universal non-linearity Interface Media Re-invent
dynamics inventivity
NEW WAYS POSITION IN NOT ENOUGH TWEAK CON- OTHER SCALE REPLACE PROSE
AIMS TECH AT SOCIETAL IDEA HOMES NECTEDNESS SIDE-EFFECTS ractal page formats replace
ONCE ENTHUSIAS maximize TILL TAKE-OFF unplanned order prose---see count, names, order
tech life histories, MS society creations without self organizing emerges = goods from at a glance, read and write
firms fail by adding lust--Lienhard maximizing criticality— bads (Mandeville) structures---Greene
new means to old failures = R&D, manage social bads from goods
ways/aims--- finding fits, automata till (Schelling)--Krugman
Wheelwright trashing non-fits--- critical points---
Matheson Bak, Gladwell
NETWORK SPAN HOLES INCREASE & ADJACENT POPULATION OF REPLACE MEETINGS
ECONOMIES spanning VENTURIZE BEYOND FLUXING social automata replace
increasing returns to network FRUSTRATIONS each invention COALITIONS meetings & discussions =
scale (net holes---Burt; manage increases expo- lowered coordinatn missing micro-level = using
economies)--Arthur policy as knowledge by nentially combines costs=tiny venture humans in arrays, assigned
experiment— capturing with past ones-- coalitns on web, big cognitive/social functions as if
structure for frustrateds in org Kaufmann firm dissolve into CPUs in cloud computer
tries and data learnings + market outsources, network---Greene, Ignatius
on tries--- ventures ---Greene giant firm coalitions--
Thomke & Blackwell Malone
SPOT PRE- RECRUDESI DESIGN AS SIMPLE INNER/OUTER REPLACES PROCESSES
RATIONAL NG IDEAS PROUNING PROGRAMS TIPPING POINTS events replace process replace
HINTS historic from intruding simple programs = non-linear society bureau = evolution from fixed
technology tipping necessity+ Platonic forms iterative idea tries net/web dynamics+ to flex---stratified responding,
points via gap function design to pruning in neighboring non-linear within to response to response, to
detection-- lust+emergent away detritus environments till mind message-stick structural cognition--Greene
Burgelman process---Van design, androgy homes found--- dynamics = tipping
de Ven. style--Postrel Wolfram, points---Gladwell
Woodman J.S.Brown
Meta-Model Five: A Comprehensive Version of One of

the 120 Creativity Models—Natural Selection
The case for including in this article a model of Darwinian natural selection is easy to make---
it is the most creative single process known in the universe---the process that invented life
itself, and then went on to invent all the lifeforms that we know of, including ourselves.
Meta-Model Six: A Replacement for Prose Itself—Fractal Page

Formats
The natural selection model just described above and presented below, is two things: one, a
summary of one fourth of Michod's overall model of natural selection dynamics; and two, a
demonstration of a viable replacement for prose itself. One Structural Cognition tool, for
handling plural models, is a replacement for prose called Fractal Page Formats. Why does
prose need replacing? First, it is a very old interface, virtually unchanged for 8000 years.
Second, it hides the structuring of its points so elaborate encoding and decoding are needed.
Third, it lacks apparent visual scaling to handle the drill down drill up expand-breadth focus-
narrowly operators we all do on the web. In research terms it hides the count, naming, and
ordering of its point contents. The natural selection model below makes visually evident in an
instant the count (how many points), the names of points, and their principle of ordering. It
bridges web and older media nicely.
Replacing prose with Fractal Page Formats, meetings with Scientific Rules of Order,
discussions with Stratified Respondings, brainstorms with Social Design Automata, classes
and work processes with Mass Workshop Events—are five basic interfaces of daily life that
can be changed to use and handle plural models not single right-y models.
FITNESS OF MATING SYSTEM INDIVIDUAL BAD AT BIRTH RATE BIRTH RATE WHAT HAPPENS WHAT HAPPENS
WHOLE SYSTEM PROPERTIES not just GENOTYPE EXPLAINING INCREASES when DECREASES WHEN DofType WHEN DofType
on all its levels traits of indvdl FITNESS EVOLUTION density increases when density INCREASES INCREASES
genotypes alone BUT =rare male mating decreases = 4) decreases both 3) decreases rate of
determines INCLUDE density & DIFFERENCES 1) average advantage, sex ratio
evolution not freqcy dependent not necessary fitness 2) biased for females sex/mating costs rate of birth and rate birth increases rate
individual opportunities for not sufficient average causes increase of rarity, = of death of death
(level/organism) successful mating= for interesting individual fitness repro when females SURVIVAL OF
alone heritability of fitness evolution in NSn rare =SURVIVAL OF FIRST
FITTEST?
64 DifferenceinIndlFitness 63 60 When selectn is on

59 48 TypesofNsn: 76 44 4 Ways Density of
43
notNecessarynot several levels 1)bylevels2)bysurvival Type affects
61 80 62
SufficientforEvoln
57 simultaneously 79 58 45 type: 1st,any,fittest 46 41 births & deaths 75
NOT SUFFICIENT; NOT NECESSARY: CELLGROUP DEATH RATE DEATH RATE SURVIVAL OF FITTEST WHAT HAPPENS
constant selectn with partenogenesis= EXAMPLE: DECREASES as INCREASES as WHEN? WHEN DofType
heterozygote survival & # of indvdl fitness density density increases IF births & deaths INCREASES
superiority in fitness = gametes same for all FITNESS ON ONE costs of commonness: independent of
sensitive to increases IF disease, parasites, Density of Type in a 1) increases rate of
fittest hetero- never types but powerful LEVEL IS POOR change in coopn predators = birth decreases rate
has highest per Nsn cuz of properties protection Population=
GUIDE TO benefits BUT requires close SURVIVAL OF Malthusian of death 2) increases
capita rate of of mating system EFFECTS ANYBODY
increase = fittest do fitness from social exponential growth both rate of birth
NOT survive cuz even when the 1 coopn not interactions and of death
cannot breed true level is
DARWIN'S BIG individual
ERROR] sensitive to TYPES OF NATURAL
Only ONE of 3 Environments: coopn effect on
SELECTION BY DENSITY OF 42
individl fitness
Physical Survival Envt not TYPES IN A POPULATION
MORE FITNESS Gene & Repro system Envt FLAW 2 STAT SUCH RESOURCE CHANCE OF
TYPES IF
GENERATIONS
84 ARTIFACT = TERMS 83 ENCOUNTERING
MATE =
in group or kin THEMSELVES
OVERLAP FLAW 3: LUMPS selectn = no DEPEND density of type
1) intrinsic rate FOUR FITNESS RESOURCES BECOMING
TYPES: TOGETHER individual fitness on several other USUALLY DENSE = in a population
of increase, 2) components best is measured, conditions = an COMMON = example
net repro rate 3) 1) Wrightian 2) DECREASING
genotype 3) treated only group traits economics of FUNCTION OF increases cost of of other density
reproductive separately count survival commonness = dependent
value 4) selective value 4) DENSITY of a parasites or
inclusive type in a populn. disease wipe determiner of
individual fitness fitness
outs
56 55 40 39
52 Fitness Types in
Full Theory
51 Flaws in Individl Fitness
Idea: cover 78
36 Econ of 73 35
Fitness:Density of
Density of Type
Can Depend
77 53
survive/fecnd omits
transmit/inherit 54 33 Type in Popln. 34 on
Other Conditns.
74
DETERMINERS PER CAPITA RATE FLAW 1: OMITS3: FITNESS IMPLICIT IN
OF RATE OF OF INCREASE OF 1) sexualselectn DEPENDS ON DARWIN'S
2) freqncy dependent population STRUGGLE TO OTHER DENSITY
INCREASE OF A A TYPE (F-fitness) DARWIN'S INDIVIDL effects3) levelsof SURVIVE is DENSITY
TYPE is good fitness FITNESS selectn effects frequency and density dependence DEPENDENCE DEPENDENT
1) system factors measure to is not individual but =maydecrease density often of fitness ITSELF DEPENDS DETERMINANTS
like Nsn and 2) apply to natural fitness of class of individual fitness on both 2 or OF FITNESS
individuals having exist
random factors selection NOT to same trait more types
like genetic drift random factor NATURAL SELECTION AS UNIVERSAL sharing need of
cases ORGANIZATION PROMOTER same resource
49 50 (for lifeforms and non-lifeform) 2 37 38
Natural Selection 1) Generates Levels not
ORGANISMS ORGANISMS Fitness, 2) Prunes non-fitting traits away, FITNESS BLOCKS REPRO SYSTEM
BECOME THEIR BECOME OWN not selects optima 3) Has kinds of fitness PROMOTE can reduce
OWN WORLD ENVT. depending on type density effects 85 EMERGENCE OF heritability of
survivors by space/time NEW LEVELS fitness: 1) cost of
defn do not not expand=become Figure 6 (from Greene 2011) molecules to mate finding that
fit envt or own WHAT DETERMINES EACH LEVEL DIFFER- DARWINS DAWKINS ERROR organulles, to reduces survival
modify it much envt.=reduce BIRTH FN OF ENTREPICATNMEANS DYNAMICS maximizing fitness cells, to multi-cell (peacocks) 2)
= become their selectn pressures DENSITY? linear, sq., =manyforcesaffect apply to non- idea creates selfish organisms to isolatn/immobility
own world BY scale sqrt? NSn replicatn.=benefitof living systems gene replicating itself societies causing inbreeding
determines? can it? anyheritabletraits giving rise to error
increase testedbymanyforces many forms
16 or side-effects
How Nsn 15 12 Generally the 11 32 Order Emerges 31 28 BlockstoHeritability of27
Generates Fittest Do NOT Not FitnessFoster New
13 Worlds 68 14 9 Survive 67 10 29 Necessarily 72 30 25 Levelsof Selection
71 26
WHY A GENE TYPE Fitness GENE SYSTEM
NON-LIVING MULTI-CELL ORG. SUCCEDS? TRAIT PURPOSE= VARIATIONS TO SYSTEM AT can reduce ENVT SYSTEM
CASE 1) at survival 2) at re- ABSOLUTE heritability of can reduce
EMERGENCE CASE plicating 3) at in- ENTITY SURVIVES FITNESS NOT =
selfcatalyzg selection comes from crease in freqcy in IN THIS ENVT. PHYSICS fitness: 1) heritability of fitness:
molecules: INCREASES IN IT OPTIMA FOUND linkage, 2) 1) random effects 2)
between cell popln.= 2 fitnesses: 1) Why survived? Nsn does not
survival struggle between organism survive 2) entities IN ANIMALS epistasis 3) response to co-
=competitn for become bags of Good traits BUT aim for optimal so great design pleiotropy 4) evolvg other species
interactions = fit =
resources for survival makg neutral or fit traits only when births designs somehow heterozygote 3) change of freqcy
reprodn = fitness interactions linear fn of happens caused fitns changes
from sequence density = many 4) fitness that is
makes folds DESIGN PURPOSE WORLD other causes a
NATURAL SELECTION AS freqcy dependt (cost
makes survive/ from Natural Selection PHYSICAL LAW of commonns =
repro chances types apear rate parasites
increases
SUPRESS LOW BIOLOGY = HOW ORDER SURVIVAL OF
81 82
LEVEL FITNES
EVOLVES Figure 6 TRIES IN ENVTS.
environment
ARISES IN
UNIVERSE
1) variation
SURVIVORS
as poplns get
small, more
for high levels to NO INTENT? traits become 3 WAYS TO
adapt to present MORE LEVELS being traits, cuz 2) heritable Natural Selectn variatns in
envt. suppressn NOT FITNESS
EVOLVE 3
creatures are
bags of traits
8
each organism's capacities as NATURAL
LAW
REDUCE
HERITABILITY OF
fitness are not
of lower level experience 3) struggle to heritable variatn in heritable =
fitness of lower that didn't kill survive to FITNESS success depends
fitness must becomes fitness of set of 1) envt 2) gene
levels reduced = parents = reproduce = reproducg things on chance
evolve = creatures look compiled from system 3)
apparent borrow fitness soft/firm/hard LIFE not needed (no men-tion of life
from higher: but like they aim for in this reprodn system
purpose ware
4 How Nsn
virus pesent
How Nsn 7 20 19 24 Nsn is Central 23
Generates 65
except envt.
Generates 66 NSn as Natural
Law (life & non- to Biology BUT
Fitness is NOT
Optimal Design Purpose life both) 69 70
STEADY ENVT = NOT SELECT BUT LIFEFORMS ARE WHAT IS NOT WHEN Natural HOW MEASURE NATURAL FIT DO NOT
DESIGN OPTIMA PRUNE NESTED CHEMISTRY/PHY Selection FITNESS SELECTION IS: ALWAYS
lifecycle design seems each level must SICS? APPEARS expected the central law, SURVIVE
repetitions in optimized but replicate: differential any system with reprodn success organizing example: small
same good designs organism, replication is ALL replicating or capacity to principle of all poplns where
environment not selected, organulle, that is beyond entities and survive till biology: the genetic drift
means designs rather chromosome, chem/phycs = is heritable reprodn (trait ONLY difference effects
appear to non-surviving gene, DNA all that is variations in “fitness” to between overwhelm
optimize (for traits were strand biology = all fitness challenge in this chem/physics selectn so less fit
that pruned away = that biology is envt.)
environment 1 indirect optima2 5 6 17 18 and biology
21
individual
survive 22
only)
Conclusion and Future Directions:
The web-ization of all industry, expands who---does things, and what they do. Perhaps our
mania for single right-y models is a relict of our tools, pre-computer eras and habits of mind.
Now that everyone has several computers at hand, handling plural diverse evolving models
can be managed practically, making our mania for top, elite, static, highest ones go away.
Some future research directions coming easily from this article's plural diverse model
perspective might be in order before closing.
1. Process Singularities Singularities in design process may be where two or more

models of creativity conflict.
2. Apply Omitted Models Groups favor some models omitting others, so using omitteds
may improve creativity greatly.
3. Evolve Among Models Particular designers, creators, innovators may learn and prefer
some creativity models early in their career and evolve into others at later phases---
why and which ones?
4. Find Best Models People and groups who create using some models may end up more
creative than creators who use other creativity models.
5. More Models More Creativity? Organizations that support and use more models of
creativity may get more creative outcomes than organizations that support and use
fewer models.
6. Model Conflicts Conflicts in long term projects and creative collaborations may come
from different parties and professions in them habituated to different models of
creation.
7. Meta-Creativity Powers People who study which creativity models they use may,
after that study, become more creative.
8. Model Diversity Powers People who are exposed to more diverse creativity models
that they do not now use may, after that exposure, become more creative.
9. Model Trade-Offs Models of creativity may be in negative trade-off relations to each

other so that supporting or doing one more may hinder doing others---environment
supports for doing one may shut down many others, hence reduce total creativity
levels in a person or organization. The mania for single right-y models of creativity,
thereby, may harm creativity in practice more than they help it.
These are some research directions with strong implications for creative practice that come
from the plural diverse models of creativity perspective of this article. Notice that quite a few
models of Silicon Valley dynamics (see here Social Psychology of Creativity) mention the
number, diversity, depth, detail of models of innovation, design, creating that come together,
interact, blend and evolve new forms there (so this article may constitute how to generate
replications of Silicon Valley to some extent [51]). Note that a new kind of university, funded
by leaders in China, based on the plural models approach in this article is being built as this is
being written (compare with Higher Education and Innovation).
Dr Deming the quality guru said to make one problem go away permanently, one had to throw
25 solutions at each of 25 root causes for each of 25 root problems equals 125 changes
installed to fix anything. Maybe creating, design, innovating, etc. are similar—single right-y
models may be fun and easy to think about and test but having little impact compared to
balanced repertoires of diverse models deployed wisely in particular cases.
References
1. Greene, Richard Tabor (2003). Are You Creative? 60 Models. www.youpublish.com.

2. Greene, Richard Tabor (2011). The NOVELTY SCIENCES SCHOOL. De Tao Master's
Academy.
3. De Tao Master's Academy (2011) http://www.detaoma.com/newsds.asp?nid=1282
4. Simon, Herbert (1996). Sciences of the Artificial. 3rd edition. MIT Press.
5. Bertalanffry, Ludwig (1968) General System Theory: Foundations, Development,
Applicationns. New York: George Braziller.
6. Greene, Richard Tabor (1993). Global Quality. New York: ASQ & Irwin Professional
7. Lillrank and Kano (1989). Continuous Improvement: Quality Control Circles in
Japanese Industry. Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan
8. Ishikawa (1991). What is Total Quality Control—the Japanese Way. New York:
Prentice Hall
9. Cole, Robert (1995) Death and Life of the American Quality Movement. Oxford
10. Maeno, Nishimura, Ohkami (2010 Sept.). Graduate Education for Multi-Disciplinary
System Design and Management. Vol. 3 No. 2 Synthesiology
11. Greene, Richard Tabor (2011). Your Door to Innovation. Keio Classnotes and
forthcoming, De Tao Masters Academy Press, 2013. .
12. Nakano, Masaru (2011). A Conceptual Framework for Sustainable Manufacturing by
Focusing on Risks in Supply chains. APMS 2009: 160-167.
13. Zwicky, Fritz (1967). Discovery, Invention, Research through the morphological
approach. New York: MacMillan.
14. Kintsch, Walter (1998) Comprehension: A Paradigm for Cognition; Cambridge
University.
15. van Dijk, Teun A. (1997). Discourse as Structure and Process; London: Sage.
16. Meyer, Bonnie (1984) The Structure of Text in Handbook of Reading Research.
googlebooks.com.
17. Clover, Charles (2011, 25 June) Elephants are scared of bees, scientists say; The
Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/3309619/Elephants-are-scared-
of-bees-scientists-say.html
18. Greene, Richard Tabor (1999); Are You Effective? 100 Methods;
www.youpublish.com
19. Greene, Richard Tabor (2009); Brain Powers; www.youpublish.com
20. Entwhistle, Noel (1982) Understanding Student Learning; London: Croom Helm
21. Pask, Gordon (1966) A brief account of work on adaptive teaching and measuring
systems; Kybernetika Vol. 2
22. Torrance, E. P. (1974) Torrence Tests of Creative Thinking, Personnel Press.
23. Sternberg, Robert (1998) Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge University.
24. Pritzker and Runco, editors (1999); Encyclopedia of Creativity 2 Volumes; Academic
Press
25. Greene, Richard Tabor (2009) Managing Self; www.youpublish.com
26. Taura and Nagai, editors (2010) Design Creativity; Springer Verlag.
27. Eamon, William (1996) Science and the Secrets of Nature; Princeton
28. Giarrantano and Riley (2004); Expert Systems: Principles and Programming (4th
Edition); Course Technology
29. Ericcson and Simon (1993); Protocol Analysis; Bradford MIT
30. Laguna and Marklund (2004); Business Process Modeling, Simulation, and Design;
Prentice Hall
31. Hammer and Champy (2003); Re-engineering the Corporation; Collins Business
Essentials
32. Simonton (1999); The Origins of Genius; Oxford University Press.
33. Michod, Richard (2000); Darwinian Dynamics; Princeton University Press.
34. Kenney, Martin (2000); Understanding Silicon Valley; Stanford University Press.
35. Deming, W. Edwards (2000); Out of the Crisis; MIT Press
36. De Tao Master's Academy (2011); http://www.detaoma.com/newsds.asp?nid=1282
37. Flavell, J. H. (1976); Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. in L. B. Resnick
(Editor). The Nature of Intelligence; Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
38. Greene, Richard Tabor (2010); What If Creativity Were 60 Things Not One, Towards
a Grammar of Design: Design Creativity 2010, Springer
39. Amabile, Teresa (2009); "Corporate New Ventures at Procter & Gamble." Harvard
Business School Case 897-088
40. Greene, Richard Tabor (1993); Global Quality; ASQ and Irwin Professional.
41. Greene, Richard Tabor (2010); What If Creativity Were 60 Things Not One, Towards
a Grammar of Design: Design Creativity 2010, Springer
42. Greene, Richard Tabor (2007); Excellence Science: 54 Routes to the Top of Any
Field; www.youpublish.com.
43. Harnad, Stevan (2006); Creativity: Method or Magic? in Hungarian Studies Vol 18
No. 2
44. Styhre and Sundgren (2005); Managing Creativity in Organizations; Lavoisier
45. Greene, Richard Tabor (2006); Are You Creative? 60 Models; www.youpublish.com
46. Michod, Richard (2000); Darwinian Dynamics; Princeton University Press.
47. Crutchfield and Schuster, editors (2003); Evolutionary Dynamics: Exploring the
Interplay of Selection, Accident, Neutrality, and Function; Oxford
48. Nowak, Martin (2006); Evolutionary Dynamics: Exploring the Equations of Life;
Harvard
49. Page, Scott (2008); The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better
Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies; Princeton
50. Greene, Richard Tabor (2009); Getting Real about Creativity in Business;
www.youpublish.com
51. Brown and Duguid (2005) The Social Life of Information, Harvard Business Press.
TOTALIZE DECADE
BODIES OF COLLEGES
KNOWLEDGE
p205 11 p361 19
NEW NESTED
p332
AUTOMATA 20
PURPOSE
OF ALL
p427
SUBSTRATES
INSIGHT
13 NON-LINEAR
KNOWLEDGE
TIPPING
21
WORLD NEW BASIC
3
DESIGN COMMON-
75 PULSED POINTS
SYSTEMS
79
3 16
DIGITAL CREATIVITY
GRAMMAR 14 SOCIAL-
NESS
22 27
290 p439
2 WORLD & NOVELTY
4 15 67 23
4
2
p35
p41 DIVERSITY
p519 p535 SOCIAL 28
MONASTIC FOUR DEMO-
1
ZENOVATION
p16
THE HEAVY
CHANGE
p47
66 SOCIAL
RELATIONS
EVOLUTION
LEVERAGING
25
BECOME
THEORIST
EXTENDING
CRATIC
iNNOVA-
TING p542
INNOVATION
NOISE
HITTERS
INNOVATION
AS CULTURE
5
p742
p749
68 TECHNOLOGY
GENERATIONS
SEARCH
29
SOCIAL LIFE
p558
NET HERO p546
FRACTAL
p160
30
NATIVE
MODEL p130
7
1 65 p755
31p550
FUNCTION
5
92 FUNDING
PULSES
(PUBLIC + 58
DARWIN-
IAN
59
INNOVATION
CULTURE BY COPYING
EXCELLENCE
SCIENCES
p774 EXCELLENCES
ORDER FOR FREE
69 34 TECH
TIPPING
35
STRATEGY
81
FUTURE +
PUNCTURE
PROFESSION
(HIGHER
CULTURE TION
TION 36 CULTURES
p722 p727 SELF p568 p572
OF INCREASING
SILICON
p759
33 p604 THINKING
INTROJECT
p577
DE-LOCAL-
IZATION
DYNAMIC
COSTS MANAGE
DYNAMICS
37
p739 ADJACENT p768
70 MENTAL NICHE
RIDING
64 GLOBALI-
ZATION
p737 THEORY
SIMPLE
PROGRAMS
BEYOND
p732
62
8 MEDIA 51 71
p764
NET
p615 43
6 MODELS
40 INVENTOR DE-
MENTAL
SPACES
ORGANIZE
p588
p584
38
63 p733
PROJECT
42 HOLE NEED-
FUNCTION-
p599
39
GENCE 52 SPAN
44
7
83 82
MODELS
88 p670 p611 IDEA +
49 KNOWLEDGE
EVOLUTION
p691
41 PASSION +
p622 SOCIAL
PLASMA
EXAGGERATE
OBSTACLES
SOCIAL
53 INFO ECOSYSTEM
ECOLOGY
TRUST
48 SPAN IS
FOUNDER
STORIES
p631
46
p706 TROJAN SPAN
55 PRODUCTS
FRACTAL 47
MODEL
87 META-PRODUCT
RECURSIVE REBALANCE
SERVICE
Copyright 20115 by Richard Tabor Greene---richardtgreene@alum.mit.edu----Rights Reserved, Registered PAGE 1
READINGS ON INNOVATION AND MUCH ELSE, NEEDED TO GRASP AND USE IT

Note: though there are more than 3000 items in the list below, there are only 3000 books here, as some books
are listed under more than one topic. There are 450 topics, used to organize the books here. Each topic repre-
sents a course I would like to teach some day. Thus far, I have taught less than 30% of the topics listed, though I
read, yearly, in all 450 topic areas, and continue to develop them by purchasing more books for them. All the
450 topics below remain of great interest to me.
Instructions for my Research Seminar Students: The problem with all universities in Japan is students do not
read--Japanese culture is oral not written in reality. The problem with all universities in the US is reading is
shallow and cursory--students are given far too much volume to actually read, so professors do not require or
expect quality reading--result, all reading is very poor in quality. The problem with all reading in the entire
world is--no one in the world reads at all, they do interest scans instead, that miss the count (number of points
being made), names of points, and principle ordering the points, nearly completely. My students, whether grad
or undergrad, are required to do structural reading, building diagrams of main points. That way the quality of
their reading can be compared and can evolve. The purpose of this booklist below for non-Ph.D. students of
mine is to show you 300 topics and a dozen or more good quality books for each topic. This allows me to recom-
mend high quality readings rather than average or poor quality ones. If the books are hard, then your brain
needs further training--it is good to practice reading books too hard for you now--that is how your brain gets
trained!
Instructions for Ph.D. students: Each student weekly reads: 1 research book from this sheet and 1 research
journal article. (The research articles are from 100 articles they collect the first month of their 1st two years
of PhD study: 50 on their chosen topic of dissertation and 50 on wildly different new ideas to possibly apply to
that chosen topic). Students diagram (structural reading or causal path) 2 chapters of each book and one
research journal article weekly. 50 of the 100 books chosen must be marked @ on this sheet and students choose
one subtopic from each column of this booklist and select 3 books from those 3x11=33 subsections (for a total of
99 books). The purpose of this reading is 1) to establish a discipline of weekly reading and turning reading into
models in students, 2) to qualify students to pass PhD qualifying exams in two fields of the world’s top ten uni-
versities, 3) to master research literature so students can research topics that add knowledge that is new to a
community of scholars not merely new to the student him or herself, and finally, 4) to become able to teach ten
to 16 courses at your first job as professor in later years. Students bring the 12 models of points from readings
that they build each month to a monthly meeting with other students and the professor. Students should publish
a book from these accumulated models by the 3rd year of their PhD study. The diagrams you build weekly allow
monthly precise measure of the quality of your reading in our monthly reading seminar, sloppy reading (the norm
at most top ten colleges unfortunately) will result in expulsion from this Ph.D program.
Principles: The principles below refer, at times, to the seven sections this reading list is divided into: 1-stan-
dard disciplines, 2-management sciences, 3-new invented fields/theories, 4-tools, 5-secondary applied fields, 6-
bio-logic, and 7-recent acquisitions. At other times, they refer to all the columns of this reading list 3 per page
times 11 pages = 33 columns. 1) all reading produces a sellable product 2) all reading produces models 3) mod-
els from all readings are compared and combined 4) readings from the world’s top 3 universities are covered 5)
readings prepare you to teach ten courses 6) two practical sellable skills are developed beyond mere reading 7)
four applications, 2 for each chosen skill, are completed within the 1st two years of this PhD program; 8) each
student publishes one book based on two years of reading 9) a model of overall weaknesses of existing research
literature in one field is built and student dissertations fix one important such weakness 10) you arrange to col-
lect data from people in such a way that they hire you after you graduate full time or as consultant 11) you
design media-attention-getting packaging around your research 12) you develop standards of doing research
beyond Asian, European, and US standards for research so that your research has impact not becoming unread
articles in unread journals 13) in a monthly seminar with other students and your professor you present your 12
diagrams/models 14) all students subscribe to the top 3 (global) journals in their chosen field 15) all students
subscribe to the Chronicle of Higher Education (USA) and the Times Higher Education Supplement (UK) 16) all
students attend one Japanese gakkai and one foreign academic conference each year; in your third and subse-
quent years you present a paper at each such conference 17) minimum required time weekly--1 twelve-hour
day a week and one 4-hour reading seminar per month, both uninterrupted by work or family 18) PhD
means changing loyalty from nation, gender, family, and self to truth, hence global study in English is required.
You enter a global timeless community of seekers of truth when you get a PhD, the cost is you must leave
most of your self behind and develop a new self borrowed eclectically from history’s best and the contem-
porary world’s best. Knowledge added without self globalization results in pedantry not scholarship. Edu-
cation is not learning; learning is not enough--a shift of loyalty to truth is required. 19) This sheet marked with
your chosen readings plus your completed dissertation, network contacted while collecting data, plus 1 pub-
lished book, 4 completed method applications, and 2 published research articles are the products of your PhD
effort. This sheet thus marked represents you well to others. 20) Please mark one section in each column of
each of the 11 pages of this booklist, and within those 11x3=33 marked sections, choose 3 books to read.
This will constitute 6 subfields in a discipline, 5 subfields in an applied management field, 3 new cross disciplin-
ary theories, 3 concrete skills, 6 secondary applied fields, 5 bio-logic subfields, and 5 recent acquisition sub-
The innovator gives himself up to some force of the universe, that it may create through him changes that amaze man-
kind and sing the glories of---trying---a public happiness far beyond all pleasures of lifestyle and aggrandisement.
fields. All of these are essential if you want solid impact from your Ph.D. work and superiority to usual top ten
global university graduates. The key is a repeatable daily discipline of intellectual work embedded into
your lifestyle during Ph.D. study years.
1. Standard Social Science

Disciplines:
Psychology, Sociology, Political Science
Philosophy of Science,
Philosophy of Education
Democracy Theory
The Context of Democracy: Surveys of Political Thought in General
1. Cohen and Fermon, editors; Princeton Readings in Political Thought, 1996
2. Dahl, On Democracy, Yale, 1998@
3. Gingell, Little, Winch eds., Modern Political Thought, a Reader, Routledge, 2000@
4. Matravers and Pike, editors, Debates in Contemporary Political Philosophy, Routledge, 2003@
The Foundational Forms of Democracy: Democracy as Extended Self Development
5. On Revolution by Hannah Arendt, Penguin Books, 1965@
6. Cyberdemocracy by Tsagarousianou et al, Routledge, 1998
7. Alexander and Pal, Digital Democracy, Policy and Politics in the Wired World, Oxford, 1998
8. Eisenstadt, Paradoxes of Democracy, John Hopkins U, 1999
9. Evans&Boyte, Free Spaces, the sources of democratic change in America, Harper86
10. Hill, edr, Hannah Arendt: the recovery of the public world, St. Martin’s, 1979
Arendt and virtue
11. Peterson and Seligman, character strengths and virtues, Oxford, 2004
12. Gordon, edr, Hannah Arendt and Education, Westview, 2001
13. Arendt, essays in understanding, formation, exile, and totalitarianism, Schocken, 1994
14. Arendt, the promise of politics, Schocken, 2005
15. Arendt, responsibility and judgement, Schocken, 2003
The Origins & Abstract Theories of Democracy
16. The Idea of Democracy edited by Copp et al, Cambridge, 1993@
17. Farrar, The Origins of Democratic Thinking, The invention of politics in classical Athens, Cambridge, 1988
18. Arendt, The Human Condition, Chicago, 1954
19. Wiebe, Self Rule, cultural history of american democracy, Chicago, 1997
20. Fishkin and Laslett, eds, Debating Deliberative Democracy, blackwell2003
The Modern Challenges Facing Democracy
21. The Clash of Civilizations by Samuel Huntington, Simon& Schuster, 1996
22. The Great Disruption by Francis Fukuyama, Simon and Schuster, 1999
23. Making Democracy, Robert Putnam, Princeton, 1993@
24. Pharr and Putnam, Disaffected Democracies, What’s Troubling the Trilateral Countries, Princeton, 2000
25. Arendt, Between Past and Future, Penquin, 1954
26. May and Kohn, Hannah Arendt, Twenty Years Later, MIT, 1996
Managing Evolution of Democracy
27. Dahl, Democracy and Its Critics, Yale, 1989
28. Barber, Strong Democracy, Participatory Politics for a New Age, CA, 1984
29. Gutmann and Thompson, Democracy and Disagreement, Harvard, 1996
30. Ross, The Management of Conflict, Interpretations and Interests in Comparative Perspective, Yale, 1993
31. Wittman, The Myth of Democratic Failure, Why Political Institutions are Efficient, Chicago, 1995
Extension of Democracy Beyond Political Organization
32. Postrel, The Future and Its Enemies, Free Press 1998
33. Spinose, Flores, Dreyfus, Disclosing New Worlds: Entrepreneurship, Democratic Action, and the Cultivation of
Solidarity, MIT, 97
34. Alexander&Pal, Digital Democracy, Policy&Politics in the Wired WorldOxford98
35. Sheppard, et al, Organizational Justice, Fairness in the Workplace, Lexington, 1992
36. Dahl, A Preface to Economic Democracy, U Calif., 1985
37. Ozaki, Human Capitalism (in Japan), Penquin
38. Sprinz and Wolinsky-Nahmias, eds, Models, Numvers, and Cases, methods for studying international relations,
U of Michigan 2004
Democracy Theory
39. Cunningham, Theories of Democracy, Routledge, 2002
40. Dahl, Shapiro, Cheibub, eds, the Democracy Sourcebook, MIT, 2003
41. Terchek and Conte, eds, Theories of Democracy, a reader, Rowman, 2001
Cognition Overviews
The Overall Nature of Cognition: Surveys
42. Margolis & Laurence, editors, Concepts, Core Readings, MIT, 2000@
43. Levitin, edr, Foundation of Cognitive Psychology, core readings, MIT2002
44. Sternberg, editor; The Nature of Cognition, MIT, 1999@
45. Goldman, Readings in Philosophy and Cognitive Science, MIT93
46. Kunda, Social Cognition, MIT Press, 1999@
47. Thagard, edr, Mind Readings; MIT Press, 1998
48. Pinker, How the Mind Works, Norton, 1997
49. Ward, Dynamical Cognitive Science, MIT, 2002
50. Bateson, Steps to an Ecology of Mind, Chicago, 1972
51. Sternberg&Smith eds, The Psychology of Human Thought, Cambridge88
52. Buddhism and Science, Wallace, ed, Columbia03%%%
53. Davidson and Harrington, eds, Visions of Compassion [science&buddhism]Oxford02%%%
How to Think Socially
54. Abbott, Time Matters, on theory and method, U of Chicago,
55. Sewell, Logics of History, social theory and social transformatin, Chicago 2005
Social Neuroscience
56. Capioppo and Bernston Social Neuroscience
57. Cacioppo, Visser, Pickett Social Neuroscience, people thinking about thinking people
Arguments about Mind and How it Works
58. Kagan, Surprise, Uncertainty, and Mental Structures, Harvard, 2002
59. The Mind Doesn’t Work That Way by Jerry Fodor, MIT Press, 2000
60. Gopnik and Meltzoff, Words, Thoughts, and Theories, MIT, 1997
61. Fodor, Modularity of Mind, MIT Press, 2000
62. Elio, edr; Common Sense, Reasoning, & Rationality, Oxford, 2002
63. Calvin&Bickerton, Lingua ex Machina, Reconciling darwin and chomsky with the human brain, MIT 2000
64. Dennett, Kinds of Minds, Towards an Understanding of Consciousness, Basic, 1996
65. Journal of consciousness studies, vol 7, art and the brain, part II, 2000
66. Journal of consciousness studies, vol. 6, art and the brain, 1999
67. Journal of consciousness studies, vol. 11, art and the brain, part III, 2004
68. Ramachandran, A brief tour of human consciousness, Pi press, 2004
69. Roitblat&Meyer, Comparative Approaches to Cognitive Science, MIT95
70. Calvin, How Brains Think, Basic Books ,1996
71. Mele and Rawlings, eds, The Oxford Handbook of Rationality, 2004$$$
72. Evans and Over, Rationality and Reasoning, Psych Press96$$$
73. Baron, Rationality and Intelligence, Cambridge 85%%%
74. Baum, What is thought, MIT, 2004
75. Sterelny, thought in a hostile world, the evolution of human cognition, blackwell, 2003
76. Marcus, the birth of the mind, how a tiny number of genes creates the complexities of human thought, Basic,
2004
77. Edelman, wider than the sky, the phenomenal gift of consciousness, Yale, 2004
78. Hameroff, Kaszniak, chalmers, eds, toward a science of consciousness III, MIT, 1999
79. Koch, biophysics of computation, info processing in single neurons, Oxford, 1999
80. Buller, adapting minds, evolutionary psychology and the persistent quest for human nature, MIT, 2005
81. Galaburda, Kosslyn, Christen, eds, the language of the brain, Harvard, 2002
82. Baars, banks, newman , eds, essential sources in the scientific study of consciousness, MIT, 2003
83. Koch, the quest for consciousness, a neurobiological approach, Roberts & Co., 2004
84. Neisser, edr, Concepts and Conceptual Development, ecological and intellectual factors ini categorization,
cambridge, 1987
85. Murphy, the Big Book of Concepts, MIT, 2002
All is Information
86. Borgmann HOlding onto Reality, the nature of informatin at the turn of the millenium
87. Gardner The Intelligenct Universe, AI, ET, and the Emerging Mind of the Cosmos
88. Brockman What is Your Dangerous Idea, leading thinkers on the unthinkable
89. Laughlin A Different Universe, reinventing physics from the ground up
90. Lindley Uncertainty, Einstein, Heisenberg, Bohr and the struggle for the soul of science
91. Carruthers, Stich, Siegal, eds, The cognitive basis of science, Cambridge, 2002
Particular Kinds of Thought
92. Stein, Without Good Reason, Oxford, 1996
93. Lakoff and Johnson, Metaphors We Live By, Chicago, 1980
94. Ortony, editor; Metaphor and Thought, 2nd Edition, Cambridge, 1993
95. Holyoak&Thagard, Mental Leaps, Analogy in Creative Thought, MIT95
96. Klein, Source of Power, How People Make Decisions, MIT, 1998@
97. Myers, Intuition, Its Power and Perils, Yale, 2001@
98. Hirschfeld and Gelman, editors, Mapping the Mind, Domain specificity in cognition and culture, Cambridge,
1994
99. Mandelbaum, the meaning of sports, why americans watch baseball, football, and basketball and what they
see when they do, Public Affairs, 2004
100. Wann, Melnick, Russell, Pease, Sports Fans, the psychology and social impact of spectators, routledge, 2001
Story Power in Art, Culture, Self, & Media
101. McKee Story, substance, structure, style, and the principles of screenwriting GREAT
102. Mmet Bambi vs. Godzilla, on the nature, purpose, and practice of the movie business
Tools for Thought & Studying Thought
103. Boy, Cognitive Function Analysis, Academic, 1998
104. Simon&Halford, Developing Cognitive Competence, Approaches to Process Modeling, LEA 1995
105. Clancey et al, Contemplating Minds, A Forum for Artificial Intelligence, MIT 1994
106. Dukas, edr, Cognitive Ecology, the evolutionary ecology of info processing and decision making, Chicago,
1998
107. Ericcson&Simon, Protocol Analysis, MIT88@
Learning and Development
108. Thornton, Truth from Trash, How Learning Makes Sense, MIT 2000
109. Granott and Parziale, ed.s, Microdevelopment, Transition Processes in Development and Learning, Cambridge
Univ. 2002@
110. Fisher, Pazzani, Langley eds, Concept Formation: Knowledge and Experience in Unsupervised Learning, Mor-
gan Kaufman, 1991
111. Galambos, Abelson, Black, eds, Knowledge Structures, LEA, 1986
112. Talmy, Toward a Cognitive Semantics, vol II, typology and process in concept structuring, MIT, 2001
113. Demetriou and Raftopoulos, Cognitive Developmental Change, Cambridge, 2004
114. Smith and Thelen, eds, a dynamic systems approach to development, applications, MIT, 1993
115. Kagan, Three Seductive Ideas, Harvard, 1998
116. Sternberg and Jordan, A handbook of wisdom, cambridge, 2005
117. Deci and Ryan, handbook of self determination research, U of Rochester, 2002
cambridge, 1987
The Nature and Origins of the Self
120. Leak, Jean Paul Sartre, Reaktion, 2006
121. Goldstein, betraying spinoza, the renegade jew who gave us modernity, nextbook, 2006
122. Stewart, the courtier and the heretic, leibniz, spinoza, and the fate of god in the modern world, Norton,
2006
123. Taylor, sources of the self, the making of the modern identity, Harvard, 1989
124. Seigel, the idea of the self, thought and experience in western europe since the 17th century, cambridge,
2005
Creativity Theory Basics
General Overviews of All of Creativity
127. Handbook of Creativity, Robert Sternberg ed, Cambridge, 1999@
128. Sternberg, Kaufman, Pretz; The Creativity Conundrum, Psychology, 2002
129. Amabile, Creativity in Context, Westview, 1996
130. Runco and Pritzker; Encyclopedia of Creativity; Vol. 1&2; Academic; 1999
131. Holmes, Investigative Pathways, patterns and stages in the careers of experimental scientists, Yale Univer-
sity, 2004
132. White, new ideas about new ideas, insights on creativity from the world’s leading innovators, Perseus, 2002
133. Lienhard, how invention begins, echoes of old voices in the rise of new machines, Oxford, 2006
134. Runco, creativity: theories and themes, research, development, and practice, academic press, 2007
Particular Theories of Creativity
135. Origins of Genius by Dean Keith Simonton, Oxford, 1999@
136. Root-Bernstein, Discovering, Harvard, 1989@
137. Root-Bernstein, Sparks of Genius, Houghton Mifflin, 1999
138. Runco, editor, Critical Creative Processes, Hampton, 2003@
139. Sulloway, Born to Rebel, birth order, family dynamics, and creative lives; Vintage, 1996
140. Kaufman and Baer, eds, creativity and reason in cognitive development, cambridge, 2006@
141. Kaufman and Sternberg, eds, the international handbook of creativity, cambridge, 2006
142. Langer, on becoming an artist, reinventing yourself through mindful creativity, Ballantine, 2005
143. Piirto, understanding creativity, great potential press, 2004
144. Kandel, in search of memory, the emergence of a new science of mind, Norton, 2006
145. Simonton, Creativity in science, chance, logic, genius, and zeitgeist, Cambridge, 2004@
146. Batterman, the devil in the details, asymptotic reasoning in explanation, reduction, and emergence,
Oxford, 2002
147. Burt, brokerage and closure, an introduction to social capital, Oxford, 2005
148. Feinstein, the nature of creative development, Stanford business books, 2006@
149. Sawyer, explaining creativity, the science of human innovation, Oxford, 2006
150. Sawyer, Steiner, Moran, Sternberg, Feldman, Nakamura, Csikszentmihalyi, Creativity and Development,
Oxford, 2003
151. Sternberg, Grigorenko, Singer, eds, Creativity, from potential to realization, Amn. Psych. Assn. 2004
152. Breit and Hirsch, lives of the laureates, 18 nobel economists, 4th edition, MIT, 2004@
153. Steiner, grammars of creation, Yale, 2001@
154. Dartnall, edr, Creativity, Cognition, and Knowledge, an interaction, Praeger, 2002
Unusual Historic Scale Creativities
157. Kurzweil and Grossman, fantastic voyage, live long enough to live forever, Rodale, 2004
158. Roehner and Syme, pattern and repertoire in history Harvard, 2002
159. Lau, Hui, Ng, eds, Creativity; when east meets west, world scientific 2004
160. Wolfram, A New Kind of Science, Wolfram, 2002@
Group Creativity
161. Houtz The Educational Psychology of Creativity
162. Runco Creativity, Theories and Themes, Research Development and Practice
163. Isaacson Einstein, his life and universe
164. Sawyer, Group Genius, the creative power of collaboration, basic 2007
165. Stokes, Creativity from constraints, the psychology of breakthrough, Springer, 2006
166. Paulus, Nijstad, eds, Group Creativity, innovation through collaboration, Oxford 2003
167. Schwartz, Juice, the creative fuel that drives world-class inventors, Harvard Business, 2004
Creativity in Arts
168. Whitelaw, metacreation, art and artificial life, MIT, 2004@
169. Wardrip-Fruin and Harrington, eds, first person: new media as story, performance, game, MIT, 2004
170. Bentley and Corne, eds, Creative Evolutionary Systems, Morgan Kaufmann, 2002
171. Tobin, Creativity and the Poetic Mind, Lang, 2004
172. Sawyer, group creativity: music, theatre, collaboration, LEA, 2003@
173. Galenson, old masters and young geniuses, the 2 life cycles of artistic creativity, Princeton, 2006@
174. Galenson, painting outside the lines, patterns of creativity in modern art, Harvard, 2001
Surveys of Innovation
177. Watson, Ideas: a history of thought and invention, from fire to freud, Harper Collins, 2005@
178. Hemlin, Allwood, Martin, Creative Knowledge Environments, the influences on creativity in research and
innovation, Edward Elgar, 2004
179. Hagel and Brown, the only sustainable edge, why business strategy depends on productive friction and
dynamic specialization, HBS, 2005
180. von Hippel, democratizing innovation, MIT, 2005@
181. Brown, Seeing Differently, insights on innovation, HBS, 1997
182. Gloor, swarm creativity, collaborative innovation networks, Oxford, 2006
183. Iansiti and Levien, The Keystone Advantage: what the new dynamics of business ecosystems mean for strat-
egy, innovation, and sustainability, HBS, 2004
184. Christensen and Anthony and Roth, Seeing What’s Next, using the theories of innovation to predict industry
change, HBS, 2004
Research as Knowledge Management
185. Matheson, Matheson, the Smart Organization, creating value through strategic R&D, Harvard Business, 1998
186. Brachman and Levesque Knowledge Representation and REasoning
187.
Creators: Their Stories and Processes and Environs
188. Miller, Einstein Picasso, Space, Time, and the Beauty that Causes Havoc, Basic Books, 2001@
189. White, Acid Tongues and Tranquil Dreamers,Tales of Bitter Rivalry that Fueled the Advancement of Sci-
ence&Technolgy,Morrow 2001
190. Gay, Freud, A Life for Our Time, Norton, 1998
191. McCutchan, The Muse that Sings, Composers Speak about the Creative Process, Oxford, 2001
193. Weber&Perkins, eds, Inventive Minds, creativity in technology, Oxford92
194. Gedo and Gedo, Perspectives on Creativity, the Biographical Method, Ablex92$$$
195. Browne, Charles Darwin, the origin and after, the years of fame, Knopf, 2002
196. Brockman, edr, curious minds, how a child becomes a scientist, pantheon, 2004
197. Shekerjian, uncommon genius, how great ideas are born, tracing the creative impulse with forty winners of
the MacArthur award, Penguin, 1990
198. Galenson, old masters and young geniuses, the 2 life cycles of artistic creativity, Princeton, 2006@
200. Feinstein, the nature of creative development, Stanford business books, 2006@
201. Yourgrau, A world without time, the forgotten legacy of Godel and Einstein, Basic, 2005
Industrializing & Manufacturing Creativity
204. Research on the Management of Innovation, The Minnesota Studies, Edited by Van de Ven, Angle, Poole,
Oxford@
205. Hagel and Brown, the only sustainable edge, why business strategy depends on productive friction and
206. Fagerberg, Mowery, Nelson, eds, Oxford Handbook of Innovation, 2005
207. System Effects, Complexity in Political&Social Life, Robert Jervis, Princeton 1997@
208. Goldenberg&Mazursky, Creativity in Product Innovation, Cambridge, 2002@
209. Savransky, Engineering of Creativity, Intro to TRIZ Methodology of Inventive Problem Solving, CRC, 2000
211. Davis and Scase, Managing Creativity, the Dynamics of Work and Organization, Open University Press, 2000
212. Nixon, Advertising Cultures, SAGE, 2003
change, HBS, 2004
215. Poundstone, How would you move Mt. Fuji: Microsoft’s Cult of the Puzzle
216. Nalebuff and Ayres, Why Not? How to use everyday ingenuity to solve problems big and small, Harvard Busi-
ness School, 2003
217. Csikszentmihalyi, Good Business, Leadership, flow, and the making of meaning, Viking, 2003
218. Hesmondhalgh, The Cultural Industries, SAGE 2002%%%
219. Florida, The Rise of the Creative Class [social capital=junk] m Basic02%%%@
220. Gardner, Changing Minds, HBSchool, 04%%%@
221. Throsby, Economics and Culture, Cambridge04%%%
The Social Conditions and Dynamics of Creating
223. Segel, Turn-of-the-Century Cabaret, Columbia, 1987@
224. Adams-Price, editor; Creativity in Successful Aging, Springer, 1998
225. Suleiman, editor; Exile and Creativity Duke, 1996@
226. Farrell, Collaboration Circles: Friendship Dynamics&Creative Work UChicago@
227. John-Steiner, Creative Collaboration, Oxford, 2000@
228. Tobin, Creativity and the Poetic Mind, Lang, 2004@
Randomness As a Type of Thought
230. Randomness by Bennett, Harvard, 1998
231. The Creative Power of Chance, by Lestienne, translated by Neher, Univ. of Illinois Press, 1993
232. Bernstein, Against the Gods, the Remarkable Story of Risk, Wiley, 1996@
233. Taleb, Fooled by Randomness, Texere, 2001
234. Salsburg, The Lady Tasting Tea, how statistics revolutionized science in the 20th century, Owl, 2001
235. Hacking, An Introduction to Probability&Inductive Logic, Cambridge, 2001@
236. Gilles, Philosophical Theories of Probability, Routledge, 2000
237. Von Mises and Geiringer, Probability, Statistics and Truth, Dover, 1957
238. Stigler, Statistics on the table, history of statistical concepts, Harvard, 1999@
239. Ekeland, the Broken Dice, & other math tales, Chicago, 1993
240. Hacking, The Taming of Chance, Cambridge, 1990
Chance and Probability Theory
241. Jaynes, Probability Theory, the logic of science, Cambridge, 2003
242. Kaplan and Kaplan, Chances Are, adventures in probability, Viking 2006
Social Psych Overview
Elemental Using of Social Psych
243. Cialdini Influence,Allyn and Bacon, 2001@
244. Cialdini Influence, the Psychology of Persuasion, Quill, 1984, 95@
245. Hatfield, Cacioppo, Rapson; Emotional Contagion, Cambridge, 1994
246. Keller & Berry, The Influentials, Free Press, 2003
247. Butera& Mugny, eds., Social Influence in Social Reality, Hogrefe&Huber, Seattle, 2001@
249. Knapp and Daly, Handbook of Interpersonal Communication, 3rd Edn, SAGE 2002^^^
Some Powerful Ambiguities in Social Psych
250. Nisbett, The Geography of Thought, How Asians and Westerners Think Differently, Free Press, 2003@
251. Kruglanski&Higgins ed, Social Psychology, readings; Psychology, 2003

252. Porta&Diani, Social Movements, an intro, Blackwell, 1999
253. Vallacher&Nowak, Dynamical Systems in Social Psych, Academic, 1994
Social Neuroscience
A Broad Overviews of Social Psychology
256. Brown&Gaertner, Blackwell Handbk of Inter-group Social Psychology
257. Tesser&Schwarz, Blackwell Handbk of Intra-indvl Social Psychology
258. Fletcher & Clark, Blackwell Handbk of Interpersonal Social Psych,
259. Hogg & Tindale, Blackwell Handbk of Group Process Social Psych
260. Social Cognition by Ziva Kunda, MIT Press, 1999@
Practical Social Psych
262. Matthews, Zeidner, Roberts, Emotional Intelligence, science & myth, MIT02
263. Kelley, Holmes, Kerr, Reis, Rusbult, vanLange,An Atlas of Interpersonal Situations,Cambridge 03
264. Hammerstein, edr, Genetic and Cultural Evolution of Cooperation, MIT03
265. Earley and Ang, Cultural Intelligence, individual interactions across cultures, Stanford Business Books,03
General Social Theorizing, an Overview
Surveys of Social Theories
268. Coleman, Foundations of Social Theory, 1994@
269. Chaos Theory in the Social Sciences: Foundations and Applications@
270. Turner, Handbook of Social Theory
271. Spellman, Cultural Sociology, Blackwell, 2002
272. Blau, the Blackwell Companion to Sociology@
273. Ritzer, The Blackwell Companion to Major Social Theorists, 2000@
274. Heilbron, the Rise of Social Theory, Univ. of Minnesota Press, 1995@
275. Surowiecki, the Wisdom of Crowds, Doubleday04%%%
276. Ball, Critical Mass, [social behavior theory], FSG04%%%
277. Foddy et al, eds, Resolving Social Dilemmas [complexity models], PsychP99%%%
The Social Dynamics that Generate Societies and Theories of Them
280. Crane, the Sociology of Culture: Emerging Theoretical Perspectives, 2002
281. Schaller, Crandall, the psychological foundations of culture, LEA, 2004
282. Matsumoto, culture and psychologyk 2nd edn, Wadsworth, 2000
283. Philosophy of Social Science: the Philosophical Foundations of Social Thought
284. Abbott, Chaos of Disciplines, Chicago, 2001@
285. Weber, The Theory of Social&Economic Organizations, Free Press, 1947
286. Lemert, edr; Social Theory, the Multicultural and Classic Readings, Westview,99@
287. Parsons, Shils, Toward a General Theory of Action, Transaction, 1953
288. Johnson and Johnson, Joining Together, Allyn and Bacon, 7th Edn, 2000
289. Seidman & Alexander, The New Social Theory Reader, Routledge, 2001
290. Wrong, The Problem of Order, What Unites&Divides Society, Free Press, 1994
Sociology and Complexity
295. Kelso and Engstrom, the complementary nature, MIT, 2006
296. Sole and Bascompte, self-organization in complex ecosystems, Princeton, 2006
297. Sawyer, social emergence, societies as complex systems, cambridge, 2005
298. Beinhocker, the origin of wealth, evolution, complexity and the radical remaking of economics, Harvard B
School, 2006
Leadership Theories:
General Theories of Leadership
299. Steers, Porter, Bigley, editors; 6th edition, Motivation and Leadership, McGraw Hill, 1996
300. An Integrative Theory of Leadership by Martin Chemers, LEA, 1997
301. van Maurik, Writers on Leadership, Penquin, 2001@
302. Grint, The Arts of Leadership, Oxford, 2000
304. Arendt, Hannah; On Revolution; Penquin Books, London; 1985

305. Antonakis, cianciolo, Sternberg, eds, the Nature of Leadership, SAGE, 2004
306. Popper, leaders who transform society, what drives them and why we are attracted, praeger, 2005
Kinds and Varieties of Leadership
309. Bird, Schoonhoven, and Romanelli, editors; The Entrepreneurship Dynamic, Stanford Business Books, 2001@
310. Klitgaard and Light, eds, High-Performance Government, RAND, 2005
311. Guillen, Models of Management, Work, Authority, and Organization in a Comparative Perspective, Chicago,
1994
312. Roehner&Syme, Pattern&Repertoire in History, Harvard 2002
313. Miller, Einstein Picasso, Space, Time, and the Beauty that Causes Havoc, Basic Books, 2001@
314. White, Acid Tongues and Tranquil Dreamers,Tales of Bitter Rivalry that Fueled the Advancement of Sci-
ence&Technolgy,Morrow 2001
315. Gay, Freud, A Life for Our Time, Norton, 1998
316. McCutchan, The Muse that Sings, Composers Speak about the Creative Process, Oxford, 2001
318. Brockman, edr, curious minds, how a child becomes a scientist, pantheon, 2004@
the MacArthur award, Penguin, 1990@
The Topography and its Constraints on Leading
322. Baron, Kerr, Miller, Group Process, Group Decision, Group Action, Brooks/cole, 1992
323. Smith and Berg, Paradoxes of Group Life, Jossey Bass, 1988
324. Baum ed, The Blackwell Companion to Organizations, Blackwell@
325. Hirschhorn, Larry; The Workplace Within; MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.; 1988@
327. Robert Jervis, System Effects, Complexity in Political&Social Life, Princeton 1997@
Leadership as an Illusion or a Sickness or Both
328. the Arbinger Institute: Leadership & Self Deception;
329. Csikszentmihalyi, Good Business, Leadership, flow, and the making of meaning, Viking, 2003
330. Thaler, The Winner’s Curse, Paradoxes&Anomalies of Economic Life,FreePress 92
331. Skousen and Taylor, Puzzles and Paradoxes in Economics, EE97$$$
332. Lewis, Marianne; Exploring Paradox: Toward a More Comprehensive Guide; Academy of Management Review;
October, 2000
333. Farson, Management of the Absurd, Touchstone, 1996
Venturing and Leadership
334. Livingston Founders at Work GREAT
335. Antonakis, Cianciolo, Sternberg The Nature of Leadership
336. Ancona, Bresman, X-teams, how to build teams that lead, innovate, and succeed, Harvard Business, 2007
Leading as Performance
337. Managing as a Performing Art by Peter Vaill, Jossey-Bass, 1989@
338. Campbell, The Hero with a Thousand Faces, Princeton, 1949
Leadership as Culture Creation and Correction
342. Derr, Roussilon, Bournois eds., Cross-Cultural Approaches to Leadership Development, Quorum, London,
2002@
343. Goodwin, Personal Relationships Across Cultures, Routledge, 1999%%%
345. Matsumoto, culture and psychology 2nd edn, Wadsworth, 2000
346. Lord and Brown, Leadership Processes & Follower Self-Identity, LEA04%%%
Leadership--Relative or Absolute--the Trans-Culturality of Leading
347. Simons, Vazquez, Harris, Transcultural Leadership, Empowering the Diverse Workforce, Gulf, 1993
1994
349. Gannon&Newman,The Blackwell Handbk of Cross-Cultural Management, 2003
350. Derr, et al eds., Cross-Cultural Approaches to Leadership Developmt, Quorum 02@
Leadership as Developing People
351. Gardner, Changing Minds, HBSchool, 04%%%
352. Thomas, Recent Theories of Human Development, Sage, 2001
Tools for Leading and Leaders
354. Cialdini Influence,Allyn and Bacon, 2001
355. Cialdini Influence, the Psychology of Persuasion, Quill, 1984, 95
356. Dewar, Builder, Hix, Levin, assumption-based planning, RAND, 1993
357. Sanders, Strategic Thinking and the New Science, planning in the midst of chaos, complexity, and change,
free press, 1998
358. Rees and Porter, Skills of Management, 5th Edn, Thomson Learning, 2001@
Evolution Theory
Comprehensive Basic Surveys of Evolution’s Entirety
361. Gould, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, Harvard, 2002@
362. Smith and Szathmary, The Origins of Life, Oxford, 1999@
363. Dawkins, Climbing Mount Improbable, Penquin, 1996@
364. Gould, Full House, Harmony, 1996
365. Nitecki, editor; Evolutionary Progress, Chicago, 1988
366. Crutchfield and Schuster eds., Evolutionary Dynamics: exploring the interplay of selection, accident, neu-
trality, and function; Oxford, Santa Fe Series, 2003@
367. Gergersen, edr, from Complexity to Life, on the emergence of life and meaning, Oxford, 2003@
368. Dawkins, the ancestor’s tale, a pilgrimage to the dawn of evolution, Houghton Mifflin, 2004
Evolving Ecosystems
369. Case, An illustrated guide to theoretical ecology, Oxford, 2000
370. Goodwin, how the leopard changed its spots, the evolution of complexity, scribner, 1994
371. Rose, and Lauder, eds, Adaptation, academic press, 1996@
372. Gurney and Nisbet, ecological dynamics, oxford, 1998 COMPLEXITY
373. Rice, evolutionary theory, mathematical and conceptual foundations, Sinauer, 2004COMPLEX
374. Gotelli, a primer of ecology, 2nd edition, Sinauer, 1998
Culture and Civilization as Evolution Amplifiers
375. Jablonka and Lamb, evolution in four dimensions, genetic epigenetic, behavioral and symbolic variation in
the history of life, MIT, 2005
376. Hammerstein, edr. genetic and cultural evolution of cooperation, MIT, 2003
377. Richerson and Boyd, not by genes alone, how culture transformed human evolution, Chicago, 2005@
378. Chase and Leibold, ecological niches, linking classical and contemporary approaches, Chicago, 2003@
379. Ridley, The Origins of Virtue, Penquin, 1996
Emerging New Core Concepts in Evolution Theory
380. Callebaut, and Raskin-Gutman, Modularity, understanding the development and evolution of natural com-
plex systems, MIT, 2005@
381. Schlosser and Wagner, eds, Modularity, in development and evolution, Chicago, 2004@
382. Crutchfield and Schuster eds., Evolutionary Dynamics: exploring the interplay of selection, accident, neu-
trality, and function; Oxford, Santa Fe Series, 2003@
385. Keller, edr, levels of selection in evolution, princeton, 1999@
386. Newman and Palmer, Modeling Extinction, Oxford, 2003
What Is It That Evolves?
387. Gregory, the evolution of the genome, elsevier, 2005@
388. Hawkins and Gell-Mann, eds, the evolution of human languages, addison wesley, 1992
389. Charnov, life history invariants, some explorations of symmetry in evolutionary biology, oxford, 1993
390. Smith and Szathmary, the origins of life, from the birth of life to the origin of language, oxford, 1999@
General Sociology--A Few Recent Paradigms
General Theory Overviews
392. Bohman, New Philosophy of Social Science, MIT, 1991
393. Fiske and Shweder, Metatheory in Social Science, Chicago, 1986@
394. Giddens and Turner, Social Theory Today, Stanford, 1987@
395. Foa, Converse, Tornblom, Foa, Resource Theory, Explorations and Applications, Academic Press, 1993
396. Fiske, Structures of Social Life, Free Press, 1991@
397. Hechter & Horne eds, Theories of Social Order, Stanford 2003
Specific Social Analyses of Modern Phenomena
404. Bourdieu, Nice translator; Distinction, A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, Harvard, 1984
405. Enteman, Managerialism, emergence of a new ideology, Wisconsin, 1993
406. Clarke and Crossland, Action Systems, An introduction to the analysis of complex behavior, Methuen, 1985
407. Herzfeld, The Social Production of Indifference, Exploring the Symbolic Roots of Western Bureaucracy, Chi-
cago,
408. Giddens, Modernity and Self-Identity, Polity, 1991
Group and Organization Dynamics
411. Taylor and Van Every, The Emergent Organization, Communication as Its Site and Surface, LEA, 2000
412. van Maurik, Writers on Leadership, Penquin, 2001
414. Smith and Berg, Paradoxes of Group Life, Jossey Bass, 1988
415. Baum ed, The Blackwell Companion to Organizations, Blackwell@
free press, 1998
425. Klitgaard and Light, eds, High-Performancde Government, RAND, 2005
426. Loska and Cronkhite, an ecological perspective on human communication theory, Harcourt, 1995
Networks
427. Watts, Small Worlds, Princeton, 1999
428. Nohria&Eccles, eds; Networks and Organizations, Harvard Bsns, 1992
429. Buchanan, Nexus: Small Worlds & the Groundbreaking Science of Networks, Norton 02
430. Albert-Lazlo, Linked: the New Science of Networks, Perseus, 2002
431. Acting Together: the Social Organization of Crowds
432. Batten, Casti, Thord, editors; Networks in Action, Communication, Economics, and Human Knowledge,
Springer, 1995
433. Wellman&Berkowitz eds, Social Structures, A Network Approach, Cambridge, 1988
434. Monge and Contractor, Theories of Communication Networks, Oxford, 2003
435. Granovetter and Swedberg, the sociology of economic life, 2nd edition, Westview, 2001
Social Physics and Networks
436. Buchanan, The Social Atom, why the rich get richer, etc, Bloomsbury, 2007
437. Benkler The Wealth of Networks, how social production transforms markets and freedom
438. Newman, Barabasi, Watts The Structure and Dynamics of Networks
439. Miller and Page Complex Adaptive Systems, an introduction to computational models of social life GREAT
440. Epstein Generative Social Science, studies in agent based computational modeling
Contemporary Science Theory and Philosophy
Philosophy in General, an Introduction
441. Cahn, editor, Philosophy for the 21st Century, Oxford, 2003
442. Baggini, Making Sense, philosophy behind the headlines, Oxford, 2002
443. Katz, Templets&the Explanation of Complex Patterns, Cambridge, 1986
Philosophy of Science, Overall Survey
444. Schick, ed; Readings in the Philosophy of Science: From Positivism to Postmodernism; Mayfield, 2000@
445. Martin& McIntyre, eds; Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science; MIT, 1994@
446. Klee, ed.; Scientific Inquiry: Readings in the Philosophy of Science; Oxford 1999@
447. Balashov and Rosenberg, ed.;Philosophy of Science: Contemporary Readings; Routledge, 2002
448. Newton-Smith, Companion to the Philosophy of Science, Blackwell
449. Science Studies: Probing the Dynamics of Scientific Knowledge
450. Sperber, Fashions in Science, Minnesota, 1990
451. Lakatos, the methodology of scientific research, Cambridge 1978
452. Schwartz, The Creative Moment, how science made itself alien to modern culture, Harper Collins, 1992
453. Thagard, Computational Philosophy of Science, MIT88
454. Demey, The Cognitive Paradigm, Chicago, 1982
455. Hacking, edr, scientific revolutions, oxford, 2004
456. Stevenson, edr, the study of human nature, a reader, 2nd edition, oxford, 2000@

-Recent Physics Theories
460. Smolin, Quantum Gravity, Basic Books, 2001@
461. Barrow, The Book of Nothing, Pantheon, 2000
462. Barrow, Theories of Everything, Fawcett, 1991@
463. Callender & Huggett, Physics Meets Philosophy at Planck Scale, Cambridge, 2001
464. Greene, The Elegant Universe, Vintage, 1999
465. Deutsch, the fabric of reality, Penquin, 1997
466. Einstein, Relativity, Routledge, 1916
467. Laughlin, a different universe reinventing physics from the bottom down, Basic, 2006
468. Hawking and Penrose, The nature of space and time, Princeton 1996
469. Casti, Complexification, Explaining a Paradoxical World Through the Science of Surprise, Harper Collins, 1994
470. Casti, Would-BeWorlds, How Simulation is Changing the Frontiers of Science, Wiley, 1997
471. Greene, The Fabric of the Cosmos, Knopf2004$$$
472. Gribbin, Deep Simplicity, Chaos, Complexity and the Emergence of Life, AllenLane04%%%
473. Taylor, The Moment of Complexity, U Chicago, 2001^^^
474. Baeyer, Information, the new language of science, Harvrd,2004^^^@
All is Information
Sciences
481. Ulanowicz, Ecology, the Ascendent, Perspective, Columbia Univ. Press, 1997@ = updates energy and trophic
paradigms with complexity theory and emergence
482. Randall, Lisa; Warped Passages, Unraveling the Mysteries of he Univers’s Hidden Dimensions, Ecco 2005 =
portrays how we may be in extra dimensions whose effects we see in our 4 dimensions, tracing from those
effects to the extra dimensions that generate them
483. Ridley, eminent lives, francis crick discoverer of the genetic code, harper collins 2006
489. Miller and Page Complex Adaptive Systems, an introduction to computational models of social life GREAT
New Maths
491. Campbell, Grammatical Man, Touchstone, 1982
492. Lavine, Understanding the Infinite, Harvard, 1994
493. Rucker, Infinity and the Mind, Princeton, 1995
494. Cohen and Stewart, The Collapse of Chaos, Discovering Simplicity in a Complex World, Penquin, 1995@
495. Rucker, Mind Tools: the five levels of mathematical reality, Houghton Mifflin, 1987
496. Stewart, Life’s Other Secret, The New Maths of the Living World, Wiley, 1998
497. Casati&Varzi, Holes and other superficialities, MIT 1994
Old maths
498. Rockafellar and Wets, Variational Analysis, Springer, 2004
499. Livio, the equation that couldn’t be solved, how mathematical genius discovered the language of symmetry,
Simon and Schuster, 2005
500. Abbott, Understanding Analysis, Springer, 2001
501. Ronan, symmetry and the monster, Oxford, 2006
502. Ash and Gross, fearless symmetry, exposing the hidden patterns of numbers, Princeton, 2006
503. Gelbaum and Olmsted, Counterexamples in analysis, dover, 1964
504. Rosenlicht, introduction ot analysis, dover, 1968
505. Derbyshire, unknown quantity, a real and imaginary history of algebra, Joseph Henry Press, 2006
506. Stillwell, yearning for the impossible, the surprising truths of mathematics, AK Peters, 2006
Math Basics
507. Dunham The Calculus Gallery, masterpieces from Neton to Lebesque
508. Dixon Mathographics
509. Byers How Mathematicians Think
510. Nahin When least is Best
511. Stewart Why Beauty is Truth, a history of symmetry

512. Nahin, Chases and Escapes, the math of pursuit and evasion, Princeton 2007
Philosophy of Mind and Brain, An Introduction
513. Guttenplan, Companion to the Philosophy of Mind, Blackwell 1994
514. Churchland, Brain-wise, studies in neurophilosophy, MIT, 2002
515. The Mind Doesn’t Work That Way by Jerry Fodor, MIT Press, 2000
516. Mele and Rawling, eds, Oxford handbook of Rationality, 04%%%
521. Sterelny, thought in a hostile world, the evolutin of human cognition, blackwell, 2003
522. Marcus, the birth of the mind, how a tiny number of genes creates the compexities of human thought, Basic,
2004
525. Koch, biophysics of computatin, info processing in single neurons, Oxford, 1999
528. Stevenson, edr, the study of human nature, a reader, 2nd edition, oxford, 2000
The Nature and Limits of Thought
531. Howson and Urback, Scientific Reasoning; the Bayesian Approach, Open Crt93@
532. Priest, Beyond the Limits of Thought, Oxford, 2002
533. Dupre, Human Nature and the Limits of Science, Oxford, 2001
534. Katsenelinboigen, the concept of indeterminism and its applications, Praeger, 1997
Causality
538. Gould, The hedgehog, the Fox, and the Magister’s Pox, Harmony, 2003
539. Glymour and Cooper, eds., Computation, Causation, & Discovery, MIT, 1999
540. Salmon, Causality and Explanation, Oxford, 1998
541. Sosa and Tooley, eds, Causation, Oxford, 1993
542. Bunge, Causality and Modern Science, Dover, 1959
543. Glymour, The Mind’s Arrows, Bayes Nets and Graphical Causal Models in Psychology, MIT, 2001
General Psychology
Theories of Mind and Psychology
544. Stanovich, How to Think Straight about Psych, Allyn and Bacon, 6th edn, 2001@
545. Guttenplan, ed., The Blackwell Companion to the Philosophy of Mind@
546. Kukla, Methods of Theoretical Psychology, MIT, 2001
547. Plotkin, Darwin Machines and the Nature of Knowledge, Harvard, 1993@
548. Plunkett and Elman, Exercises in Rethinking Innateness, a handbook for connectionist simulations, MIT, 1997
549. Elman, Bates, Johnson, Karmiloff Smith, Parisi, Plunkett, Rethinking Innateness, connectionist perspective
on developmt, MIT, 1999@
551. Clark, Microcognition: Philosophy, cognitive science, & parallel distributed processing, MIT90
552. Davis, edr, Handbook of Research Methods in Experimental Psychology, Blackwell03
557. Lerner edr, Handbook of Child Psych, Theoretical Models of Human Development, vol1, Wiley98%%%
cambridge, 1987
General Psych Overviews
566. Elliot and Dweck Handbook of Competition and Motivation
567. Gross Handbook of Emotion Regulation
568. Hassin, Uleman, Bargh The New Unconscious

569. Varela, Thompson, Rosch The Embodied Mind, cognitive science and human experience
570. Munger, the History of Psychology., fundamental questions
571. Carruthers, Laurence, Stich The Innate Mind, vol. 2, culture and cognition
572. Stainton, edr, Contemporary Debates in Cognitive Science, Blackwell, 2006
573. Silvia, Exploring the psychology of interest, Oxford, 2006
574. Carruthers, Laurence, Stich, eds, The innate mind, structure and contents, Oxford 2005
576. Groopman How Doctors Think
Consciousness
582. Jouranal of consciousness studies, vol. 11, art and the brain, part III, 2004
588. Dennett, Kinds of Minds, Towards an Understanding of Consciousness, Basic, 1996
Cognition Basics
589. Flavell, Miller, and Miller; Cognitive Development
590. Ashcraft, Fundamentals of Cognition, Longman, 1998
591. Gardner, The Mind’s New Science, a history of the cognitive revolution, Basic85
592. Gunther, edr, Essays on Non-conceptual Content, MIT, 2003$$$
593. Taylor, Reference and the Rational Mind, Center for the Study of Language and Info, 2003$$$
cambridge, 1987
Brain Science
597. Silvia, exploring the psychology of interest, Oxford, 2006
598. Elster, alchemies of the mind, rationality and the emotions, Cambridge, 1999
599. Panksepp, affective neuroscience, Oxford, 1998
600. Erneling and Johnson, eds, the mind as a scientific object, Oxford, 2005
601. Quartz and Sejnowski, liars, lovers, and heroes, what the new brain science reveals about how we become
who we are, Morrow, 2002
602. Morris, Tarassenko, Kenward, cognitive systems, information processing meets brain science, Elsevier, 2006
603. Stafford and Webb, mind hacks, tips and tools for using your brain, O’Reilly, 2005
604. Lewis and Granic, eds, emotion, development, and self organization, Cambridge, 2000
605. Lewis and Haviland-Jones, handbook of emotions, 2nd edition, Guilford, 2006
610. Juslin and Sloboda, music and emotion, theory and research, Oxford, 2001
611. Elster, strong feeling, emotion, addiction, and human behavior, MIT, 1999
2004
Brain Science Results Applied
622. Omerod Why Most Things Fail, Evolution, Extinction, and Economics
623. Rosenweig The Halo Effect, and the 8 other business delusions that deceive managers
624. Taleb The Black Swan, the impact of the highly improbable
625. Heath and Heath Made to Stick, why some ideas survive and others die
626. Montague Why Choose thi sBook? How we make decisions
627. Wexler, Brain and Culture, neurobiology, ideology, and social change, MIT, 2006
628. Page, The Difference, how the power of diversity creates better groups, firms, schools, and societies, Princ-
eton, 2007
Mind and Brain
629. Davidson and Harrington, visions of compassion, Oxford, 2002
630. Wallace, contemplative science, where buddhism and neuroscience converge, columbia, 2007
631. Valiant, circuits of the mind, oxford, 1994
632. Elliot and Dweck eds, handbook of competence and motivation, oxford, 2005
633. Laming, understanding human motivation, blackwell, 2004
634. Dai and Sternberg, eds, Motivation, emotion, and cognition, integrative perspectives on intellectual func-
tioning and development, LEA, 2004
635. Barrett, niedenthal, winkielman, eds, emotion and consciousness, guilford 2005
636. Edelman, second nature, brain science and human knowledge, yale, 2006
637. Minsky, the emotion machine, commonsense thinking, artificial intelligence, and the future of the human
mind, simon and schuster, 2006
638. Birren, color psychology and color therapy, university books 1961
639. Holtzschue, understanding color, an intro for designers, 2nd edition, wiley, 2002
Social Psych Basics

640. Aronson, Wilson, and Akert, Social Psychology, 4th edition
641. Baumeister, Key Readings in Social Psych, 2000
Social Psych of Emotion
644. Hatfield and Rapson, Love and Sex: Cross Cultural Perspectives
645. Lazarus, Stress and Emotion: A New Synthesis, Springer, 1999
646. Swidler, Talk of Love: How Culture Matters, 2001
647. Katz, How Emotions Work, U of Chicago, 1999
648. Ortony, Clore, Collins, The Cognitive Structure of Emotions, Cambridge, 1988
649. Lewis& Granic, eds., Emotion, Development & Self Organization, Cambridge, 2000
650. Lewis and Haviland-Jones eds,. Handbook of Emotions, 2nd edition, Guilford, 2000
651. Argyle, The Psychology of Happiness, Routledge, 1989
652. Nettle, Happiness: the science behind your smile; Oxford. 2005###@
654. Myers, The Pursuit of Happiness, who is happy and why, Morrow, 1992@
655. Magai and haviland-Jones, The hidden genius of emotion, lifespan transformations of personality, Cambridge,
2002
656. Wierzbicka, Emotions across languages and cultures, diversity and universals, Cambridge, 1999
657. Lewis and Granic, eds, Emotion, development, and self organization, dynamic systems approaches,Cam-
bridge 00
659. Davidson and Harrington, eds, Visions of Compassion [science&buddhism]Oxford02%%%@
660. Neisser, the perceived self, ecological and inerpersonal sources of self knowledge, cambridge, 1993
661. Pervin, personality theory and research, 6th edition, Wiley, 1970
662. Schaller, Crandall, the psychological foundations of culture, LEA, 2004@
Industrial Psych
664. The Elgar Compagnion to Consumer Research and Economic Psychology
665. Warr, Editor; Psychology at Work, 5th Edition, Penquin, 2002
666. Jordan, Business Anthropology, Waveland 2003^^^
Evolutionary Psych
667. Burnham and Pehlan, Mean Genes, Penquin, 2000@
668. Buss, Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of Mind, Allyn & Bacon, 1999
669. Gaulin and McBumey, Psychology: An Evolutionary Approach, 2001
670. Konner, The Tangled Wing, biologic constraints on human spirit, Owl, 2002
Non-Linear Models of Minds
671. Newell and Molenaar, editors; Applications of Nonlinear Dynamics to Developmental Process Modeling, LEA,
1998
672. Lewis and Granic, editors; Emotion, development, and self organization: Dynamic systems approaches to
emotional development; Cambridge, 2002
Self and Personality Psych Basics
674. Cervone and Mischel, eds., Advances in Personality Science, Guilford, 2002@
675. Sternberg and Kolligian, Competence Considered, Yale, 1990 (plus nearly all other Sternberg edited books)
676. Boekaerts, Pintrich, Zeidner, Handbook of Self Regulation, Academic00@
677. Higgins, Kruglanski, eds., Motivational Science, Psychology Press, 2000
678. Gollwitzer and Bargh, eds., The Psychology of Action, Guilford, 1996
2006
2005
Sports Psychology
Neurophysiological Psych
691. Galaburda, Kosslyn, Christen eds., The Languages of the Brain, Harvard, 2002
692. Quartz and Sejnowski, Liars, Lovers and Heroes, What the New Brain Science Reveals About How we Become
Who We Are, Morrow, 2002
2004
Mysteries of Consciousness and Culture
702. Wilson, Strangers to Ourselves, discovering the adaptive unconscious, Harvard, 2002
703. Wegner, The Illusion of conscious Will, MIT, 2002
704. Leyton, Symmetry Causality Mind, MIT, 1992
The Enlightenment as Stage of History and Stage in Individual Psychic Development
707. Menand, The Metaphysical Club,Story of Ideas in America, Farrar Straus Giroux, 2001
708. Dear, Revolutionizing the Sciences, European Knowledge and Its Ambitions, 1500-1700, Princeton, 2001
709. Rabb, Renaissance Lives, Portraits of an Age, Basic Books, 2000
710. Greenfeld, The Spirit of Capitalism, Harvard, 2001
711. Rothschild, Economic Sentiments, Adam Smith, Concorcet, and the Enlightenment, Harvard, 2001@
712. Green, Mountain of Truth, Tufts, 1986
713. Munck, The Enlightenment, Arnold, 2000
714. Israel, Radical Enlightenment, Philosophy & the Making of Modernity, Oxford 2001
716. Aries, Dubry eds, A History of Private Life, vol. 1-4, Rome, Medieval, Renaissance, Revolution, Harvard, 1990
717. Weber, the Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Prentice Hall, 1976
719. Kearns, Ideas in Seventeenth Century France, St. Martins, 1979%%%
Demystification Theories
Demystification of Gender, Religion, Self Control
720. Tannen, You Just Don’t Understand, Morrow, 1990@
721. Simon de Beauvoir, The Second Sex, Vintage, 1997
722. Campbell, Thou art That, Transforming Religious Metaphor, New World Lib,01@
723. Campbell, The Hero with a Thousand Faces, Princeton, 1949
724. Freud, Civilization and Its Discontents, Norton, 1961
725. Freud, The Future of An Illusion, Norton, 1961
726. Neu, editor; The Cambridge Companion to Freud, Cambridge, 1991
727. Freud, Beyond the Pleasure Principle, Norton, 1961@
728. Jacoby: FreeThinkers, a History of American Secularism; Metropolitan, 2004
Religion as Poison
729. Hitchens, God is not Great, how religion poisons everything, Twelve 2007
730. Stenger God, the Failed Hypothesis, How science shows that God does not exist
731. King Evolving God, a provocative view of the origins of religion
732. Sagan The Varieties of Scientific Experience, a personal view of the searhc for God
The Science of Religion--Demystifying Religion, Spirit, and Biases in Traditions
733. Armstrong, visions of god, four medieval mystics and their writings, Wisdom, 1994
734. Tremlin, minds and gods, the cognitive foundations of religion, Oxford, 2006
735. Dennett, breaking the spell, religion as a natural phenomenon, Viking, 2006
736. Illich, as told to Cayley, the rivers north of the future, the testament of Ivan Illich, Anansi, 2005
737. Barrett, why would anyone believe in god, Altimira, 2004
738. Whitehouse and McCauley, eds, mind and religion, psychological nad cognitive foundations of religiosity,
Altamira, 2005
739. Norris and Inglehart, sacred and secular, religion and politics worldwide, cambridge, 2004
740. Boyer, religion explained, the evolutionary origins of religious thought, Basic, 2001
741. Wilson, Darwin’s Cathedral, evolution, religion, and the nature of society, Chicago, 2002
742. Armstrong, the great transformation, the beginning of our religious traditions, Knopf, 2006
743. Armstrong, the spiral staircase, my climb out of darkness, Anchor, 2004
745. Barbour, Religion and Science historical and contemporary, issues, Harper, 1997
746. Clayton, the problem of god in modern thought, eerdmans, 2000
Demystification of Selves, Professions, Nationality
749. Olson, Existentialism, Dover, 1962@
750. Illych, Medical Nemesis
751. Bledstein, the Culture of Professionalism, Norton, 1976
752. Fox, The New Sartre, Continuum, 2003@
753. Anderson, Imagined Communities, Reflection on Nationalism, Verso, 1983
Demystification of Jobs, Careers, Lifestyles, Eras
754. Hage&Powers, Post-Industrial Lives, SAGE, 1992
755. Lilla, edr, New French Thought, Political Philosophy, Princeton, 1994
756. Fox, edr, Recapturing Anthropology, Working in the Present, SAR Press, 1991
757. Tannen, edr, Gender and Conversational Interaction, Oxford, 1993
Education Theory for Higher Education
759. Evans, Forney, Guido-Dibrito; Student Development in College, Theory, Research, and practice, Jossey Bass,
1998@
760. Astin, What Matters in College, Jossey Bass, 1993
761. Kuhn, The Skills of Argument, Cambridge, 1991
762. Arendt, Between Past and Future, Penquin, 1954
763. Roberts, ed; Academic Initiatives in Total Quality for Higher Education, ASQC, 1995
764. Ritchhart, Intellectual Character, What it is, Why it matters, and How to Get It, Jossey Bass, 2002
765. Granott and Parziale, Microdevelopment, Transition Processes in Development and Learning, Cambridge
Univ., 2002@
766. Blake, Smeyers, Smith, Standish, Blackwell Guide to Philosophy of Education 2003@
767. Arendt, The Life of the Mind, HBJ, 1971
768. Novak&Gowin, Learning How to Learn, Cambridge, 1984
769. Whitehead, The Aims of Education, Free Press, 1929
770. Duschl and Hamilton eds, Philosophy of Science, Cognitive Psychology, and Educational Theory and Practice,
SUNY, 1992
771. Pascarella and Terenzini, How College Affects Students, Jossey-Bass91%%%
Education Theory and Practice
772. Ritter, Nerb, Lehtinen, O’Shea, eds. In Order to Learn, how the sequence of topics influences learning,
Oxford, 2007
773. Sykes, A Nation of Victims, the decay of the american character, St. Martins 1992
774. Bok, Our underachieving colleges, Princeton 2006
775. Boulding, The Image, knowledge and life in society, Ann Arbor, 1968
Arendt and virtue

784. Arendt, responsibility and judgement, Schocken, 2003
Educational Philosophy
785. Palmer, edr, 50 major thinkers on education, Routledge, 2001
786. Noddings, philosophy of education, Westview,1995
787. Reed and Johnson, philosophical documents in education, 2nd edition, Addison Wesley, 2000
789. Blake, Smeyers, Smith, Standish, Blackwell Guide to Philosophy of Education 2003@
790. Whitehead, The Aims of Education, Free Press, 1929
Japanese Educational Philosophy
791. Roland, In Search of Self in India and Japan, Princeton, 1988
792. Lie, edr, the impoverished spirit in contemporary Japan, selected essays of honda Katsuichi, Monthly
Review, 19993
793. Odin, Artistic Detachment in Japan and the West, Hawaii, 2001
794. Bartholomew, James; The Formation of Science in Japan; Yale Univ.; 1989
795. Collcutt, Martin; Five Mountains, The Rinzai Zen Monastic Institution in Medieval Japan; Harvard, 1981
796. Tatsuno, Sheridan; Created in Japan; Harper and Row, NYC; 1990
797. Rozman,The East Asian Region,Confucian Heritage&Modern Adaptation, Princtn91
798. Van Wolferen, The Enigma of Japanese Power, Knopf, 1989
799. March, Reading the Japanese Mind, Kodansha, 1996
800. Gluck, Japan’s Modern Myths: Ideology in the Late Meiji Period, Princeton85
801. Buruma, Inventing Japan: 1853-1964, Weidenfeld&Nicholson, 03#
802. Mouer&Sugimoto, Images of Japanese Society, Routledge86
803. Kerr, Dogs and Demons, the fall of modern Japan, Penguin 2001
Managing Academics, Managing Research, Managing Creatives
804. Clark, edr. The Research Foundations of Graduate Education, California93
805. Curry, Wergin, & Assts, Educating Professionals, Jossey-Bass, 93
806. Clar, edr, Perspectives on Higher Education, 8 disciplinary and comparative views, California, 84
807. Geiger, To Advance Knowledge, the growth of American research universities 1900-1940, Oxford, 1986
808. Birnbaum, How Colleges Work, the cybernetics of academic organization and leadership, Jossey-Bass,
free press, 1998
812. Klitgaard and Light, eds, High-Performancde Government, RAND, 2005 1991
Connectionist Models of Mind and Man
813. Adaptation by Rose and Lauder, Academic Press, 1996
814. Rethinking Innateness by Elman, Bates, Johnson, Karmiloff, et al, MIT, 1999@
815. Cowan et al, Complexity, Metaphors, Models, & Reality, Addison-Wesley, 1994
816. Kennedy and Eberhart, Swarm Intelligence, Morgan Kaufmann, 2001@
817. Marcus, The Algebraic Mind, Integrating Connectionism&Cognitive Sci, MIT, 2001
818. Langton, editor, Artifical Life, An Overview, MIT, 1995
819. Mitchell, An Introduction to Genetic Algorithms, MIT, 1996
820. Luna, Stefansson, eds; Economic Simulations in SWARM, KluwarAP, 2000
821. Read & Miller, Connectionist Models of Social Reasoning&Behavior, LEA, 1998@
822. Caudill and Butler, Naturally Intelligent Systems, MIT, 1990
823. Cilliers, Complexity and Postmodernism, Routledge, 1999@
824. Judd, Neural Network Design and the Complexity of Learning, MIT, 1990
825. Morowitz&Singer, eds, The Mind, the Brain, &Complex Adaptive Systems, Addison Wesley, 1995
826. Belew&Mitchell eds; Adaptive Individuals in Evolving Populations, Addison Wes96
827. Dawson, Minds and Machines, connectionism and psychological modeling, Blackwell, 2004
828. Smith & Thelen, eds, A Dynamic Systems Ap;proach to Developmeent, applicns, MIT93%%%
How People Think--The Theories and Empirics of Thought
Sources and Types of Thought
829. Kahneman and Tversky, Choices, Values, and Frames, Cambridge, 2000@
830. Levy, Tools of Critical Thinking, Metathoughts for Psych, Allyn & Bacon, 1997@
831. Baron, Thinking and Deciding, 3rd Edition, Cambridge, 2000
832. Fauconnier and Turner, The Way We Think, Basic Books, 2002@
833. Searle, Rationality in Action, MIT, 2001
834. Searle, The Rediscovery of the Mind, MIT, 1992
835. Nussbaum, Upheavals of Thought, the Intelligence of Emotions, Cambridge, 2001
836. Turner, Cognitive Dimensions of Social Science, Oxford, 2001
837. Klein, Source of Power, How People Make Decisions, MIT, 1998
838. Plotkin, Darwin Machines and the Nature of Knowledge, Harvard, 1993
cambridge, 1987
Modes of Thought
844. Boy, Cognitive Function Analysis, Ablex, 1998
845. Commons, Richards, Armon eds., Beyond Formal Operations, Praeger, 1984
846. Myers, Intuition, Its Powers and Perils, Yale, 2002@
847. Sternberg, editor, Why Smart People Can Be So Stupid, Yale, 2002@
848. Olson&Torrance, ed., Modes of Thoughts, Explorations in Culture&Cognition, Cambridge, 1996
849. Stanovich, Who is Rational, Individual Differences in Reasoning, LEA, 1999@
Problems in Thinking about Problems
855. Browne and keeley, Asking the Right Questions, 6th edn. Prentice Hall, 2001
856. Damer, Attacking Faulty Reasoning, 4th edn. Wadsworth, 2001
857. Baron, Thinking and Deciding, 2nd editon, Cambridge, 1988
858. Davidson & Sternberg, eds, The Pych of Problem Solving, Cambridge, 2003@
Brain Science:
Emotion from Brains
859. Silvia, exploring the psychology of interest, Oxford, 2006
861. Panksepp, affective neuroscience, Oxford, 1998
862. Juslin and Sloboda, music and emotion, theory and research, Oxford, 2001
Broad Surveys of Brain Science
866. Morris, Tarassenko, Kenward, cognitive systems, information processing meets brain science, Elsevier, 2006
Thought from Brains
2004
Consciousness from Brains
874. Koch, biophysics of computation, info processing in single neurons, Oxford, 1999
879. Edelman: Universe of Consciousness;
880. Marcus: Birth of the Mind;
881. Baars et al: Essential Sources in the Scientific Study of Consciousness;
882. Koch: the Quest for Consciousness;
883. Edelman: Wider than the Sky
Evolution of and in Brains
2004
887. Morowitz: Mind, Brain, & Complex Adaptive Systems;
888. Calvin, Willian; The Cerebral Code; MIT Press; Cambridge, Mass.; 1996
889. Calvin&Bickerton, Lingua ex Machina, Reconciling darwin and chomsky with the human brain, MIT 2000
890. Calvin: How Brains Think;
Networks
892. White, Markets from Networks, Socioecon Models of Production, Princeton, 2002
893. Schiller, Digital Capitalism, Networking the Global Market System, MIT 1999
894. Nohria and Eccles, editors; Networks and Organizations, Harvard Bsns, 1992
895. Buchanan, Nexus: Small Worlds and the Science of Networks Norton02
896. Albert-Laszlo, Barabasi, Linked: the New Science of Networks, Perseus 2002
897. (forthcoming 2004) Acting Together: the Social Organization of Crowds
898. Batten, Casti, Thord, editors; Networks in Action, Communication, Economics, and Human Knowledge,
Springer, 1995
899. Wellman&Berkowitz eds, Social Structures, A Network Approach, Cambridge, 1988
900. Caudill&Butler, Understanding Neural Networks, computer explorations, vol 1 & 2,
901. White, Markets from Networks, Socioeconomic Models of Productn, Princeton 02
902. Cilliers, Complexity and Postmodernism, Routledge, 1999@
903. Damasio, et al, Unity of Knowledge, New York Academy of Sciences02%%%
2. Management Sciences Dimension:

Management of:
Self, Complexity,Business, Ventures, Cultures, Quality, Technology, Deci-
sion,
Knowledge
General Management Overview
Theory of Managing
905. Thomas, Controversies in Management, 2ndedn, Routledge, 1993
906. Manville and Ober, A Company of Citizens, what the world’s first democracy teaches leaders about creating
great organizations, Harvard Bsns, 2003
907. The Concept of Work, Ancient, Medieval,&Modernby Applebaum,SUNY 1992
908. van Maurik, Writers on Leadership, Penquin, 2001@
909. Porter, The Competitive Advantage of Nations, Free Press, 90
910. Mintzberg, Mintzberg on Management, Inside our strange world of organizations, Free Press, 1989
Skills of Managers and Leaders
912. Organizational Behavior & Processes by Ancona, Kochan, Scully, Van Maanen, Westney, South Western Pub-
lishing@
913. Rosenhead&Mingers,Rational Analysis for aProblematicWorldRevisited,Wiley01
914. VanGundy, Techniques of Structured Problem Solving,2nd edn,Van Nostrand 88
915. Atrill&McLaney,Management Accounting for Non-specialists,Prentice-Hall, 2002
916. Rees and Porter, Skills of Management, 5th Edn, Thomson Learning, 2001@
917. Weisbord, Discovering Common Ground, Berrett Koehler, 92
918. Pasmore, Designing Effective Organizations, a sociotechnical systems perspective, Wiley, 88
920. Zaltman, How Customers Think
free press, 1998
925. Klitgaard and Light, eds, High-Performance Government, RAND, 2005
Strategy Basics
926. Lele, Creating Strategic Leverage, Matching Company Strengths with Market Opportunities, Wiley, 1992
927. Yavitz and Newman, Strategy in Action, Free Press, 1982
928. Cummings and Wilson, eds, Images of Strategy, Blackwell, 2003
929. Strategy Safari by Mintzberg, Ahlstrand, and Lampel, Free press, 1998
930. Coyle, Practical Strategy, Structured Tools and Techniques, prentice Hall, 2004$$$.
931. Volberda and Elfring, eds, Rethinking Strategy, SAGE04%%%
Management Functions
932. An Integrative Theory of Leadership by Martin Chemers, LEA, 1997
933. A Primer on Decision Making by James March, Free press, 1994
934. Kotler on Marketing by Philip Kotler, Free press, 1999
935. The Social Life of Information by Brown and Duguid, Harvard Business, 2000
936. Global Quality by Richard Tabor Greene, ASQC and Irwin, 1993.
937. Why We Buy, the Science of Shopping by Paco Underhill; Touchstone, 1999
938. The Harvard Business Review on Non-Profits, Harvard Business Review, 1999
939. Ulrich and Eppinger, Product Design and Development, McGraw Hill, 1995
940. Sherry, ed, Contemporary Marketing & Consumer Behavior, An Anthropological Sourcebook, SAGE1995%%%
Management Systems Skills
941. Jervis;System Effects: Complexity in Political and Social Life, Princeton, 1997@
942. Huczynski, Management Gurus, Routledge, 1993@
944. DeMarco&Lister, Peopleware,Productive Projects and Teams,Dorset House, 1987
Global Entrepreneurship Management Overview
945. Sexton and Landstrom, The Blackwell Handbook of Entrepreneurship, 2003
946. Gannon&Newman, The Blackwell Handbook of Cross-Cultural Managemt, 2003
947. Hitt et al, eds, The Blackwell Handbook of Strategic Management, 2003
948. Hollingsworth and Boyer, eds., Contemporary Capitalism, Cambridge, 1997
950. Paige, edr, Education for the Intercultural Experience, Intercultural 93%%%
958. Page, The Difference, how the power of diversity creates better groups, firms, schools, and societies, Princ-
eton, 2007
Managing the New Economy
959. HBR, Harvard business review on brand management, HBR, 1994
960. Tushman and anderson, managing strategic innovation and change, a collection of readings, second edition,
Oxford, 1997
961. Goranson, the agile virtual enterprise, cases, metrics, tools, Quorum, 1999
962. Prusak and Matson eds, knowledge management and organizational learning, Oxford, 2006
963. Toffler, revolutionary wealth, knopf, 2006
964. Pine and gilmore, the experience economy, work is theatre and every business a stage, HBS 1999
Managing Creators and Creation
965. Davis and Scase, Managing Creativity, Open University, 2000
966. Creative Industries by Richard E. Caves Harvard 2000@
967. Henry, Jane; Creative Management; Sage, London; 1991
970. Florida, The Rise of the Creative Class [social capital=junk] m Basic02%%%
Management as Culture Invention/Maintenance/Change: Anthropologies of Success
977. Thurow, Building Wealth, Harper Collins, 1999
978. Eberts, The Myths of Japanese Quality, Prentice Hall, 1995
979. Collins and Porras, Built to Last, Successful habits of visionary companies, Harper Business, 1994
980. Pucik, Tichy, Barnett eds, Globalizing Management, Wiley, 1992
981. Hesselbein, Goldsmith, Somerville, eds, Leading for Innovation, Jossey Bass, 2002
982. Kochan and Useem, eds, Transforming Organizations, Oxford, 1992
983. Minzberg, Structure in Fives, Prentice Hall, 1983
change, HBS, 2004
Venture Business Basics

990. The Origin and Evolution of New Businesses by Bhide, Harvard, 2000
991. The Entrepreneurial Venture (readings) by Sahlman, et al, Harvard, 1999
992. Swedberg, ed, Entrepreneurship, the Social Science View; Oxford, 2000@
993. Social Entrepreneurship by Brinckerhoff, Wiley, 2000

994. Kirzner, Competition and Entrepreneurship,Chicago, 1973
995. Berger, editor; The Culture of Entrepreneurship, ICS, 1991
996. Bird,Schoonhoven,Romanelli, eds;The Entrepreneurship Dynamic,Stanford, 2001
997. Sexton and Landstrom, The Blackwell Handbook of Entrepreneurship, 2003
998. Birley and Muzyka, MAstering Enterprise, Financial Times, 1997
999. Shane, A General Theory of Entrepreneurship, Edward Elgar, 2004
1000. Steyaert and Hjorth, New Movements in Entrepreneurship, Edward Elgar 2004@
1001. Lee, Miller, Hancock, Rowen eds, The Silicon Valley Edge, Stanford, 2000@
1002. Fuerst and Geiger, From Concept to Wall Street, a complete guide to entrepreneurship and venture capital,
Financial Times and Prentice Hall, 2003
Self Development, Fundamental Theories and Empirical Results
Building a Self: Architectures of Effective Being
1003. In Over Our Heads by Robert Kegan, Harvard, 1994@
1004. The Boundaryless Career by Arthur and Rousseau, Oxford Univ., 1996
1005. Sartre and Psychoanalysis by Betty Cannon, University of Kansas, 1991@
1006. Maddi Personality Theory, A Comparative Analysis,. Brookes/Cole, 1996@
1007. Goodwin, Personal Relationships Across Cultures, Routledge1999$$$
The Nature and Origins of the Self
2006
2005
The Cultural Relativity of Being an Effective Self
1017. Culture and Subjective Well Being, editors Diener and Suh, MIT, 2000@
1019. Shimizu and Levine, editors; Japanese Frames of Mind, Cultural Perspectives on Human Development, Cam-
bridge, 2001
1020. Cross-Cultural Psychology by Berry, Poortinga, Segall&Dusen, Cambridge, 1992
1021. Kasukis, Ames, Dissanayake, eds, Self as Body in Asian Theory and Practice, SUNY, 93
1023. Rogoff, The Cultural Nature of Human Development, Oxford03%%%
1025. Cole, Cultural Psychology, a once and future discipline, Harvard95%%%
Finding and Improving Selves Already Established Within Us
1028. Klar, Fisher, Chinsky, Nadler; Self Change; Springer Verlag, NYC; 1992@
1029. The Emergent Ego: Complexity and Coevolution in the Psychoanalytic Process by Palombo, Internatl. Univ.
Press 1999
1030. How the Way We Talk Can Change the Way We Work by Kegan and Lahey, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 2001
1031. Bruch, Learning Psychotherapy, Harvard, 1974
Development Processes of Selves, Lives, Careers
1032. Brandtstadter and Lerner, editors; Action and Development, Theory and Research through the Life Span,
Sage, 1999
1033. Thomas, Recent Theories of Human Development, Sage, 2001
1034. Sternberg Love is a Story, Oxford, 1998
1035. Arthur and Rousseau, The Boundaryless Career, Oxford, 1996
1036. Brown and Lent, eds, career development and counselling, putting theory and research to work, Wiley,
2005
Diversity of Selves
1037. Olson, Existentialism, Dover, 1962
1038. Elliott, Concepts of the Self, Polity, 2001
1039. Ferrari&Sternberg, Self Awareness, Its Nature and Developmt, Guilford, 1998
1040. Ashworth, Psychology and Human Nature, Psychology Press, 2000
1041. Fox, The New Sartre, Continuum, 2003@
1042. Tannen, You Just Don’t Understand, Morrow, 1990
1043. de Beauvoir, The Second Sex, Vintage, 1949
Complexity Theory
The Philosophy of Complex Systems
1046. Johnson, Fire in the Mind, science, faith, and the search for order, Knopf 1995
1047. Bailey, After Thought, the computer challenge to human intelligence, Basic 96
1048. Agazzi&Montecucco, eds, Complexity and Emergence, World Scientific, 2002
1049. Strogatz, Sync: the emerging science of spontaneous order, Theia, 2003
1050. Axelrod and Cohen, Harnessing Complexity, Organizational Implications of a Scientific Frontier, Free Press,
1999
1051. Gergersen, edr, from Complexity to Life, on the emergence of life and meaning, Oxford, 2003
1052. Bak, How Nature Works, the science of self organized criticality, Springer 1996
1053. Harnessing Complexity by Axelrod and Cohen, Free Press, 2000
1054. Casti and Karlqvist, eds, Art and Complexity, North Holland03%%%
1056. Taylor, The Moment of Complexity, U Chicago, 2001^^^
1057. Baeyer, Information, the new language of science, Harvrd,2004^^^
1058. Jensen, Self-Organized Criticality, Cambridge, 1998^^^
The Santa Fe School in Studying Complexity
1059. Kauffman, Investigations, Oxford, 2000@
1060. Holland, Emergence, From Chaos to Order, Addison Wesley, 1998
1061. Holland, Hidden Order, How Adaptation Builds Complexity,AddisonWesley, 95
1062. Kaufffman, At Home in the Universe, the search for the laws of self-organization and complexity, Oxford,
1995
1063. Cowan, Pines, and Meltzer, editors; Complexity, Metaphors, Models, and Reality, Addison Wesley, 1994@
1064. Casti, Complexification, Explaining a Paradoxical World Through the Science of Surprise, Harper Collins,
1994@
1068. Miller and Page Complex Adaptive Systems, an introduction to computational models of social life
GREAT
Complexity--Adaptation
1070. Booker, Mitchell, Forrest, Riolo Perspectives on Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems
1071. Turner The Tinkerer's Accomplice, how design emerges from life itself
1072. Wagner Robustness and Evolvability in Living Systems
1073. NOwak Evolutionary Dynamics, exploring the equations of life
1074. Huberman The Law of the Web, patterns in the ecology of information
Generalizations of Complexity Theory and Application
1075. The Tipping Point by Gladwell, Little Brown, 2000
1076. Complexity and Postmodernism by Cilliers, Routledge, 1999@
1077. Micromotives and Macrobehavior by Schelling, W. W. Norton, 1978@
1078. Strevens, Bigger than Chaos, Understanding Complexity through Probability, Harvard, 2003@
1079. Zureck, Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information, Addison-Wesley, 90
1080. Cladis&Palffy-Muhoray eds, Spatio-Temporal Patterns in Nonequilibrium Complex Systems, Addison-Wesley,
1995
The Maths of Complexity
1081. Gilmore & Lefranc, The Topology of Chaos, Wiley, 2002
1082. Peitgen, Jurgens, Saupe; Fractals for the Classroom, parts 1&2, Springer 2001
1083. Weisbuch, Complex Systems Dynamics, Addison Wesley 1991
1084. Abraham and Shaw, Dynamics The Geometry of Behavior, Parts 1, 2, and 3, Aeriel Press, 1984
1085. Schroeder, Fractals, Chaos, Power Laws, Freeman, 1991
1086. Flake, The Computational Beauty of nature, MIT, 1999
1087. Pickover, The Pattern Book, Fractals, Art, and Nature, World Scientific, 1995
1088. Addison, Fractals and Chaos, An Illustrated Course, IOP 1997
1089. Mullin, edr, The Nature of Chaos, Oxford, 1993
1090. Choate et al, Fractals, a tool kit of dynamics activiities, Key Curriculum 91%%%
1092. Nadel and Stein, eds, 1991 Lectures in Complex Systems, Addison Wesley, 1992
1093. Steeb, the non-linear workbook, 3rd edition, world scientific, 2005
Economy, Sociology, and Complexity
School, 2006
The Complex Systems of Life
1099. Sole&Goodwin,Signs of Life, How Complexity Pervades Biology,Basic Books00
1100. Capra, The Web of Life, Anchor, 1996
1101. Goodwin, How the leopard Changed Its Spots, the evolution of complexity, Scribner, 1994
1102. Sigmund, Games of Life,Exploratns in Ecology, Evolution,&Behavior, Oxford93
1103. Segel and Cohen, ed, Design Principles for the Immune System and Other Distributed Autonomous Systems,
Oxford 2001
1104. Kohler&Gumerman, ed, Dynamics in Human&Primate Societies, Oxford, 2000
1105. Cohen, Tending Adam’s Garden , evolving immune self, Academic, 2000
1106. Murphy&O’neill, What is Life? the Next 50 Years, Cambridge, 1995
1109. Bentley, Digital Biology, how nature is tranforming our technology and our lives, Simon and Schuster, 2001
1110. Sterelny and griffiths, sex and death, an introduction to the philosophy of biology, chicago, 1979
1111. Hull and Ruse, eds, the philosophy of biology, oxford, 1998
Applying Knowledge of Complex Systems
1112. Pascale, Millemann, and Gioja, Surfing the Edge of chaos, the Laws of Nature and the New Laws of Business,
Crown Business, 2000
1113. Kelly, Out of Control, the rise of neo-biological civilizatn, Addison Wesley, 1994
1114. Taylor, Cultural Selection, why some achievements survive the test of time and others don’t, Basic Books,
1996
Chaos, Complexity, and Psychology
1115. Robertson&Combs, Chaos Theory in Psychology and the Life Sciences LEA95
1116. Vallacher and Nowak; Dynamical Systems in Social Psychology; Academic 1994
1117. Smith & Thelen, eds, A Dynamic Systems Ap;proach to Developmeent, applicns, MIT93%%%
The Economy as a Complex Adaptive System
1118. Anderson, Arrow, Pines, editors; The Economy as an Evolving Complex Adaptive System, Addison Wesley,
1988
1119. Day, Complex Economic Markets, Wiley, 1996
1120. Arthur; Increasing Returns&Path Dependence in the Economy; U Michigan; 1994
The Computations of Complex Systems
1121. Caudill&Butler, Understanding Neural Networks, computer explorations,vol 1&2,
1122. Huberman, editor; The Ecology of Computation, North Holland, 1988
1123. Copeland, The Essential Turing, the ideas that gave birth to the computer age, Oxford, 2004
Simulations of Complex Systems
1124. Bonabeau, Dorigo, Theraulaz, Swarm Intelligence, Oxford, 1999
1125. Swarm Intelligence by Bonabeau et al, Oxford Univ., 1999
1126. Casti, Would-BeWorlds, How Simulation is Changing the Frontiers of Science, Wiley, 1997
1127. Growing Artificial Societies: Social Science from the Bottom Up, Epstein and Axtell, Brookings & MIT Press,
1996
The Complexity of Systems that Evolve
1128. Morowitz&Singer, eds, The Mind, the Brain,&Complex Adaptive Systems, Addison Wesley, 1995
1129. Belew&Mitchell, eds; Adaptive Individuals in Evolving Populations, Addison Wesley, 1996
1130. Crutchfield and Schuster, editors, Evolutionary Dynamics, Oxford, 2003
Theory of Business
Theoretical & Practical Problems of Business Theory
1131. Penrose, The Theory of the Growth of the Firm, Oxford, 1995@
1132. Hirschman, The Passions and the Interests, Political Arguments for Capitalism before Its Triumph, Princeton,
1977
1133. Putterman & Kroszner,Economic Nature of the Firm: A Reader, Cambridge, 1996
1134. Kotter, and Cohen, The Heart of Change: Real-Life Stories of How People Change Their Organizations, Har-
vard Bsns, 2002
1135. Lessem, Management Development Thru Cultural Diversity, Routledge, 1998
Theories of Firms
1136. Copeland&Weston, 2nd edn, Financial Theory&Corporate Policy, Addison Wesley, 1983
1137. Milgrom&Roberts, Economics, Organization & Managt, Prentice Hall, 1992
1138. Jensen, Foundation of Organizational Strategy, Harvard, 1998
1139. DeSanctis, Fulk, eds, Shaping Organization Form, SAGE, 1999
1141. England, edr, evolutionary concepts in contemporary economics, U Michigan, 1994
1142. Mokyr, the gifts of athena, historical origins of the knowledge economy, princeton, 2002
1143. Berstein, the birth of plenty, how the prosperity of the modern world was created, McGraw Hill, 2004
Information Theories of Business
1144. De Rosnay, the Symbiotic Man, McGraw Hillk, 2000

1145. Brown and Duguid, The Social Life of Information, Harvard Bsns, 2000
1146. Macho-Stadler and Perez-Castrillo, An Intro to the Economics of Information, 2nd edn, Oxford, 1997
1147. Malone, Crowston, Herman, eds, Organizing Business Knowledge, the MIT Process Handbook, MIT2003
1148. Malone, the future of Work, HarvardBSchool04%%%
1149. Malone, et al, Invention the Organizations of the 21st Century, MIT04%%%
Remote Economic Theories for Business
1150. White, Markets from Networks, Socioeconomic Models of Productn, Princeton02
1151. Mitnick, ed., Corporate Political Agency, SAGE, 1993
1152. Laffont and Martimort, The Theory of Incentives, the Principle Agent Model, Princeton, 2002
1153. Penrose, The Theory of the Growth of the Firm, Oxford, 1995@
1154. Putterman & Kroszner, Economic Nature of the Firm: A Reader, Cambridge, 1996
Theorizing the Actual Practices of Business & Government
1155. Frederickson&Johnston eds, Public Management Reform&Innovation, Alabama, 1999
1156. Brudney, O’Toole, Rainey, Advancing Public Management, Georgetown, 2000
The Theory and Practice of Value
1157. McKinsey, Copeland, koller, Murrin, Valuation, measuring and managing the value of companies, 3rd edn,
Wiley, 1990
1158. Damodaran, The Dark Side of Valuation, Prentice Hall, 2001
1159. Damodaran, Investment Valuation, tools and techniques for determining the value of any asset, Wiley,
1996Å@
Internet Economy Theories and Experiments
1160. Leebaert edr, The Future of the Electronic Marketplace, MIT Press, 1999
1161. Tapscott, Creating Value in the Network Economy, Harvard Business, 1999
1162. The Future and Its Enemies by Virginia Postrel Free Press 1998
1163. Information Rules, a Strategic guide to the Network Economy by Carl Shapiro and Hal Varian, Harvard Busi-
ness 1999@
1164. Schiller, Digital Capitalism, Networking the Global Market System MIT 99
1165. Brynjolfsson and Kahin, Understanding the Digital Economy, MIT, 2000@
1166. Alexander&Pal, Digital Democracy, Policy&Politics in the Wired WorldOxford98
The Management and Evolutionary Dynamics of Technology
Research and Development with Technology
1167. Burgelman, Maidique, Wheelwright, Strategic Management of Technology and Innovation, 3rd edn, McGraw
Hill, 2000@
1170. Matheson, The Smart Organization: Creating Value Through Strategic R&D, Harvard B School, 1998
1171. Mokyr, The Gifts of Athena:Historic Origins of the Knowledge Economy, Princeton, 2002#
change, HBS, 2004
Using Technology: Man/Machine, Machine/Machine, Man/Man Interfaces
1176. Sellen and Harper, The Myth of the Paperless Office, MIT, 2002
1177. Tenner, Why Things Bite Back, technology and the revenge of unintended consequences, Knopf, 1996@
1178. Dertouzos, The Unfinished Revolution, Harper Collins, 2001
1179. Lessig, the Future of Ideas, the fate of the commons in a connected world, Random House, 2001
1180. Norman,The Psychology of Everyday Things, Basic, 1988
1181. Schrage, No More Teams, Mastering the Dynamics of Creative Collaboration, Currency Doubleday, 1995
1182. Morecroft, Sanchez, Heene, Systems Perspectives on Resources, Capabilities, and Management Processes,
Pergamon, 2002
1183. Norman, Things that Make Us Smart, Perseus, 1993
1184. Fogg, Persuasive Technology, using computers to change what we think and do, Morgan Kaufmann, 2003
1185. Norman, Emotional Design, BAsic, 2004
Networks and Technology
1186. Berenson, The Number, Random House, 2003
1187. Rheingold, Smart Mobs, the next social revolution, Perseus, 2003
1188. Weinberger, Small Pieces Loosely Joined, Perseus, 22002
Powers of Technology
1189. Ellul, The Technological Bluff, Eerdmans, 1990
1190. Burris, Technocracy at Work, SUNY, 1993
1191. Fogg, Persuasive Technology, using computers to change what we think and do, Morgan Kaufmann, 2003
1192. Winner, Autonomous Technology, technics out of control, MIT, 1983
Theories of Innovation
1193. Rosenberg, Landau, Mowery, Technology&the Wealth of Nations, Stanford, 1992
1194. Janszen, The Age of Innovation, Prentice Hall, 2000
1195. Mayes, edr, Sources of Productivity Growth, Cambridge, 1996
1196. Hesselbein, Goldsmith, Somerville, eds, Leading for Innovation, Jossey Bass2002
1197. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, 4th edn, Free Press, 1995@
1198. Scherer, Innovation and Growth, Schumpeterian Perspectives, MIT84
1199. Nelson, edr, National Innovation Systems, a comparative analysis, Oxford93
change, HBS, 2004
The Economics of Innovation, Invention, & Technology Development
1205. Mayes, edr, Sources of Productivity Growth, Cambridge, 1996
1206. Mokyr, The Gifts of Athena:Historic Origins of the Knowledge Economy, Princeton, 2002#
1207. Garud, Karnoe, eds, Path Dependence&Path Creation, LEA2001#
1208. Aghion&Howitt, Edogenous Growth Theory, MIT97#
1209. Baumol, The Free Market Innovation Machine: Analyzing the Growthd Miracle of Capitalism, Princeton,
2002#
1210. Loasby, Knowledge, Institutions,&Evolution in Economics, Routledge1999#
1211. Ziman, ed, Technological Innovation as an Evolutionary Process, Cambridge2000#
1212. Ruttan, Technology, Growth,&Development: An Induced Innovation Perspective, Oxford2001#
1213. Saviotti, Technological Evolution, Variety,&the Economy, Edward Elgar1996#
1214. Baldwin & Clark, Design Rules, vol. 1, The Power of Modularity
1215. Thomke, Experimentation Matters, Unlocking the Potential of New Technologies for Innovation
1216. Hargadon & Eisenhardt, How Breakthroughs Happen
1220. Mandelbrot and Hudson, the (mis)behavior of markets, a fractal view of risk, ruin, and reward, Basic, 2004
1221. Seabright, the company of strangers, a natyural history of economic life, Princeton, 2004
1222. Mirowski, natural images in econmic thought, markets read in tooth and claw, cambridge, 1994
1223. Copeland and Antikarov, real options, a practitioner’s guide, Thomson, 2003
1224. Smit and Trigeorgis, strategic investment, real options and games, Princeton, 2004
change, HBS, 2004
Human Computer Interface Design
1227. Fogg, Persuasive Technology, using computer to change whatwe think and do, Morgan Kaufmann, 2003
1228. Norman, Things that Make Us Smart, Perseus, 1993
1231. Frascara, edr, Design and the Social Sciences, Taylor&Francis02%%%
Knowledge Society
Comprehensive Overviews of Knowledge Development
1232. Dierkes, Antal et al; Handbk of Organizatnal Learning&Knowledge, Oxford, 2001@
1233. Collins, Macro History, Essays in Sociology of the Long Run, Stanford, 1999
1234. Collins, The Sociology of Philosophies, A Global Theory of Intellectual Change, Harvard, 1998
1235. Esterby-Smith, ed. Blackwell Handbook on Org Learng and Knowdg Mngmt
1237. Cohen and Sproul, editors; Organizational Learning, Sage, 1996
Micro Level Knowledge Development Dynamics
1239. Lesser, Fontaine et al eds, Knowledge&Communities, Butterworth Heineman, 2000
1240. Nonaka and Teece, editors, Managing Industrial Knowledge, Sage, 2001@
1241. Rosnay, The Symbiotic Man, (Complex Biologic Wholes of the 21st Century), McGraw Hill, 2000@
1242. Sperber, Fashions in Science, Minnesota, 1990
1243. Teece, Managing Intellectual Capital, Oxford, 2000
1245. Granott and Parziale, ed.s, Microdevelopment, Transition Processes in Development and Learning, Cam-
bridge Univ. 2002@
1248. Kegan, Robert; In Over Our Heads; Harvard Univ. Press; Cambridge, Mass.; 1991
1249. Klar, Fisher, Chinsky, Nadler; Self Change; Springer Verlag, NYC; 1992
1250. Kohn,Alfie; Punished by Rewards; Houghton Mifflin, NYC: 1993
Structures and Processes of Knowledge
1251. Lave&Wenger;Situated Learning,LegitimatePeripheral Participatn;Cambridge; 1999
1252. Garvin, Learning in Action
1257. Ericsson, Chaness, Feltovick, Hoffman, eds, the Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance,
Cambridge, 2006
cambridge, 1987
Histories of Knowledge Development
1262. Mokry, Gifts of Athena: Historical Origins of the Knowledge Economy@
1263. Rubin&Huber, The Knowledge Industry in the US 1960-80, Princeton86
1264. Krieger, Marinalism&Discontinuity, tools for the crafts of knowledge and decision, Russell Sage Fdn, 89
Contemporary Developments in Knowledge Development
Expertise, Technology, Systems Effects and the State of Knowledge
1270. Brown and Duguid, The Social Life of Information, Harvard Business School, 2000@
1272. Ericsson and Smith, Toward a General Theory of Expertise, Cambridge, 1991
Cambridge, 2006
1275. Sternberg and Wagner, Mind in Context, Cambridge, 1994
1276. Jervis,System Effects, Complexity in Political&Social Life, Princeton, 1997@
Intellectual Property
1277. Bouchoux, Intellectual Property, 2nd edition, Thomson, 2005
1278. Elias and Stim, Patent, Copyright & Trademark, an intellectual property desk reference, 4th edition, Nolo,
2003
1279. Inside the Minds, The Art and Science of Patent Law, Aspatore books, 2004
1280. Gilbert, the Entrepreneur’s Guide to Patents, Copyrights, Trade secrets, and Licensing, Berkeley, 2004
Flaws in Human Cognition and Knowledge
1281. Cook and Levi, editors; The Limits of Rationality, Chicago, 1990
1282. Janis and Mann, Decision Making, A Psychological Analysis of Conflict, Choice and Commitment, Free Press,
1977
1283. Heller, Decision-Making and Leadership, Cambridge, 1992@
1284. Piattelli-Palmarini, Inevitable Illusions, How Mistakes of Reason Rule Our Minds, Wiley, 1994@
1285. Nisbett and Ross; Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judge
1287. Gigerenzer and Selten, ed. Bounded Rationality, MIT, 2001
1288. Myers, Intuition, Its Powers and Perils, Yale 2001@
Quality and Value Theory
The Economics of Quality
1289. Price, Time, Discounting and Value, Blackwell, 1993@
1290. Bowbrick, The Economics of Quality, Grades, and Brands, Routledge, 1992
1291. Holbrook, Consumer Value, a framework for analysis and research, Routledge, 1999
Measuring Quality
1292. Oliver, Satisfaction, A Behavioral Perspective on Consumer, McGraw Hill, 1997
1293. Rust, Zahorik, Keiningham, Return on Quality, Measuring the financial impact of your company’s quest for
quality, Probus, 1994
1294. Hayes, Measuring Customer Satisfaction, ASQC, 1992

1295. The Elgar Compagnion to Consumer Research and Economic Psychology
1296. Zaltman, How Customers Think
Comprehensive Models of Quality
1297. Greene, Global Quality, McGraw Hill, 1993
1298. Greene, Managing Complex Adaptive Systems, Bestest Mostest, 2003
1299. Greene, Predictors of Adoption of TQM by a Research Faculty, UMI, 1994
1300. Shiba, et al, A New American TQM, Productivity, 1993
1301. Bergman and Klefsjo, Quality from customer needs to customer satisfaction, McGraw Hill, 1994
1302. Cole, Dale, Kano, eds, Blackwell Handbook of Total Quality Management04,#
Profounder Images of Quality
1303. Cole and Scott, eds, The Quality Movement Organization Theory, SAGE, 2000
1305. Grunnell, Political Philosophy and Time,. Chicago, 68, 87
Technical Quality Methods
1306. Phadke, Quality Engineering Using Robust Design, Prentice Hall, 1989
1307. Akiyama, Function Analysis, Productivity, 1989
1308. Taguchi, Intro to Quality Engineering, APO, 1986
1309. Akao, edr, Quality Function Deployment, Productivity, 1990
1310. Ozeki&Asaka, Handbook of Quality Tools, Productivity 1990
1311. Wilson, Dell, Anderson, Root cause analysis, ASQC, 1993
1312. Ross, Taguchi Techniques for Quality Engineering, McGraw Hill, 1988
Extending Quality Beyond Business
1313. Gaucher&Coffey, Total Quality in Healthcare, Jossey-Bass, 93
1314. Roberts, edr. Academic Initiatives in Total Quality for Higher Education, ASQC, 1995
1315. Brudney, O’toole, Rainey eds, Advancing Public Management, Georgetown,00@
1316. Frederickson&Johnston, eds,Public Management Reform&Innovation Alabama99
Ecological Quality
1317. Ashworth, The Economy of Nature, Rethinking the Connections Beteen Ecology and Economics, Houghton
Mittlin, 1995
1318. Power, Environmental Protection and Economic Well-Being, The Economic Pursuit of Quality, 2nd edn, ME
Sharpe, 1996
1319. Socolow, Andrews, et al, Industrial Ecology and Global Change, Cambridge, 1994
Theories of Justice and Law
1320. Posner, Frontiers of Legal Theory, Harvard, 2001
1321. Patterson,edr;A Companion to Philosophy of Law&Legal Theory,Blackwell, 1996
1322. Deaver, The Complete Law School Companion, Wiley, 1992
1323. Sheppard, et al, Organizational Justice, Fairness in the Workplace, Lexington, 1992
1324. Weinreb, Natural Law and Justice, Harvard, 1987
1325. Rawls, A Theory of Justice, Harvard 1999
1326. Miller, Principles of Social Justice, Harvard, 1999
1327. Jost&Major, The Psychology of Legitimacy, Cambridge, 2001
1328. Bouchoux, Intellectural Property, 2nd edition, Thomson, 2005
1329. Roemer, Theories of Distributive Justice, Harvard, 1996
1330. Hirsch, Law and Economics, an Intro Analysis, Academic79
1331. Bartol and Bartol, psychology and law, theory, research, and applications, Thompson, 2004
Managing Globality, Diversity, and Cultures
The Culturing of Leadership
1332. McCall&Hollenbeck, Developing Global Executives, Harvard Business, 2002
1333. Lessem, Management Development Through Cultural Diversity, Routledge, 1998
1334. Wosinska,Cialdini et al,Practice of Social Influence in Multiple CulturesLEA 2001@
1335. Simons, Vazquez, Harris, Transcultural Leadership, Empowering the Diverse Workforce, Gulf, 1993
1336. Derr, et al eds., Cross-Cultural Approaches to Leadership Developmt, Quorum 02@
1337. Bartlett and Ghoshal, Transnational Management, 3rd edn, McGraw Hill, 2000
1338. Lane and Maznewski, Blackwell Handbk of Global Management,
1339. Morosini, Managing Cultural Differences, Pergamon,1999
1340. Earley and Ang, Cultural Intelligence, individual interactions across cultures, Stanford Business Books, 03
free press, 1998
General Theories of Culture
1349. Trompenaars&Hampden-Turner, Riding the Waves of Culture, McGraw Hill, 1998@
1350. Gannon&Newman,The Blackwell Handbk of Cross-Cultural Management, 2003
1351. Rugman&Brewer, eds., Oxford Handbook of International Business, Oxford, 2001@
1352. Holland&Quinn ed, Cultural Models in Language&Thought, Cambridge, 1987
1353. Hofstede, Geert; Cultures’ Consequences; Beverley Hills, Sage, 1980.
1354. Hofstede; Cultures&Organizations: Software of the Mind; McGraw Hill, 1991
1355. Martin, Cultures in Organizations, Oxford, 1992
1356. Sackmann, Cultural Knowledge in Organizations, SAGE, 1991
1357. Thompson, Ellis, Wildavsky, Cultural Theory, Westview, 1990
Culture, Basic Generators Of
1361. Darnton, the Kiss of Lamourette, Reflections in Cultural History (of France) Norton1990
1362. Berreby, Us and Them, Understanding Your Tribal Mind, Little brown, 2005
1363. Harrison and Carroll, Culture and demography in organizations, Princeton, 2006
1364. Rogoff, the cultural nature of human development, Oxford, 2003
1365. Epstein, friendship and expose, houghton mifflin, 2006
The Culture that is Capitalism and Its Origins
1368. Hollingsworth and Boyer, editors; Contemporary Capitalism: the embeddedness of institutions, Cambridge,
1997
1994
1370. Birnbaum and Leca, eds; Individualism, Theories and Methods, Oxford, 1990@
1371. Carrithers, Collins, Lukes, editors; The Category of the Person, Anthropology, Philosophy, History, Cam-
bridge, 1985
The Japanese Culture Case
1372. Rosenberger, Japanese Sense of Self, Cambridge, 1992
1373. Besser, Team Toyota, transplanting the Toyota culture in Kentucky, SUNY, 1996
Review, 19993
1378. DeMente, Japan’s Cultural Code Words, Tuttle, 2004
1379. Moore, The Japanese Mind, Hawaii, 1967
1380. Tsunoda, de Bary, Keene, eds. Sources of the Japanese Tradition, vol.s I and II, Columbia Univ., 1958
Asian Culture Cases
1381. Pye, Asian Powers and Politics, Harvard. 1985
1382. Munro, ed, Individualism&Holism, Studies in Confucian&Taoist Values, Mich 1985
1383. Marsela et al eds; Culture and Self, Asian and Western Perspectives,Tavistock, 1985
1384. Barnlund, Communicative Styles of Japanese and Americans, Wadsworth, 1989
1385. Kincaid, edr, Communication Theory, Eastern&Western, Academic, 87
Western Culture Cases
1387. Tannen, The Argument Culture, Ballentine, 1998
1388. Platt French of Foe? getting the most out of living and working in France
1389. Zeldin, The French, Collins Harvill, 1983
1390. Carroll, Cultural Misunderstandings, the French-American Experience, Chicago 88
1391. Giles and Middleton, Studying Culture, Blackwell, 1999
1392. Lipset, American Exceptionalism, NOrton, 1996
1393. Kramer, Europeans, FSG, 1988
1394. Ardagh, Germany and the Germans, Harper & Row, 1987
1395. Harrison, Italian Days, Ticknor&Fields, 1989
1396. Enzensberger, Europe Europe forays into a continent, Pantheon89
1397. Nelson, edr, National Innovation Systems, a comparative analysis, Oxford93
1398. Darnton, The Great Cat Massacre (French), Vintage, 1985%%%
1399. Descombes, Modern French Philosophy, Cambridge Univ. 1985?%%%
1401. Stewart and Bennett, Americn Cultural Patterns, Intercultural 1991%%%
What Things Have Cultures
1402. Pheysey, Organizational Cultures, Routledge, 1993
1403. Denison, Corporate Culture and Organizational Effectiveness, Wiley, 1990
1404. Trice and Beyer, The Cultures of Work Organizations, Prentice Hall, 1993
1405. Raelin, the clash of cultures, managers and professionals, Harvard Bsns, 1991@
1406. Paul, Miller, Paul, ed, Cultural Pluralism and Moral Knowledge, Cambridge, 1994
1407. Bledstein, The Culture of Professionalism, Norton, 1976
1408. Kotkin, Tribes, how race religion and identity determine success, Random, 1993
1409. Berger;The Culture of Entrepreneurship, Inst of Contemporary Studies, San Fran 91
1410. Tannen, Deborah; You Just Don’t Understand; Morrow, NYC, 1990
1411. Rasmussen and Rauner, eds, Industrial Cultures & Production, Understanding Competitiveness, Springer,
1996
Sociology of Culture
1415. Crane, the Sociology of Culture: Emerging Theoretical Perspectives, 2002@
1416. Munch and Smelser, editors; Theory of Culture, Univ. of California, 1992
1417. Alexander and Seidman, ed, Culture and Society, Cambridge, 1990
1418. Smith and Bond, Social Psychology Across Cultures, Allyn and Bacon, 1999@
Psychology of Culture
1419. Berry, Poortinga, Segall, Dasen; Cross-Cultural Psychology, Research and Applications, Cambridge, 1992
1421. Scollon, Intercultural Communication, Blackwell, 1995
1422. Shweder, Thinking Through Cultures, Harvard, 1991
1423. Stigler, Shweder, Herdt, eds, Cultural Psychology, Cambridge, 1990
Globalization
1430. Braczyk, Cooke, Heidenreich editors; Regional Innovation Systems, UCL, 1998
1431. Jun&Wright, eds; Globalization&Decentralization, in US&Japan, Georgetown, 1996
1432. Berger and Huntington, Many Globalizations: Cultural Diversity in the Contemporary World, Oxford, 2002
1433. Bartlett and Ghoshal, Transnational Management, 3rd edn, McGraw Hill, 2000
1434. Lane et al eds, Blackwell Handbook of Global Management, 2004$$$
Demystifying “Culture”
1435. Hage&Powers, Post-Industrial Lives, SAGE 1992
1436. Lilla, New French Thought, Political Philosophy, Princeton, 1994
1437. Descombes, Modern French Philosophy, Cambridge Univ. 1985?%%%
1438. Fox, edr, Recapturing Anthropology, Working in the Present, SAR Press, 1991
Anthropology Basics
1440. Geertz, Negara, Theatre State in 19th Century Bali, Princeton, 1980
1441. Marcus and Fischer, Anthropology as Cultural Critique, Chicago, 1986
1442. Todorov, On Human Diversity, nationalism... in french thought, Harvard, 1993
1443. Ortner, The Fate of Culture, Geertz and Beyond, California, 1999
Saving Economics
Cultures that Use & Life the Culture of the Profession of Economics
1447. Sandler, Economic Concepts for the Social Sciences, Cambridge, 2001
1448. Colander and Brenner, editors; Educating Economists, Michigan, 1992@
1449. Blaug, The Methodology of Economics, Second Edition, Cambridge, 1980
1450. McCloskey, If You’re So Smart, the narrative of economic expertise, Chicago1990
1451. Thaler, The Winner’s Curse, Paradoxes&Anomalies of Economic Life,FreePress 92
1452. Swedberg, editor; Explorations in Economic Sociology, Russell Sage, 1993
1453. Ormerod, Butterfly Economics, Pantheon, 1998
The Irrationalities of Rational Choice Models of Reality
1455. Rosenberg, Economics--Mathematical Politics or Science of Diminishing Returns, Chicago, 1992
1456. Elster, ed., Rational Choice, NYU, 1986
1457. Thaler, edr, Advances in Behavioral Finance, Russell Sage Foundation, 1993
1458. Shleifer, Inefficient Markets, an intro to behavioral finance, Oxford, 2000
1459. Skousen and Taylor, Puzzles and Paradoxes in Economics, EE97$$$
1460. Gassler, Beyond Profit and Self Interest, EE2003$$$
The Social Embeddedness of Economists and Economics

1461. England, ed., Evolutionary Concepts in Contemporary Economics, U Mich, 1994
1462. Etzioni and Lawrence, Socio-economics, Sharpe, 1991
1463. Laxonick, Business organizn&the myth of the market economy, Cambridge, 1991
1464. Koford, Miller, eds, Social Norms and Economic Institutions, Michigan, 1991
1465. Elster, edr, The Multiple Self, Cambridge, 1985
Behavioral Economics: Real Rationality
1466. Thaler, edr, Advances in Behavioral Finance, Russell Sage Foundation, 1993
1467. Shleifer, Inefficient Markets, an intro to behavioral finance, Oxford, 2000
1468. Brocas and Carrillo, eds, The Psychology of Economic Decisions, vol 1, rationality and well-being, Oxford,
2003
1469. Mele and Rawlings eds, The Oxford Handbook of Rationality, Oxford, 2004$$$
1470. Evans and Over, Rationality and Reasoning, Psych Press96$$$
Economy, Sociology, and Complexity
School, 2006
Decision Science
1476. March, Decisions and Organizations, Blackwell, 1988
1477. Morgan and Henrion, Uncertainty: a Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Anal-
ysis, Cambridge, 1990
1478. Sabatier edr, theories of the policy process, westview, 1999
1479. Braman, Communicatiion researchers and policy-making, MIT, 2003
1480. Cook and Levi, editors; The Limits of Rationality, Chicago, 1990
1481. Janis and Mann, Decision Making, A Psychological Analysis of Conflict, Choice and Commitment, Free Press,
1977
1482. Elster, Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences, Cambridge, 1989
1483. Heller, Decision-Making and Leadership, Cambridge, 1992@
1484. Piattelli-Palmarini, Inevitable Illusions, How Mistakes of Reason Rule Our Minds, Wiley, 1994@
1485. Nisbett and Ross; Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judge
1487. Gigerenzer and Selten, ed. Bounded Rationality, MIT, 2001
1488. Myers, Intuition, Its Powers and Perils, Yale 2001@
1489. Arkes&Hammond, Judgement&Decision Making, interdisciplinary reader, Cambridge, 1986
Tacit Knowledge, Practical Intelligence, Communities of Practice, & Situated Learning Theory
1491. Baumard; Tacit Knowledge in Organizations, Sage, 2001@
1492. Sternberg, Forsythe et al, Practical Intelligence in Everyday Life, Cambridge, 2000
1493. Sternberg and Horvath, eds; Tacit Knowledge in Professional Practice, LEA, 1999
1494. Norman, The Psychology of Everyday Things, Basic Books, 1988
1495. Brown& Deguid, The Social Life of Information, Harvard Business School, 2000
1497. Lave&Wenger;Situated Learning,LegitimatePeripheral Participation;Cambrdg 1999
1498. Artaud, The Theater and Its Double, Grove Press, 1958
1499. Brook, The Open Door, Thoughts on Acting and Theatre, TCG, 1995@
1500. Willett editor and translator, Brecht on Theatre, Hill and Wang, 1957
1502. Luboff, 88 Songwriting Wrongs and How to Right Them, Writer’s Digest, 1992
1506. Travis, The Director’s Journey, Michael Weise, 1999
1507. Performance Research 1.1: The Temper of the Times
1508. Segel, Turn-of-the-Century Cabaret, Columbia, 1987
1509. Argyris, Knowledge for Action, Jossey-Bass, 93
3. New Invented Theories Dimension

Performance Theory: Democratized Performing
1515. Vogler The Writer’s Journey, Michael Wiese Productions Book, 1992@
1516. Hogan, The Mind and its Stories, narrative universals and human emotion, Cambridge, 2003
1517. Meisner and Longwell, Sanford Meisner on Acting, Vintage, 1987
1518. Artaud, The Theater and Its Double, Grove Press, 1958
1519. Brook, The Open Door, Thoughts on Acting and Theatre, TCG, 1995@
1520. Willett editor and translator, Brecht on Theatre, Hill and Wang, 1957
1524. Luboff, 88 Songwriting Wrongs and How to Right Them, Writer’s Digest, 1992
1528. Travis, The Director’s Journey: the creative collaboration between directors, writers, and actors, Michael
Weise, 1999
1530. Performance Research 1.1: The Temper of the Times
1531. Selden, A Reader’s Guide to Contemporary Literary Theory, 2nd edn, Kentucky, 1989
1532. Macauley and Lanning, Technique in Fiction, 2nd edition or later, St. Martin’s, 1987
1533. Segel, Turn-of-the-Century Cabaret, Columbia, 1987
1536. Brustein, letters to a young actor, a universal guide to performance, Basic, 2005
Acting Basics
1539. Brestoff Great Acting Teachers and their Methods
1540. Meisner and Longwell Meisner on Acting
1541. Stanislavski An Actor Prepares
1542. Stella Adler and the Art of Acting
Game and Gaming Theory: Game Inventions
1543. Sigmund, Games of Life, Explorations in Ecology, Evolutn&Behavior, Oxford, 1993@
1544. Eigen&Winkler,Laws of the Game,HowthePrinciples of Nature Govern Chance,Princeton 81
1545. Smith, Evolution and the Theory of Games, Cambridge, 1982
1546. Laramee, editor, Game Design Perspectives, Charles River Media, 2002@
1547. Dunniway, Professional Game Design, 2003
1548. Rasmusen, Editor, Readings in Games and Information, Blackwell, 2001
1549. Bortolussi&Dixon, Psychonarratology, foundations for the empirical study of literary response, Cambridge,
2003
1550. Ordeshook, A Political Theory Primer [game th], Routledge, 1992
1551. Camerer, Behavioral Game Theory, experiments in strategic interactn, Princeton, 2003
1552. Koster, a theory of fun, for game design, paraglyph, 2005
1553. Wolf and Perron, the video game ,theory reader, routledge, 2003
Error and Expertise Theory: Humanized Design

General Theories of Error
1554. Reason, Human Error, Cambridge, 1990@
1555. Dorner, The Logic of Failure, metropolitan, 1996@
1556. Sternberg, editor, Why Smart People Can Be So Stupid, Yale, 2002@
Studying Error
1557. Dekker, The Field Guide to Human Error Investigations, Ashgate, 2002@
1558. Mayo, Error and the Growth of Experimental Knowledge, U Chicago, 1996
1559. Neustadt&May, Thinking in Time,The Uses of History for Decision Makers,Free Press, 1986
General Theories of Expertise
1560. Chi, Glaser, Farr, editors; The Nature of Expertise, LEA, 1988
1561. Gilhooly&Hoffman, eds; Thinking&Reasoning, Special Issue: Expert Thinking,1997, Psych
1562. Ericsson and Smith, Toward a General Theory of Expertise, Cambridge, 1991@
1563. Sternberg and Grigorenko, eds, The Psych of Abilities, Competencies, and Expertise, Cambridge2003$$$
Cambridge, 2006
Technology Causing Error
1567. Chiles, Inviting Disaster, Lessons from the Edge of Technology, HarperBsns, 2001
1568. Casey, Set Phasers on Stun, Aegean, 2nd edition, 1998
1569. Norman, Things that Make Us Smart, Perseus Books, 1993
1570. Winner, Autonomous Technology, technics out of control, MIT, 1983
Culture Causing Error
1571. Helmreich and Merritt, Culture at Work in Aviation and Medicine, Ashgate, 1998
1572. Carroll, Cultural Misunderstandings, the French-American Experience, Chicago, 1987
Organization Causing Error
1573. Perrow, Normal Accidents, Princeton, 1999
1574. Anheier, edr, When Things Go Worng, Organizational Failures&Breakdowns, Sage, 1999
Mind Causing Error
1575. Plous, The Psychology of Judgement and Decision Making, McGraw Hill, 1993
1576. Langer, Mindfulness, Addison Wesley, 1989
1577. Gilovich, How We Know What Isn’t So, Free Press, 1991
1578. Nisbett&Ross,Human Inference:Strategies&Shortcomings of Social Judgement,PrenticeH 80
1579. Kahneman and Tversky, eds., Choices, Values, and Frames, Cambridge, 2000
1580. Piattelli-Palmarini,Inevitable Illusions,How Mistakes of Reason Rule Our Minds,Wiley 1994
Non-Linear Systems Causing Error
1583. Hardin, Filters Against Folly, Penquin, 1985
1584. Jervis, System Effects, Complexity in Political and Social Life, Princeton, 1997
1585. Sornette,Why Stock Markets Crash,Critical Events in Complex Financial Systems,Princeton, 2003
Inviting and Rewarding Error
1586. Kohn, Punished by Rewards, Houghton Mifflin, 1993
1587. Nutt, Why Decisions Fail, The Blunders and Traps that Lead to Decision Debacles, Barrett-Koehler, 2001
Neuroses, Biases, Blindspots Causing Error
1588. Tannen, You Just Don’t Understand, Morrow, 1990
1589. de Beauvoir, The Second Sex, Vintage, 1949
1590. Finkelstein, Why Smart Executives Fail: And What You Can Learn from Their Mistakes
Randomness Causing Error
1591. Taleb, Fooled by Randomness,The hidden role of chance in the markets&in life,Texere, 2001
1592. Best, Damned Lies and Statistics, U of California, 2001
Greed, Excess, and Human Nature Causing Error
1593. Belsky&SGilovich, Why Smart People Make Big Money Mistakes and How to Correct Them, Fireside, 1999
1594. Davenport and Beck, The Attention Economy, HBS Press, 2001
Cases of Failure and Error
1596. Hartley, Management Mistakes and Successes, Wiley, 3rd edition, 1991
1597. Sharpe and Faden, Medical Harm, Cambridge, 1998
1598. Tucker, Trial and Error, The Education of a Courtroom Lawyer, Carroll&Graf, 2003
1599. Hartley, Marketing Mistakes, 5th edition, Wiley, 1992
1600. Ricks, Blunders in International Business, Blackwell, 1993
1601. Smith, Troubled IT Projects, IEE, 2001@
1602. Anderson, Why Lawyers Derail Justice, Penn State Press, 1999
1603. Hammond, Human Judgement and Social Policy, Oxford, 1996@
1604. Baron, Judgement Misguided, intuition&error in public decision making, Oxford, 1998
Managing Error After It Occurs
1605. Weick and Sutcliffe, Managing the Unexpected, Jossey Bass, 2001
Preventing Error Before it Occurs
1606. Reason, Managing the Risks of Organizational Accidents, Ashgate, 1997
1607. Gigerenzer, Adaptive thinking, Rationality in the Real World, Oxford, 2000
1608. Institute of Medicine,To Err is Human,Building a Safer Health System, National Academy00
1609. Gigerenzer et al, Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart, Oxford, 1999
1610. Koomey, Turning Numbers into Knowledge, Analytics Press, 2001
1611. Levy, Tools of Critical Thinking, Metathoughts for psychology, Allyn&Bacon, 1997
Social Indexing: Side-Effect Community Building
1612. The Tipping Point by Gladwell, Little Brown, 2000@
1613. Watts, Small Worlds, Princeton, 1999
1615. Cialdini Influence,Allyn and Bacon, 2001
1616. Cialdini Influence, the Psychology of Persuasion, Quill, 1984, 95
1617. Hatfield, Cacioppo, Rapson; Emotional Contagion, Cambridge, 1994
1618. Buchanan, Nexus: Small Worlds and the Groundbreaking Science of Networks Norton02
1619. Albert-Laszlo, Barabasi, Linked: the New Science of Networks, Perseus 2002
1620. Acting Together: the Social Organization of Crowds
1621. Eisenstadt, Paradoxes of Democracy, John Hopkins U, 1999
Art: Dimensions of Difference Inventions
Managing Creators and Creating
1628. de Mozota, Design Management, using design to build brand value and corporate innovation, Allworth, 2003
1632. Birkhauser, Design: history, theory, and practice of product development, Birkhauser, 2005
1633. Cherry, Programming for Design, from theory to practice, Wiley, 1999
1635. Becker, art worlds, U of California, 1982
change, HBS, 2004
Aesthetic Theory
1641. Barthes, The Responsibility of Forms, Hill&Wang, 1985
1642. Cooper, ed., A Compagnion to Aesthetics, Blackwell
1643. Smith & Wilde, A Compagnion to Art Theory, Blackwell, 2002@
1644. Goldblatt & Brown, Aesthetics, A reader in Philosophy of the Arts, Prentice Hall, 1997
1646. Plimpton, The Writer’s Chapbook, advice from 20th century’s best writers,Viking, 1989
1647. Stiles et al eds, Theories and Documents of Contemporary Art, California, 1996
1648. Chipp, Theories of Modern Art, California, 1968
1649. Csikszentmihalyi, The Art of Seeing, Getty, ÇXÇXÇO
1650. Bourdieu and Emanuel, Rules of Art, Stanford, 1992
1651. Carroll, Philosophy of Art, Routledge, 1999
1652. Beckley&Shapiro, eds, Uncontrollable Beauty:Toward a New AestheticsAllworth98
1653. Gardner, the Arts and Human Development, Basic Books, 1994
1654. Buckley, The Morality of Laughter, Michigan, 2003
1655. Gout, edr, Routledge Companion to Aesthetics, 2001
1656. Vorderer, edr, Suspense: Conceptualizations and Theoretical Analyses, LEA, 1996
1657. Anderson, Calliope’s Sisters, a comparative study of philosophies of art, Prentice Hall, 90@
1659. Steiner, grammars of creation, Yale, 2001
1660. asti and Karlqvist, eds, Art and Complexity, North Holland03%%%
1663. Whitelaw, metacreation, art and artificial life, MIT, 2004
1666. Galenson, old masters and young geniuses, the 2 life cycles of artistic creativity, Princeton, 2006
Theories of the Origins, Purposes, & Nature of Beauty, Art, Rapture
1667. Carroll, Evolution and Literary Theory, U of Missouri Press, 1995#
1668. Coote&Shelton, eds, Anthropology, ARts&Aesthetics, Oxford, 1992#
1669. Wpijewski, ed,Painting by Numbers: Komar and Melamid’s Scientific Guide to Art,FSG97#
1670. Dissanayake, Homo Aestheticus: Where Art Comes From and Why, U of Washington,97#
1671. Martindale, The Clockwork Muse: the Predictability of Artistic Change, Basic Books90#
1672. Turner, the Literary Mind, Oxford, 96#
1673. Van Damme, Beauty in Context: Toward an Anthropological Approach to Aesthestics, Brill in Leiden, 96#
1674. Kuhns, Tragedy: Contradiction&Repression, U Chicago91#
1675. Wellek, A History of Modern Criticism, 2 vols, Yale 1955#
1676. States, Great Reckonings in Little Rooms: On the Phenomenology of Theater,Berkeley85#
1677. Blau, The Audience, John Hopkins Press, 1990#

1678. asti and Karlqvist, eds, Art and Complexity, North Holland03%%%
The Cognitive Basis of Beauty, Art, and Rapture
1679. Art&the Brain, Special Issue,Journal of Consciousness Studies, ed. Goguen, Academic, 1999
1680. Creativity in Performance by Sawyer, Academic Press, 1997
1682. Vogler, The Writer’s Journey, Mythic Structure for Storytellers & Screenwriters, Michael Wiese, Studio City,
California, 1992
1683. Hogan, The Mind and its Stories, narrative universals and human emotion, Cambridge, 2003
1684. The Artful Universe by John D. Barrow, Penquin Books, 1995@
1685. Friedman and Carterette, Cognitive Ecology, Academic, 1996@
1686. Bortolussi and Dixon, Psychonarrotology, Cambridge, 2003
1687. Matravers, Art and Emotion, [an arousal theory], Oxford, 1998
1688. On Metaphor, edited by Sheldon Sacks Univ. of Chicago Press, 1979
1689. What’s So Funny by Murray Davis, Chicago, 1993
The Technologies of Beauty and Art--Digital Arts
1702. Anders, Envisioning Cyberspace, Designing 3D Electronic Spaces McGraw Hill, 1998
1703. Robbin, Fourfield: Computers, Art and the 4th Dimension, Bulfinch, 1992
The Social and Cultural Dynamics Basis of Art: Fashions & Fashioning
1710. Fashion, Culture, and Identity by Fred Davies, Univ of Chicago Press, 1992
1711. Frings, Fashion from Concept to Consumer, 7th edition, Prentice Hall, 2002
1712. Barthes, Roland transd by Ward and Howard; The Fashion System; Hill&Wang, 1983
1713. Sperber, Fashions in Science: opinion leaders&collective behavior in the social sciences; Minnesota, 1990
1715. Gadamer, The Relevance of the Beautiful, Cambridge, 1986
1716. Luhmann, Art as a Social System, Stanford, 2000
1717. Green, Martin; Mountain of Truth, the Counterculture Begins, Ascona, 1900-1920; Univ. Press of New
England, London, 1986
1720. Farrell, Collaboration Circles: Friendship Dynamics and Creative Work, U Chic, 2001
1721. Roach-Higgins et al, eds, Dress and Identity, FAirchild, 1995$$$
1722. Hollander, Seeing through Clothes, Cambridge, 1978$$$
1723. Kaiser, The Social Psychology of Clothing, Fairchild, NYC, 1997 2nd edn.$$$
1724. Arnold, Fashion, Desire, and Anxiety, Tauris, 2001$$$
Japanese aesthetics
1727. Marra, Modern Japanese Aesthetics, a reader, Hawaii, 1999
1728. Wakabayashi ed, Modern Japanese Thought, Cambridge, 1998
1729. Hume, ed, Japanese Aesthetics and Culture, SUNY, 1995
1730. Odin, Artistic Detachment in Japan and the West, Hawaii, 2001
The Stories and Lives of Artists and Creators
1731. Brande, Becoming a Writer, Tarcher Putnam, 1934
Weise, 1999
1733. Webb, Tunesmith, inside the art of songwriting, Hyperion, 1998
1734. Baudelaire ed Mayne, The Painter of Modern Life and Other Essays, Da Capo, 1964
1735. Alifano trans by Arauz et al, 24 Conversations with Borges, Grove, 1984
Narration Theory
1737. Mitchell, ed, On Narrative, Chicago, 1981
1738. Davis ed, Lacan and Narration, John Hopkins, 1983
1739. Spence, Narrative Truth and Historical Truth, Meaning in Psychoanalysis, Norton, 1982
1740. Rimmon-Kenan, Narrative Fiction, Methuen, 1983
1741. Cohn, Transparent Minds, Narrative Modes for Presenting Consciousness, Princeton, 78
1742. Polkinghome, Narrative Knowing and the Human Sciences, SUNY88
1743. Smitten&Daghistany, Spatial Form in Narrative, Cornel81
Narrative Techniques & Narration as Technique
1744. Macauley and Lanning, Technique in Fiction, 2nd edition, St. Martin, 1987
1745. Vorderer, edr, Suspense: Conceptualizations and Theoretical Analyses
1746. Polkinghorne, Methodology for the Human Sciences, SUNY83
1747. Buswell, The Zen Monastic Experience, Princeton, 92
1748. Ricoeur, Oneself as Another, trans by Blamey, Chicago, 92
Criticism as Merely Demystification Types
1749. Leitch, Deconstructive Criticism, an advanced intro, Columbia, 83
1750. Edeline,Klinkenberg, Trinon, A General Rhetoric, transl by Burrell&Slorkin, Hopkins, 70
1751. Mueller-Vollmer, edr, The Hermeneutics Reader, Continuum, 85
1752. Culler, On Deconstruction, Cornell, 82
1753. Reiss, The Discourse of Modernism, Cornell, 82
1754. Lodge, The Modes of Modern Writing, Arnold, 1979
1755. Lodge, Working with Structuralism, Routledge, 1981
1757. Blonsky, edr, On Signs, John Hopkins U, 1985
1758. Shapiro and Sica, eds, Hermeneutics, questions and prospects, U of Mass, 84
1759. Lentricchia, After the New Criticism, Chicago, 1980
1760. Greimas, On Meaning, selected writings in semiotic theory, Minnesota, 1987
1761. Iser, The Fictive and the Imaginary, charting literary anthropology, John Hopkins93
How to Write Fiction
1762. Macauley and Lanning, Technique in Fiction, 2nd edition or later, St. Martin, 1987
1763. Brande, Becoming a Writer, Putnam, 1934@
1764. Potter, Writing for Publication, Harper and Row, 1990
1765. Williams, Style, Toward Clarity and Grace, Chicago, 1990
1766. Dimaggio, How to Write for Television, Prentice Hall, 1990
1767. Ueland, If You Want to Write, Graywolf, 1987
California, 1992
1769. Bernays and painter, What If? Writing Exercises for Fiction Writers,Harper 1990
1770. Horton, Writing the Character-Centered Screenplay, California, 1994
1771. Brown, edr, The True Subject, Writers on Life and Craft, Graywolf, 1993
1772. Newlove, First Paragraphs, Inspired Openings for Writers and Readers, Holt, 1992
1773. Bortolussi and Dixon, Psychonarratology, foundations for the empirical study of literary response, Cam-
bridge, 2003@
1774. Winters, Yvor, Forms of Discovery, short English Poems, Swallow 1967
1775. Cawelti&Rosenberg, The Spy Story, Chicago, 87
Design: Science of Imagination
Kinds of Design
1776. PRODUCT Birkhauser, Design: history, theory, and practice of product development, Birkhauser, 2005
1777. INFO Information Design edited by Jacobson, MIT Press, 1999
1778. INVENTIONS Petroski, Invention by Design, Harvard, 1997
1779. GRAPHIC Big Ideas: A Portfolio of Answers to Graphic Design Problems with Designers’ Comments on the
Creative Process
1780. CITY Alexander, Ishikawa, Silverstein, Jacobson, Fiksdahl-King, Angel, A Pattern Language, towns, build-
ings, construction, Oxford, 1977
1781. CITY Jacobs, Death and Life of Great American Cities, Vintage, 1961,
1782. FIRM Boland and Collopy, eds, managing as designing, Stanford business press, 2004
1783. ART Wilson, information arts, intersections of art, science, and technology, MIT, 2002
1784. GRAPHIC Bennett, edr, design studies, theory and research in graphic design, Princeton architectural press,
2006
1785. INTERFACE Norman,The Psychology of Everyday Things, Basic, 1988
1786. SOFTWARE Bringing Design to Software by Terry Winograd, editor; Addison Wesley, 1996@
1787. FASHION Barthes, The Fashion System, Hill and Wang, 1983
1788. WORKPLACE Becker&Steele,Workplace by Design,Mapping theHigh Performance Workscape,JosseyB,95
1789. OFFICES Duffy, Francis; The New Office; Conran Octopus, London, 1997
1790. WRITING Williams, Style, Toward Clarity and Grace, Chicago, 1990
1791. NEW MEDIA Wardrip-Fruin and Harrington, eds, first person: new media as story, performance, game, MIT,
2004
1792. CONVERSATIONS Tannen, Deborah; You Just Don’t Understand; Morrow, NYC, 1990
1793. CONVERSATIONS Kegan&Lahey,How theWay We Talk Can Change the Way We Work,Jossey-Bass 2001@
1794. GAMES Koster, a theory of fun, for game design, paraglyph, 2005
Research on Designing
1795. Bennett Design Studies, theory and research in graphic design
Design Theory
1798. Buchanan and Margolin, eds, Discovering Design, explorations in design studies, Chicago, 1995
1799. Margolin, the Politics of the Artificial, essays on design and design studies, Chicago, 2002
1800. Excellence by Design by Horgen, Joroff, Porter, and Schon, Wiley, 1999@
1801. Postrel, The Substance of Style: How the Rise of Aesthetic Value is Remaking Commerce
1802. Bennett, edr, design studies, theory and research in graphic design, Princeton architectural press, 2006
1803. Laurel, design research, methods and perspectives, MIT, 2003
1805. Frame Reflection, Schon and Rein, Basic Books, 1994
1806. Rosnay,The Symbiotic Man(Complex Biologic Wholes of the 21st Cent)McGraw Hill, 2000
1809. Jacobs, Death and Life of Great American Cities, Vintage, 1961,
1810. Baldwin & Clark, Design Rules, vol. 1, The Power of Modularity@
Technology and Design
1811. Bringing Design to Software by Terry Winograd, editor; Addison Wesley, 1996@
1812. Frame Reflection, Schon and Rein, Basic Books, 1994
1813. Information Design edited by Jacobson, MIT Press, 1999
1814. Wilson, information arts, intersections of art, science, and technology, MIT, 2002
1815. Becker&Steele,Workplace by Design,Mapping theHigh Performance Workscape,JosseyB,95
1816. Petroski, Invention by Design, Harvard, 1997
1817. Rosnay,The Symbiotic Man(Complex Biologic Wholes of the 21st Cent)McGraw Hill, 2000
1820. Boy, Cognitive Function Analysis, Academic, 1998@
1821. Demozotz, Design Management: Using Design to Build Brand Value
1824. Alexander, Ishikawa, Silverstein, Jacobson, Fiksdahl-King, Angel, A Pattern Language, towns, buildings,
construction, Oxford, 1977
1825. Gratz and Mintz, Cities, back from the edge, new life for downtown, Wiley, 1998
1826. Boland and Collopy, eds, managing as designing, Stanford business press, 2004
1827. Horgen and Joroff and Porter and Schon; Excellence by Design; Wiley, NYC; 1999
Fashion
1828. Gehlhar, the fashion designer survival guide, an insider’s look at starting and running your own fashion busi-
ness, Kaplan, 2005
1829. Shaeffer, high fashion sewing secrets from the world’s best designers, Rodale, 1997
1830. McKelvey and Munslow, fashion design, process, innovation, and practice, blackwell, 2003
1831. Barthes, The Fashion System, Hill and Wang, 1983
1832. Fashion, Culture, and Identity by Fred Davies, Univ of Chicago Press, 1992
1833. Frings, Fashion from Concept to Consumer, 7th edition, Prentice Hall, 2002
1834. Roach-Higgins et al, eds, Dress and Identity, FAirchild, 1995$$$
1835. Hollander, Seeing through Clothes, Cambridge, 1978$$$
1836. Kaiser, The Social Psychology of Clothing, Fairchild, NYC, 1997 2nd edn.$$$
1837. Arnold, Fashion, Desire, and Anxiety, Tauris, 2001$$$
Particular Design Traditions and Their Methods
1840. Gratz, the living city, how america’s cities are being revitalized by thinking small in a big way, Wiley, 1994
1845. Fainstein and Campbell, Readings in Urban Theory, Blackwell, 1996

1848. Watson, Ideas: a history of thought and invention, from fire to freud, Harper Collins, 2005
Japanese aesthetics
1852. Odin, Artistic Detachment in Japan and the West, Hawaii, 2001@
Managing Creativity, Designers, and Creators
ness, Kaplan, 2005
1861. de Mozota, Design Management, using design to build brand value and corporate innovation, Allworth, 2003
1862. Matheson, The Smart Organization: Creating Value Through Strategic R&D, Harvard B School, 1998
1863. Wallace, Doris and Gruber, Howard; Creative People at Work; Oxford; 1989
1864. John-Steiner, Vera; Creative Collaboration; Oxford University Press; NYC: 2000@
change, HBS, 2004
Comedy: Change by Comedy Events that Show Realities
Composing and Performing Comedy--Basics
1867. Provine, Laughter, A Scientific Investigation, Penquin, 2001@
1868. What’s So Funny, by Murray Davis, Chicago, 1993
1869. Helitzer, Comedy Writing Secrets, Writer’s Digerst, Cincinnatti, 1987
1870. Vorhaus, The Comic Toolbox, Silman-James, LA, 1994
1871. Dean, Step by Step to Stand Up Comedy, Heinemann, Portsmouth NH, 2000
1872. Shales&Miller, Live from New York, History of Saturday Night Live, Little Brown, 2002@
1873. Carter, The Comedy Bible, Fireside, 2001
Comedy as Fiction, Fiction as Comedy
1874. MacCauley and Lanning eds., Technique in Fiction, St. Martin’s Press, 1987@
1876. Seymour Fisher, Pretend the World is Funny and Forever, LEA, 1981@
1877. Wilson, Jokes: Form, Content, Use and Fuinction, AP, 1979
Realities that are the Inputs of Comedy
1878. Clark, Paradoxes from a to z, Routledge, 2002
1879. Buckley, The Morality of Laughter
1880. Sanders, Sudden Glory: Laughter as Subversive History, Beacon, 1995#
1881. Berger, Redeeming Laughter: The Comic Dimension of Human Experience, De _Gruyter97#
1882. Cohen, Jokes: Philosophical Thoughts on Joking Matters, U Chic, 1999#
1883. Shklar, Ordinary Vices, Harvard, 1984#
1884. Ulysses Unbound, Cambridge, 2000#
Theories of Comedy
1885. Annas, The Morality of Happiness, Oxford, 1993#
1886. Chapman&Foot eds, Humor&Laughter: Theory, Research, &Applications, Transaction96#
1887. Hudson, Happiness&the Limits of Satisfaction, Rowman&Littlefield, 1996#
1888. Lewis, Comic Effects: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Humor in Literature, SUNY89#
1889. McGre&Goldstein eds, Handbook of Humor Research, Springer 83#
1890. Moreall, Comedy, Tragedy, &Religion, SUNY 1999#
1891. Parkin, Humour Theorists of the Twentieth Century, Edwin Mellen, 1997#
1892. Morreall, taking laughter seriously, SUNY, 1983
1893. Gruner, the game of humor, a comprehensive theory of why we laugh, transaction, 2000
1894. Chapman and Foot, eds, humor and laughter, theory, research, and applications, transaction, 2004
Uses and Powers of Comedy
1895. Steiner, Grammars of Creation, Yale, 2001#
1896. Wickberg, The Senses of Humor: Self&Laughter in Modern America, Cornell98#
1897. Zwart, Ethical Consensus&the Truth of Laughter: The Structure of Moral Transformation, Kok Pharos,
Kampen, the Netherlands, 1996#
Structural Cognition: A New Publishing Industry
Comprehending Streams of Inputs
1898. Kintsch, Comprehension, A Paradigm for Cognition, Cambridge, 1998@

1899. Van Dijk, Macrostructures, an interdisciplinary study of global structures in discourse, interaction, and cog-
nition, LEA, 1980
1900. Hobbs, Literature&Cognition,LectureNotesCenterforStudyofLanguage&Info,Stanford, 1990
1901. Myers, Brown, McGonigle, eds; Reasoning &Discourse Processes, Academic, 1986
1902. Titscher, Meyer, Wodak, Vetter, Methods of Text&Discourse Analysis, SAGE, 2000
1903. Schiffrin, Approaches to Discourse, Blackwell, 1994
1904. Gelman&Byrnes, eds, Perspectives on Language&Thought, Cambridge, 1993
1905. Kidd, edr, Knowledge Acquisition for Expert Systems, Plenum, 1987
1908. Gilhooly and Hoffman, eds, Thinking and reasoning, Special Issue on Expert thinking, Psych Press97$$$
1909. Vanderveken, Meaning and Speech Acts, Cambridge 91%%%
1910. Kehler, Coherence, Reference, and the theory of Grammar, CLSI Stanford, 2002
1911. Fodor, Concepts, where cognitive science went wrong, Oxford, 1998
1912. Jackendoff, Semantic structures, MIT, 1990
1913. Lepore and Pylyshyn eds, What is cognitive science, blackwell, 1999
1914. Prinz, furnishing the mind, concepts and their perceptual basis, MIT, 2002
1915. Keil, Semantic and Conceptual Development, an ontological perspective, Harvard, 1979
1916. Fodor and Lepore, the compositionality papers, Oxford, 2002
1917. Rogers and McClelland, semantic cognition, a parallel distributed processing approach, MIT, 2004
cambridge, 1987
1920. Wolf and Gibson, coherence in natural language, data structures and applications, MIT, 2006
1921. Hinzen, mind design and minimal syntax, oxford, 2006
Semantics, Meaning, Language, Mind Structures
1922. Carruthers The Architecture of the Mind
1923. Jackendoff Language, Consciousness, Culture
1924. Jackendoff, Language, Consciousness, Culture, essays on mental structure, MIT 2007
1925. Goldberg Constructions at Work, the nature of generalization in language
1926. Culicover and Jackendoff Simpler Syntax
Discourse: Natural and Research Analysis
1927. Hoey, On the Surface of Discourse, George Allen and Unwin, 1983
1928. Chafe ed, The Pear Stories, Vol 3, Advances in Discourse Processes, Academic80
1929. Lehnert&Ringle, eds, Strategies for Natural Language Processing, LEA, 82
1930. Schiffrin, Approaches to Discourse, Blackwell, 1994
1931. Kayser, Mining Group Gold, Serif Publishing, 1990
Text: Natural and Research Analysis
1932. Spiro, Bruce, Brewer eds, Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension, LEA80
1933. Mandl et al, Learning and Comprehension of Text, LEA, 1984
1934. Denhiere and Rossi, Text and Text Processing, North Holland, 1991
1935. Titscher, Meyer, Wodak, Vetter, Methods of Text&Discourse Analysis, SAGE, 2000
Naming
1936. Seller&Wannenmacher, Concept Developoment&the Development of Word Meaning, Springer, 83
1937. Carroll, What’s In a Name, an essay in the psych of reference, Freeman 85
1938. Adams, An Introduction to Modern English Word Formation, Longman, 1973
1939. Lappin, Blackwell Handbk of Contemporary Semantic Theory, 1996
Neural Associative and Linguistic Syntactic Structuring
1940. Hudson, Word Grammar, Blackwell, 84
1941. Stich&Warfield, Mental Representation, a Reader, Blackwell94
1942. Jackendoff, Languages of the Mind, MIT92
1943. Jackendoff, Pattern in the Mind, Basic Books, 94
Fractal Categorizing
1949. Mandelbrot, The Fractal Geometry of Nature, Freeman, 1977
1950. Harnad, edr, Categorical Perception, Cambridge, 97
1951. Small, Cottrell, Tanenhaus, Lexical Ambiguity Resolution, Morgan Kaufmann88
1952. Cognitiva 90, at the crossroads of artificial intelligence, cognitive science, and neuroscience, North-
Holland91
1953. Structuralism in Sociology, Katz, SUNY, 1976%%%
Structural Learning
1954. Hanson, Drastal, Rivest eds, Computational Learning Theory and Natural Learning Systems, MIT94
1955. Gazda, Corsini et al, Theories of Learning, a comparative approach, Peacock, 80
1956. Rijsbergen, the geometry of information retrieval, cambridge, 2004
1957. Svenonius, the intellectual foundation of information organization, MIT, 2001
1958. Bowker and Star, sorting things out, classification and its consequences, MIT, 1999
Structural Communication
1959. Vaina and Hintikka, eds, Cognitive Constraints on Communication, Reidel, 85
1960. Callahan, Caplan, Jennings, Applying the Humanities, Plenum 85
1961. St. Teresa of Avila, Interior Castle, Image, 1961%%%
Orthogonal Disciplines: Locally printed books By Richard Tabor Greene:
1962. 1. Are You Effective?--Towards Procedural Literacy, 96 Methods Everyone Should Know@
1963. 2. Are You Educated? 48 Dimensions of Being Educated in Japan and the US in the 21st Century, by Richard
Tabor Greene, 800 pages@
1964. 3. Managing Complex Adaptive Systems by Richard Tabor Greene, 900 pages@
1965. 4. Theory Power: 200 Theories that Enable You to See Parts of the World Others Omit by Richard Tabor
Greene, 200 pages@
1966. 5. Are You Creative? 128 Ways to Increase Your Creativity by Managing Populations of Ideas by Richard
Tabor Greene, 300 pages@
1967. 6. Are You Creative? 60 Models of Creativity and the 960 Ways to Improve Your Creativity That They Sug-
gest, by Richard T. Greene, 600 pages@
1968. A Science of Excellence: 54 Orthogonal Disciplines by Richard Tabor Greene
1969. Taking Place: Creative City Theory and Practice--288 City-fications by Richard Tabor Greene
1970. Knowledge Epitome: 128 Higher Education Innovations in One Package by Richard Tabor Greene
1971. Super Selling--13 Principles, 26 Methods, 33 Cases by Richard Tabor Greene
Career (Personal History) Environments and Ecosystem Dynamics (new theory--career knowledge vs. domain
vs. creativity knowledge)
Career Research Approaches and Results
1972. The Boundaryless Career by Arthur and Rousseau, Oxford Univ., 1996@
1973. Young and Collin; Interpreting Career; Praeger, London, 1992
1974. Young&Burgen; Methodological Approaches to the Study of Career; Praeger; 1990
1975. Kotkin, Tribes, how race religion and identity determine success, Random, 1993
1977. Bardwick, The Plateauing Trap and how to avoid it in your career, Amacom, 86
1978. Super & Sverko: Life roles, values, & careers;
1979. Feldman: work careers, a developmental perspective;
Theories of Work
1980. Warr, Editor; Psychology at Work, 5th Edition, Penquin, 2002
1981. The Concept of Work, Ancient, Medieval,&Modernby Applebaum,SUNY 1992
1984. Arendt, The Life of the Mind, HBJ, 1971
1985. Olson, Malone, et al eds, Coordination Theory and Collaboration Technology, LEA01@
1986. Malone, Laubacher, Morton, eds, Inventing the Organizations of the 21st Century, MIT2005$$$
1987. Sawyer, group creativity: music, theatre, collaboration, LEA, 2003
1989. Schrage, Michael; Serious Play; Harvard Business School; 2000
Theories of the Tacitness of Career Knowledge and Moves
1991. Sternberg, Forsythe, et al, Practical Intelligence in Everyday Life, Cambridge, 2000
1992. Sternberg and Horvath, eds; Tacit Knowledge in Professional Practice, LEA, 1999@
1993. Egan, Gerard; Working the Shadow Side; Jossey Bass, San Francisco, 1994
New Constraints on Career-ing
1996. Zelinsky, Marilyn; New Workplaces for New Workstyles; McGraw Hill,NYC, 1998
1997. Poundstone, How Would You Move Mount Fuji, Little Brown, 2003
2000. Kegan&Lahey,How theWay We Talk Can Change the Way We Work,Jossey-Bass 2001@
2003. Adams-Price, Carolyn; Creativity and Successful Aging; Springer, NYC, 1998
2004. Kirkwood, time of our lives, the science of human aging, oxford, 1999
General Comprehensive Career Theories
2005
2006. Citrin & Smith, The Five Patterns of Extraordinary Careers
2008. Eikleberry, Carol; The Career Guide for Creative and Unconventional People, Ten Speed Press; Berkeley,
1999
4. Tools Dimension
Research Methods (you conduct two different research methods on one sample target)
Beginner Basics of Social Research
2011. Hart, Doing a Literature Review, Sage, 1998@
2012. Weiss, Learning from Strangers, the Art&Method of Qualitative Interview Studies, Free Press,1994
2013. De Vaus, Surveys in Social Research, Routledge, 2002, fifth edition@
2014. King, et al, Designing Social Inquiry, Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research, Princeton, 1994@
2015. Lieberson, Making It Count, the improvement of Social Research, California, 1985
2016. Sparrow, Knowledge in Organizations, Access to Thinking at Work, Sage, 1998
2017. Davis, edr, Handbook of Research Methods in Experimental Psychology, Blackwell03
Researching In Businesses and Agencies
2018. Remenyi, Williams, Moneyh, and Swartz, Doing Research in Business and Management, An introduction to
process and method, Sage, 1998
2019. Metcalfe, Business Research Through Argument, KluwerAP, 1996
2020. Webb, Understanding and Designing Marketing Research, Academic Press, 1993
2021. Fowler, Survey Research Methods, Sage, 1984
Research Process Basics
2023. Robinson, Shavfer, Wrightsman Measure of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes
2024. Groves, Fowler, Couper, Lepkowski, Singer, Tourangeau Survey Methodology
2025. Bradburn, Sudman, Wansink Asking Questions, the definitive guide to questionnaire deisgn
2026. DeVellis Scale Deveelopment, theory and applications
2027. Fields Taking the Measure of Work, a guide to validated scales for organization research and diagnosis
2028. Robinson, Shaver, Wrightsman Measures of Political Attidues
2029. Iarossi The Power of Survey Design
Qualitative Research Basics
2030. Van Maanen, Qualitative Methodology, Sage, 1979
2031. Qualitative Data Analysis by Miles and Huberman, Sage, 1994 (or later edition)
Particular Research Approaches
2032. Brewer and Hunter, Multimethod Research a synthesis of styles, Sage, 1989
2033. Ragin, The Comparative Method, beyond qualitative&quantitative strategies, Cal, 1987@
2034. Hage and Harary, Structural Models in Anthropology, Cambridge, 1983
2035. An Introduction to Theory in Anthropology by Robert Layton, Cambridge, 1997
2036. Wolfram, A New Kind of Science, Wolfram, 2002
2037. Cairns et al, Methods and Models for Studying the Individual, SAGE1998$$$
General Surveys and Guidelines for Doing Social Research
2038. Manly, The design and analysis of research studies, Cambridge, 1992@
2039. Creswell, Research Design, 2nd edition, SAGE, 2003
2040. Real World Research by Robson, Blackwell, 1993
2041. Kerlinger&Lee, Foundations of Behavioral Research, 4th edn, Wadsworth, 2000@
2042. Przeworski&Teune, The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry, Krieger, Malabar,Florida70
2043. Lawler&Associates, Doing Research that is Useful for Theory and Practice, Jossey-Bass, 1985
Statistics plus Data Mining (you analyze 2 different databases or 1 database 2 different ways)
The Basics of Correspondence Analysis
2044. Clausen, Applied Correspondence Analysis: An Introduction, Sage, 1998
2045. Greenacre, Correspondence Analysis in Practice, Academic Press, 1993@
2046. Greenacre, Theory&Applications of Correspondence Analysis, Academic Press, 1993
2047. Weller&Romney, Metric Scaling Correspondence Analysis, SAGE 1990
The Practicalities of Using SPSS & R to Do Statistical Data Analysis
2048. Field, Discovering Statistics Using SPSS for Windows, SAGE 2000
2049. Babbie, Halley, Zaino,Adventures in Social Research, Using SPSS, 5th edn, SAGE 2003
2050. Brace et al, SPSS for Psychologists, 2nd edition, Palgrave, 2000@
2051. Hinton, Brownlow, McMurray, Cozens, SPSS Explained, Routledge, 2004
2052. Maindonald and Braun, data analysis and graphics using R, an example based approach, cambridge, 2003
2053. Dalgaard, Introductory statistics with R, springer, 2002
General Statistical Analysis Approaches

2054. Saville &Wood, Statistical Methods: The Geometric Approach, Springer-Verlag, 1991
2055. Stigler, Statistics on the Table, history of statistical concepts, Harvard, 1999@
2056. Chatterjee and Price, Regression Analysis by Example, Wiley, 199@
2057. Introduction to the Theory and Application of Data Envelopment Analysis: A Foundation Text with Inte-
grated Software
2058. Davis, edr, The Handbook of Research Methods in Experimental Psychology, Blackwell, 2003
2059. Bland, An Introduction to Medicaal Statistics, 3rd edition, Oxford, 2000
2060. Chambers and Hastie, eds, Statistical Models in S Plus, Chapman and Hall, 1994
2062. King, A solution to the ecological inference problem, reconstructing individual behavior from aggregate
data, princeton, 1997
2063. Motulsky, Intuitive Biostastics, Oxford, 1993%%%
Statistical Inference
2064. Davison, Statistical Models, Cambridge, 2003
2065. Wasserman, All of Statistics, A concise course in statistical inference, Springer, 2004
2066. Sivia, Data Analysis, a bayesian tutorial second edition, Oxford, 2006
2067. Cox, Principles of Statistical Inference, Cambridge, 2006
2068. Jaynes, Probability theory, the logic of science, cambridge, 2003
Survey Sampling, Item Design, and Data Analysis
2069. Kalton, Introduction to Survey Sampling, SAGE, 1983
2070. Converse and Presser, Survey Questions, Handcrafting Standardized Questionnaires, SAGE, 1986
2071. Spector, Summated Rating Scale Construction, SAGE, 1992
2072. Osterlind, Test Item Bias, SAGE 1983
2073. Lee, Forthofer, Lorimor, Analyzing Complex Survey Data, SAGE, 1989
2074. Jacoby, Data Theory and Dimensional Analysis, SAGE, 1991
2075. McKeown and Thomas, Q Methodology, SAGE, 1988
2076. Henry, Practical Sampling, SAGE, 1990@
2077. DeVellis, Scale Development, SAGE, 1991@
2078. Lessler&Kalsbeek, Nonsampling Error in Surveys, Wiley, 1992
2079. Harkness, van de Vijver et al, Cross-Cultural Survey Methods, Wiley, 03%%
2080. van de Vijver and Leung, Methods and Data Analysis for Cross-Cultural Research, SAGE 1997%%%
Research Design Basics
2081. Spector, Research Designs, SAGE, 1981
2082. Carmines, Zeller, Reliability and Validity Assessment, SAGE, 1979
2083. Mohr, Understanding Significance Testing, SAGE, 1990
2084. Mahajan and Peterson, Models for Innovation Diffusion, SAGE, 1985
Causal Modeling, An Introduction
2085. Asher, Causal Modeling ,SAGE, 1983
2086. Davis, The Logic of Causal Order, SAGE, 1985
2087. Berry and Feldman, Multiple Regression in Practice, SAGE, 1985
2088. Berry, Non-Recursive Causal Models, SAGE 1984
2089. Iversen, Bayesian Statistical Inference, SAGE, 1984
A Beginner’s Course in Scaling
(above books under Correspondence Analysis plus the below)
2090. Hinderbrand, Laing et al, Analysis of Ordinal Data, SAGE 1977
2091. Reynolds, Analysis of Nominal Data, SAGE 1984
2092. McIver and Carmines, Unidimensional Scaling, SAGE, 1981
2093. Lodge, Magnitude Scaling, SAGE 1981
2094. Kruskal and Wish, Multidimensional Scaling, SAGE 1991
Time Series
2095. Roberts, Data Analysis for Quality Analysis, U of Chicago Coursepack, 1991
2096. Cssdagli&Eubank, eds, Nonlinear Modeling and Forecasting, Addison Wesley, 1992
2097. Ostrom, Time Series Analysis, Regression Techniques, SAGE 1978
2098. McDowall, McCleary et al, Interrupted Time Series Analysis, SAGE 1980
2099. Sayrs, Pooled Time Series Analysis, SAGE 1989
2100. Allison, Event History Analysis, SAGE 1984
2101. Smith, Neural Networks for Statistical Modeling Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1993@
2102. Weigend&Gershenfeld, eds, Time Series Prediction, Addison-Wesley Santa Fe series, 94@
Applied Statistics
2103. Everitt, Cluster Analysis, 3rd Edition, Edward Arnold, 1993
2104. Mohr, Impact Analysis for Program Evaluation, SAGE, 1992
2105. Rovine and Eye, Applied Computational Statistics in Longitudinal Research, Academic 91
2106. Motulsky, Intuitive Biostastics, Oxford, 1993%%%
2107. Harkness, van de Vijver et al, Cross-Cultural Survey Methods, Wiley, 03%%
2108. van de Vijver and Leung, Methods & Data Analysis for Cross-Cultural Research, SAGE, 1997%%%

A First Course in Data Mining
2111. Hastie, et al, The Elements of Statistical Learning, Springer, 2001
2112. Hand et al, Principles of Data Mining
2113. Nitten, Frank,Data Mining: Practical Machine Learning Tools&Techniques w Java, Morgan Kaufmann, 99#
2114. Klosgen and Zytkow, eds, Handbook of Data Mining and Knowledge Discover, Oxford, 2002%%%
A Beginner’s Intro to Statistics Using Structural Equation Modeling
2115. Raykov, Marcoulides, A First Course in Structural Equation Modeling
2116. Kline, Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling
2117. Maruyama, Basics of Structural Equation Modeling, Sage, 1998
2118. Schumacker&Lomax, Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling, LEA 1996@
2119. Hoyle, ed, Structural Equation Modeling, Issues&Applicatns, SAGE 1995
2120. Grimm&Yarnold, eds, Readg&Understandg More Multivariate Statistics, Amn Psych Assn, 2000@
2121. Grimm&Yarnold, eds, Readg&Understandg Multivariate Statistics, Amn Psych Assn, 1998@
Social Simulation (you build two simulations of social phenomena, agent models)
2122. Ilgen&Hulin eds, Computational Modeling of Behavior in Organizatns, Americn Psych Assn. 2000
2123. Prietula, Carley, Gasser, editors; Simulating Organizations, Computational models of institutions and
groups, MIT, 1998
2124. Gilbert and Troitzsch, Simulation for the Social Scientist, Open Univ. Press, 1990@
2125. Carley and Prietula, Computational Organization Theory, LEA, 1994
2126. Lomi and Larsen, Dynamics of Organizations, comutational modelling and organization theories, MIT, 2001
2127. Gilbert&Conte, eds; Artificial Societies, computer simulation of social life, UCL, 1995
2128. Hannon and Ruth, Dynamic Modeling, Springer, 1994
2129. Foddy, Smithson, Schneider, Hagg, eds, Resolving Social Dilemmas, dynamic, structural and Intergroups
Aspects, Psychology Press, 1999
2130. Gaylord and D’Andria, Simulating Society, a mathematica toolkit for modeling socioeconomic behavior,
Springer, 1998@
2131. Epstein&Axtell, Growing Artificial Societies, social science from the bottom up, MIT, 1996@
2132. Durlauf and Young, Social Dynamics, MIT, 2001
2133. Axelrod, The Complexity of Cooperation, Princeton, 1997
2134. Weiss, edr, Multiagent Systems, a modern approach to distributed artificial intelligence, MIT, 1999
2135. Lomi&Larsen, Dynamics of Organizations:Computational Modeling&Organizatn Theories, MIT01
2136. Casti, Complexification, Explaining a Paradoxical World Through the Science of Surprise, Harper Collins,
1994
2137. Casti, Would-BeWorlds, How Simulation is Changing the Frontiers of Science, Wiley, 1997@
2138. Huggett, Modelling the Human Impact on Nature, Oxford, 1993
2139. Carley and Prietula, Computational Organization Theory, LEA1994
2140. Gottmann, et al, The mathematics of Marriage, Dynamic Nonlinear Models, MIT 2002$$$@
2141. Foddy, et al eds, Resolving Social Dilemmas, Taylor and Francis1999$$$@
Computer Programming (you build two ordinary programs)
2142. Abelson and Sussman, Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs, MIT, 1996@ (best but hard, if
serious about programming, tackle just this book, if not, do the others marked @ below; if you want
immediate money do Swarm language programming)
Basic Artificial Intelligence Programming
2143. Watson, Programming in Scheme, Learn Scheme Through Artificial Intelligence Programs, Springer, 1996@
2144. Russell & Norvig, Artificial Intelligence, a Modern Approach, Prentice-Hall, 2003@
2145. Harvey, Computer Science Logo Style, Vol 1, 2, 3, 2nd or later edition, MIT, 1997@
2146. Forbus&DeKleer, Building Problem Solvers, MIT93
2147. Weld, Theories of Comparative Analysis, MIT90
2148. Davis, Representations of Commonsense Knowledge, Morgan Kaufmann90
2149. Kuipers, Qualitative Reasoning, modeling and simulation with incomplete knowledge, MIT94
2150. Steels and McDermott, eds., The Knowledge Level in Expert Systems, Academic, 92$$$
2151. Gaines & Boose, eds. Knowledge Acquisition for Knowledge Based Systems, Aca88%%%
2152. Groner et al, eds, Methods of Heuristics, LEA, 1983%%%
gan Kaufman, 1991
2154. Kirsh, edr, Foundations of Artificial Intelligence, MIT/Elsevier, 1991
Embodied Systems: Learning Populations of Robots
2155. Brooks, flesh and machines, how robots will change us, pantheon, 2002
Software Engineering
2156. Pressman, Software Engineering, McGraw Hill, 4th edn, 1999
2157. McCarthy, Dynamics of Software Development, Microsoft Press, 1995@
2158. Hoch, Roeding, et al, Secrets of Software Success, Harvard Business School, 2000
2159. Marchesi et al, Extreme Programming Perspectives, Addison Wesley, 2003@
2160. Gelernter, Mirror Worlds or the Day Software Puts the Universe in a Shoebox, Oxford91
2161. McConnell, Code Complete, 2nd Edition, Microsoft Press, 2004
2162. Jackson, software abstractions, logic, language, and analysis, MIT, 2006
Object Oriented Programming
2163. Riel, Object-Oriented Heuristics, Addison-Wesley, 1996
Cellular Automata Programming
2164. Wolfram, A New Kind of Science, Wolfram, 2002
2165. Griffeath and Moore, eds, New Constructions in Cellular Automata, Oxford, 2003
Machine Learning Regimes
2166. Ballard, An Introduction to Natural Computation, MIT 1997@
2168. Weiss, Kulikowski, Computer Systems that Learn, Morgan Kaufmann1991
gan Kaufman, 1991
SWARM Computing
2170. Luna, Stefansson, editors; Economic Simulations in SWARM, KluwarAP, 2000
2171. Kennedy and Eberjart. Swarm Intelligence, Morgan Kaufman, 2001
2172. Bonabeau, Dorigo, Theraulaz, Swarm Intelligence, Oxford, 1999
2173. Swarm Intelligence by Bonabeau et al, Oxford Univ., 1999
Agent Computing
2174. Ferber, Multi-Agent Systems, an intro to distributed AI, Addison-Wesley 1999
2175. Bradshaw edr, Software Agents, MIT, 1997
2176. Castelfranchi&Werner eds, Artificial Social Systems, 4th European Workshop on Modelling Autonomous
Agents, Springer, 94
2177. Conte&Castelfranchi, Cognitive and Social Action, UCL, 1993
Philosophy of Computation
2179. Copeland, The Essential Turing, the ideas that gave birth to the computer age, Oxford, 2004
2180. Floridi, edr, philosophy of computing and information, blackwell, 2004
2181. Dewdney, the new turing omnibus,66 excursions in computer science, owl, 1989
2182. Hodges, Alan Turing: the enigma, Walker, 2000
Quantum Computation
2183. Lloyd, Programming the Universe, Knopf, 2006
2184. Seife, Deconding the Universe, Viking, 2006
2185. Aczel, entanglement, the unlikely story of how scientists, mathematicians and philosophers proved ein-
stein’s spookiest theory, Plume, 2001
2186. Laughlin, a different univers,e reinventing physics from the bottom down, Basic, 2006
2187. Bruce, schrodinger’s rabbits, the many worlds of quantum, joseph henry press, 2004
Natural Computation Modes:
Evolutionary and Genetic Algorithms
2188. Bentley, Evolutionary Design by Computers, Morgan Kaufmann, 1999
2189. Fogel, Evolutionary Computation, 1995
2190. Landweber, Winfree, eds, Evolution as computation, springer, 2002
2191. Biethahn, Nissen eds,Evolutionary Algorithms inManagement Applications,Springer 1995
2192. Liu, Tanaka, Iwata, Higuchi, Yasunaga, eds, Evolvable systems: from biology to hardware, springer, 2001
2193. Sipper, Mange, Perez-Uribe, eds, evolvable systems: from biology to hardware, springer, 1998
2194. Tyrrell, Haddow, Torresen, eds, evolvable systems: from biology to hardware, springer, 2003
2195. Back and Fogel and Michalewicz, eds, evolutionary computation 1, basic algorithms and operators, Insti-
tute of Physics, 2000
2196. Fogel and Corne, evolutionary computation in bioinformatics, Morgan Kaufmann, 2003
2197. Fogel and Michalewicz, eds, evolutionary computation 2, advanced algorithms and operators, Inst. of Phys-
ics, 2000
2198. Kumar and Bentley, eds, on growth, form, and computers, Elsevier, 2003
Annealing and Materials Physics as Computation Processes
2199. Davis, Genetic Algorithms and Simulated Annealing, Morgan Kaufmann, 1987
Neural Nets
2200. Dowla and Rogers, Solving Problems in Environmental Engineering and Geosciences with Artificial Neural
Networks, MIT, 1995
2201. Judd, Neural Network Design and the Complexity of Learning, MIT 1990
2202. Eliasmith and Anderson, neural engineering, computation, representation, and dynamics in neurobiological
systems, MIT, 2003
2203. Arbib&Robinson eds, Natural and Artificial Parallel Computation, MIT90
2204. Amit, Modeling Brain Function, the world of attractor neural networks, Cambaridge, 1989
Populations of Intelligent Agents
2206. Weiss, edr, distributed artificial intelligence meets machine learning, learning in multi-agent environ-
ments, springer, 1991
Genetic Programming: Programs Inventing Programs
2207. Koza, genetic programming II, automatic discovery of reusable programs, MIT, 1994
2208. Koza, genetic programming, on the programming of computer by means of natural selection, MIT, 1991
2209. Langdon, Poli, foundations of genetic programming, springer, 2002
General Natural Computation Overviews
2210. Bechtel and Abrahamsen, connectionism and the mind, an introduction to parallel processing in networks,
blackwell, 1991
2211. Ballard, an introduction to natural computation, MIT, 2000
Cells, Atoms, DNA, Quantum, Membrane Computing
2212. Calude and Paun, computing with cells and atoms, an introduction to quantum, DNA, and membrane com-
puting, Taylor and Francis, 2002
2213. Paun, Rozenberg, Salomaa, DNA computing, new computing paradigms, springer, 1998
Artificial Life and Lifeforms
2214. Adami, introduction to artificial life, Springer, 1998
2215. Dorigo and Stutzle, ant colony optimization, MIT, 2004
2216. Langton, edr, artificial life, an overview, MIT, 1995
Immune Computing
2217. de Castro&Timmis, Artificial Immune Systems: A New Computational Intelligence Approach
2218. Dasgupta, edr, Artificial Immune Systems and Their Applications
Organizational Computing
2219. Olson, Malone, et al eds, Coordination Theory and Collaboration Technology, LEA01@
2220. Malone, Laubacher, Morton, eds, Inventing the Organizations of the 21st Century, MIT2005$$$
Systems Biology and Bioinformatics
2223. Gibas and Jambeck, Developing Bioinformatics Computer Skills, O’Reilly 2001
2224. Bergeron, Bioinformatics Computing, Prentice Hall, 2003
2225. Bower and Bolouri eds, Computational Modeling of Genetic and Biochemical Networks, MIT, 2001
2226. Klosgen and Zytkow, eds, Handbook of Data Mining and Knowledge Discover, Oxford, 2002%%%
2228. Jones and Pevzner, an introduction to bioinformatics algorithms, MIT, 2004
2229. Alon, Introduction to Systems Biology, design principles of biological circuits
2230. Davidson The Regulatory Genome, gene regulation networks in development and evolution
Bio-logic
2231. Carroll, Endless Forms Most Beautiful, the new science of evo devo, Norton, 2005
2232. Forbes, the Gecko’s Foot, bio-inspiration engineered from nature, 4th estate, 20005
2233. Gerhard and Kirschner, Cells, Embryos, and Evolution, Blackwell, 1997
Collaboration and Communication
2234. Stahl, group cognition, computer support for building collaborative knowledge, MIT, 2006
Language
2238. Jackendoff, foundations of language, brain, meaning, grammar, evolution, Oxford, 2002
2240. Manning and Schutze, Foundation of Statistical Natural Language Processing, MIT, 1999
2241. Paulson, ML for the working programmer, cambridge, 1991
quantum computing
2242. Lloyd, Programming the Universe, Knopf, 2006@
2243. Seife, Deconding the Universe, Viking, 2006@
stein’s spookiest theory, Plume, 2001@
2245. Laughlin, a different univers,e reinventing physics from the bottom down, Basic, 2006@
Ontologic Engineering
2246. Lytras and Naeve Intelligent Learning Infrastructure for Knowledge Intensive Organizations, a semantic
web perspective
2247. Gomez-Perez, Fernandez-Lopez, Corcho Ontological Engineering
Mathematica Programming (you build two Mathematica programs)
2249. Wolfram, Mathematica, Third Edition, Addison Wesley, 2000?
2250. Maeder, The Mathematica Programmer 2, Academic Press, 1996
2251. Maeder, Programmikng in Mathematica, Addison Wesley 1990
2252. Gaylord&Nishidate, Modeling nature, cellular automata simulations with mathematica, Springer, 1996@
2253. Maeder, the Mathematica Programmer, Academic Press, 1994
2254. Freeman, Simulating Neural Networks, with Mathematica, Addison Wesley, 1994
2255. Gaylord and Wellin, Computer Simulations with Mathematica, explorations in complex physical and biologi-
cal systems, Springer, 1995
Event & Performance Design (you design and hold two new event types)
2256. Kegan&Lahey,How theWay We Talk Can Change the Way We Work,Jossey-Bass 2001@
2258. Brook, The Open Door, Thoughts on Acting and Theatre, TCG, 1995
2259. Organizational Behavior & Processes by Ancona, Kochan, Scully, Van Maanen, Westney, South Western Pub-
lishg
2260. Vaill, Managing as a Performing Art, Jossey Bass, 1989@
2261. Becker&Steele, Workplace by Design, Mapping the High Performance Workscape, Jossey- Bass,95
2262. Excellence by Design by Horgen, Joroff, Porter, and Schon, Wiley, 1999@
2263. The Social Life of Information by Brown and Duguid, Harvard Business School, 2000@
Cambridge, 2006
2269. Nonaka and Teece, editors, Managing Industrial Knowledge, Sage, 2001
Weise, 1999
2272. Rosnay, The Symbiotic Man, (Complex Biologic Wholes of the 21st Century), McGraw Hill, 2000@
2273. Holman amd Devame. The Change Handbook, Berrett-Kohler, 1999@
Information Design (you invent two new information designs)
2275. Information Design edited by Jacobson, MIT Press, 1999
2276. Anders, Envisioning Cyberspace, Designing 3D Electronic Spaces, McGraw Hill, 1998
2277. Becker &Steele, Workplace by Design, Mapping the High Performance Workscape, Jossey- Bass, 95
2278. Excellence by Design by Horgen, Joroff, Porter, and Schon, Wiley, 1999
2279. The Social Life of Information by Brown& Duguid, Harvard Business School, 2000@
2282. Lesser, Fontaine, et al, eds, Knowledge& Communities, Butterworth Heineman, 2000@
2283. Alexander&Pal, Digital Democracy, Policy&Politics in the Wired World, Oxford, 1998
2285. Card, Readings in Information Visualization, Morgan Kaufman 1999
2286. Ware, Information Visualization: Perception for Design
2287. Craig, Thinking Visually, Continuum, 2000
Game Design (you design and build two games of some situations)
2292. Brown and Duguid, The Social Life of Information, Harvard Business School, 2000
Cambridge, 2006
2295. Sigmund, Games of Life, Explorations in Ecology, Evolution,&Behavior, Oxford, 1993
2296. Eigen&Winkler, Laws of the Game, How the Principles of Nature Govern Chance, Princeton, 1981
2297. Smith, Evolution and the Theory of Games, Cambridge, 1982
2299. Campbell, The Hero with a Thousand Faces, Princeton, 1949@
2300. Tannen, You Just Don’t Understand, Morrow, 1990@
2302. Bates, Game Design: the Art and Business of Creating Games
2303. Rouse, Game Design: Theory and Practice
2304. Laramee, editor, Game Design Perspectives, Charles River Media, 2002@
2305. Rabin, editor, AI Game Programming Wisdom
2306. Dunniway, Professional Game Design, 2003
2307. Rasmusen, editor; Readings in Games and Information, Blackwell, 2001
2310. Leyton, Symmetry Causality and Mind, MIT, 1992

Knowledge Modeling (you build and implement 2 organization knowledge diagnoses)
2314. Sparrow, Knowledge in Organizations, Access to Thinking at Work, Sage, 1998
2315. Kuhn, The Skills of Argument, Cambridge, 1991@
2316. Metcalfe, Business Research Through Argument, KluwerAP, 1996
2317. Brown and Duguid, The Social Life of Information, Harvard Business School, 2000@
Cambridge, 2006
2322. Sternberg and Wagner, Mind in Context, Cambridge, 1994
2323. Glymour and Cooper, Computation, Causation, and Discovery, MIT, 1999
2324. Dierkes, et al; Handbook of Organizational Learning&Knowledge, Oxford, 2001@
2325. Thompson et al, eds; Shared Cognition in Organizations, LEA, 1999
2328. Easterby-Smith, ed, Blackwell Handbook on Org Learning and Knowdge Mngt
2329. Kidd, edr, Knowledge Acquisition for Expert Systems, Plenum, 1987
Composing Song, Comedy, Novels, Movies (you build and sell/perform/publish 2 arts)
2332. J.R.R. Tolkien, Tales from the Perilous Realm, Harper Collins, 1997
2333. J.R.R. Tolkien, Tree and Leaf, Harper Collins, 2001@
2334. Helitzer, Comedy Writing Secrets, Writer’s Digerst, Cincinnatti, 1987
2335. Vorhaus, The Comic Toolbox, Silman-James, LA, 1994
2336. Dean, Step by Step to Stand Up Comedy, Heinemann, Portsmouth NH, 2000
2337. Shales&Miller, Live from New York History of Saturday Night Live, Little Brown02@
2338. Carter, The Comedy Bible, Fireside, 2001
2339. MacCauley and Lanning eds., Technique in Fiction, St. Martin’s Press, 1987@
2341. Seymour Fisher, Pretend the World is Funny and Forever, LEA, 1981@
2342. Wilson, Jokes: Form, Content, Use and Fuinction, AP, 1979
2343. Bortolussi and Dixon, Psychonarratology, foundations for the empirical study of literary response, Cam-
bridge, 2003
2344. Chafe, Discourse, Consciousness, and Time, chicago, 1994
2345. Safire, Lend Me Your Ears, Great Speeches in History, Norton, 1992
2346. White, Tropics of Discourse, Essarys in cultural criticism, John Hopkins, 1978
2347. Josephs, Writing Music for Hit Songs, Writers Digest, 1989
2348. Potter, Writing for Publication, Harper and Row, 1990
2349. Williams, Style, Toward Clarity and Grace, Chicago, 1990
2350. Dimaggio, How to Write for Television, Prentice Hall, 1990
2351. Ueland, If You Want to Write, Graywolf, 1987
2352. Rowe, machine musicianship, MIT, 2001
2353. Luboff&Luboff, 88 Song Writing Wrongs and How to Right Them, Writer’s Digest92
California, 1992
2357. Chapman and Foot, eds, humor and laughter, theory, research, and applications, transaction, 2004
2358. Price, the beginnert’s guide to computer based music production, cherry lane, 2004
2359. collins, choosing and using audio and music software, focal, 2004
5. Secondary Applied Fields Dimension

Creativity: Implicit Theory from Practice
Tools for Creating
2360. Allwein&Barwise; Logical Reasoning with Diagrams; Oxford Univ, London; 1996
2361. Hirschfeld and Gelman; Mapping the Mind; Cambridge Univ. Press, London; 1994
2362. Macauley and Lanning; Technique in Fiction; St. Martin Press, NYC; 1987
2363. Root-Bernstein, Robert and Michele; Sparks of Genius; Houghton Mifflin, NYC: 1999
2364. Segel, Harold; Turn of the Century Cabaret; Columbia Univ. Press, NYC; 1987

2366. Schrage, Michael; No More Teams; Currency Doubleday; NYC, 1995
Societies Creating and Creating Society
2369. Baron, Robert; Psychological Perspectives on Entrepreneuship; Current Directions in Psychological Science,
February, 2000
2370. Berger;The Culture of Entrepreneurship, Inst of Contemporary Studies, San Fran; 1991
2371. Bhide, Amar; The Origin and Evolution of New Businesses; Oxford Univ. 2000
2372. Brinckerhoff, P.; Social Entrepreneurship, Wiley, 2000
2373. Braczyk; Cooke; Heidenreich; Regional Innovation Systems; UCL Press; 1998
2375. Huber and Glick; Organizational Change and Redesign; Oxford Univ., London; 1993
2376. Miller; Einstein,Picasso,Space,Time,&the Beauty that Causes Havoc,Basic Books, 2001
2377. Montuori&Purser; Social Creativity; Vol. 1 & 2; Hampton Press; Cresskill, NJ; 1999
2378. Munch and Smelser; Theory of Culture; Univ. of California Press; Berkeley, 1992
2379. Munck, Thomas; The Enlightenment; Arnold, London; 2000
2380. Sternberg&Horvath; Tacit Knowledge in Profesional Practice; LEA; 1999
2381. Sternberg, Robert and Kolligian; Competence Considered; Yale, 1990
2382. Sternberg, Robert and Lubart, Todd; Defying the Crowd; Free Press, 1995
2383. Sternberg, Robert and Wagner, Richard; Mind in Context; Cambrige, 1994
2384. Tayler and van Every; The Emergent Organization; LEA, Mahwah, NJ; 2000
2385. Thompson,Levine, Messick; Shared Cognition in Organizations; LEA; 1999
2386. Unsworth, Kerrie; Unpacking Creativity; Academy of Managemt Review; April 2001
2387. Watts, Duncan; Small Worlds; Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ; 1999
change, HBS, 2004
Review, 19993
Creativity Theories
2398. Kaufman and Baer, eds, creativity and reason in cognitive development, cambridge, 2006
2406. Simonton, Creativity in science, chance, logic, genius, and zeitgeist, Cambridge, 2004
Oxford, 2002
2410. Gardenfors, conceptual spaces, the geometry of thought, MIT, 2004
2412. Feinstein, the nature of creative development, Stanford business books, 2006
Oxford, 2003
2417. Breit and Hirsch, lives of the laureates, 18 nobel economists, 4th edition, MIT, 2004
2419. von Hippel, democratizing innovation, MIT, 2005
2420. Hagel and Brown, the only sustainable edge, why business stratgegy depends on productive friction and

2423. Simonton, creativity in science, chance, logic, genius, and zeitgeist, cambridge, 2004
Nature Creating and Creating Natures
2430. Barrow; The Artful Universe: The Cosmic Source of Human Creativity; Penguin 1998
2431. Barrow, John; Theories of Everything; Fawcett Columbine, NYC; 1992
2432. Barrow, John; The Book of Nothing, Pantheon, 2000
2433. Axelrod, Robert; The Evolution of Cooperation; Basic Books, NYC, 1994
2434. Bak, Per; How Nature Works; Copernicus, Springer-Verlag, NYC, 1996
2435. Axelrod and Cohen; Harnessing Complexity; Free Press, Boston, Mass.; 1999
2436. Bailey, James; After Thought; Basic Books, NYC; 1996
2437. Dawkins, Richard; Unweaving the Rainbow; Allan Lane, the Penquin, 1998
2438. Callender&Huggett; Physics Meets Philosophy at the Planck Scale, Cambridge, 2001
2439. Bossomaier and Green; Patterns in the Sand; Perseus Books, Reading, Mass.; 1998
2440. Calvin, Willian; The Cerebral Code; MIT Press; Cambridge, Mass.; 1996
2441. Cohen, Irun; Tending Adam’s Garden, Academic Press, 2000
2442. Flake, Gary; The Computational Beauty of Nature; MIT; 2000
2443. Greene, Brian; The Elegant Universe, Vintage, 1999
2444. Hammerstein, edr. genetic and culturl evolution of cooperation, MIT, 2003
2447. Smith and Szathmary, the origins of life, from the birth of life to the origin of language, oxford, 1999
2448. Richerson and Boyd, not by genes alone, how culture transformed human evolution, Chicago, 2005
2449. Chase and Leibold, ecological niches, linking classical and contemporary approaches, Chicago, 2003
2450. Keller, edr, levels of selection in evolution, princeton, 1999
2451. Smolin, Lee; Three Roads to Quantum Gravity, Basic Books, 2001
2457. Hull and Ruse, eds, the philosophy of biology, oxford, 1998
The Creativity of Creating a Self, Life, and Career
2458. Arthur, M. and Rousseau, D.; The Boundaryless Career, Oxford Univ. Press, 1996
2459. Applebaum, Herbert; The Concept of Work; SUNY, NYC, 1992
2460. Brandstadter and Lerner, Action and Self Development, Sage, Beverley Hills, 1999
2461. Cannon, Betty; Sartre and Psychoanalysis; Univ. of Kansas; 1994
2462. Carrithers and Collins and Lukes; The Category of the Person; Cambridge, 1985
2463. Ferrari and Sternberg; Self Awareness; The Guilford Press, London, 1998
2464. Dumont, Louis; Essays on Individualism; Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago; 1986
2465. Adams-Price, Carolyn; Creativity and Successful Aging; Springer, NYC, 1998
2467. Kegan, Robert; In Over Our Heads; Harvard Univ. Press; Cambridge, Mass.; 1991
2468. Klar, Fisher, Chinsky, Nadler; Self Change; Springer Verlag, NYC; 1992
2469. Kohn,Alfie; Punished by Rewards; Houghton Mifflin, NYC: 1993
2470. Palombo, Stanley; The Emergent Ego; International Universities; Madison, Conn.; 199
2471. May, Rollo; The Courage to Create; Norton, NYC, 1975
2472. Runco&Richards; Eminent Creativity Everyday Creativity&Health; Ablex1997
2473. Young and Collin; Interpreting Career; Praeger, London, 1992
2474. Young&Burgen; Methodological Approaches to the Study of Career; Praeger; 1990
2475. Egan, Gerard; Working the Shadow Side; Jossey Bass, San Francisco, 1994
2476. Eikleberry, Carol; The Career Guide for Creative and Unconventional People, Ten Speed Press; Berkeley,
1999
2005
Creators Creating Creators
2480. Boorstin, Daniel; The Creators; Random House, NYC: 1992
2481. Barron and Montuori and Barron; Creators on Creating; Puttman, NYC, 1999
2482. Csikszentmihalyi, Mihalyi; Creativity, Flow, and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention; HarperPerennial,
NYC; 1996
2483. Csikszentmihalyi and Csikszentmihalyi, eds, Optimal Experience, psychological studies of flow in conscious-
ness, Cambridge, 1988
2484. Gardner, Howard; Creating Minds; Basic Books, NYC, 1993
2485. Ghiselin, Brewster; The Creative Process; Univ. of California; 1952
2486. Ludwig, Arnold; The Price of Greatness; Guilford Press, London; 1995
2488. May, Rollo; The Courage to Create; Norton, NYC, 1975
2489. Piirto; Understanding Those Who Create; Gifted Psychology Press, ScotsdaleAZ, 1998
2490. Plimpton, The Writer’s Chapbook, advice from 20th century’s best writers,Viking, 1989
Fashion and Design
2496. Barthes, Roland transd by Ward and Howard; The Fashion System; Hill&Wang, 1983
2497. Duffy, Francis; The New Office; Conran Octopus, London, 1997
2499. Petroski, Henry; Invention by Design; Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, Mass.; 1998
2500. Pickover; The Pattern Book, Fractals, Art, and Nature; World Scientific, 1995
Fashion
ness, Kaplan, 2005
2506. Shaeffer, high fashion sweing secrets from the world’s best designers, Rodale, 1997
2507. McKelvey and Munslow, fashion design, process, innovation, and practice, blackwell, 2003
Particular Design Traditions and Types
Ways to Create
2518. Burt, Ronald; Structural Holes; Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, Mass.; 1992
2519. Bartholomew, James; The Formation of Science in Japan; Yale Univ.; 1989
2520. Baumard, P.; Tacit Knowledge in Organizations, SAGE, London, 1999
2521. Boorstin, Daniel; The Creators; Random House, NYC: 1992
2522. Creighton and Adams, CyberMeeting; Amacom, NYC, 1998
2523. Holland, John; Hidden Order; Addison Wesley; Reading, Mass. 1995
2524. Holland, John; Emergence; Helix Books, Reading, Mass.; 1998
2525. Holyoak, Keith;&Thagard, Paul; Mental Leaps, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.; 1995
2527. Huber and Glick; Organizational Change and Redesign; Oxford Univ., London; 1993
2528. Jacob; Illustrating Evolutionary Computation with Mathematica; Morgan Kaufman2001
2529. Jervis, Robert; System Effects; Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ, 1997
2530. Lave&Wenger;Situated Learning,LegitimatePeripheral Participation;Cambridge; 1999
2531. Lesser,Fontaine& Slusher; Knowledge&Communities; Butterworth, London, 2000
Creativity as Non-linearity
2534. Casti, John; Complexification; Harper Collins, NYC; 1991
2535. Casti, John; World Be Worlds; Wiley, NYC; 1997
2536. Cowan, Pines, Meltzer; Complexity, Metaphors, Models,&Reality; Addison Wesley 94
2537. Andersson, Ake; Sahliln, Nills-Eric; The Complexity of Creativity; Kluwer 1997
2538. Jervis, Robert; System Effects; Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ, 1997
2539. Kauffman, Stuart; Investigations; Oxford University Press; NYC; 2000
2540. Kauffman, Stuart; At Home in the Universe; Oxford Univ. Press, NYC; 1995
2541. Johnson, George; Fire in the Mind; Knopf, NYC; 1995
2542. Kelly, Kevin; Out of Control; Addison Wesley, Reading, Mass.; 1994
2543. Kenrick, Douglas; Evolutionary Pschology, Cognitive Science, and Dynamical Systems: Building an Integrative
Paradigm; Current Directions in Psychological Science, February, 2001
2544. Schelling, Thomas; Micromotives and Macrobehavior; W. W. Norton, NYC; 1978
2545. Svyantek and Brown; A Complex Systems Approach to Organizations, Current Directions in Psychological Sci-
ence, April, 2000
2546. Vallacher and Nowak; Dynamical Systems in Social Psychology; Academic 1994
2548. Yates, F. Eugene; Self Organizing Systems, The Emergence of Order; Plenum, 1987
The Creative Sector of Economies and Societies
2549. Caves, Richard; Creative Industries; Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, Mass.; 2000
2550. Chi and Glaser and Farr; The Nature of Expertise; LEA, Mahwah, NJ; 1988
Cambridge, 2006
2552. Cialdini, R.; Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, Quill, William Morrow, 1984
2553. Cialdini, R.; Influence, Science and Practice; Allyn and Bacon, 4th Edition, 2001
2554. Collcutt, Martin; Five Mountains, The Rinzai Zen Monastic Institution in Medieval Japan; Harvard, 1981
2556. Van de Ven, Angle, Poole; Research on the Management of Innovation, The Minnesota Studies; Oxford; 2000
Algorithms of Creation
2561. Davis; Genetic Algorithms and Simulated Annealing; Morgan Kaufmann; 87
2562. Bentley, Peter; Evolutionary Design by Computers; Morgan Kaufman, San Fran, 1999
2563. Bonabeau and Dorigo and Theraulaz; Swarm Intelligence; Oxford Univ; 1999
2564. Jacob; Illustrating Evolutionary Computation with Mathematica; Morgan Kaufman2001
2565. Holland, John; Hidden Order; Addison Wesley; Reading, Mass. 1995
2566. Holland, John; Emergence; Helix Books, Reading, Mass.; 1998
2568. Campbell, Joseph; The Hero With 1000 Faces, Bollingen, Princeton, 1949
2569. Simonton, Origins of Genius, Oxford, 1999@
2570. Grint, Keith; The Arts of Leadership; Oxford University Press; NYC; 2000
2571. Vogler, C.; The Writer’s Journey; Michael Wiese Productions, Studio City, Ca, 1992
2572. Hogan, The Mind and its Stories, Cambridge, 2003$$$
blackwell, 1991
systems, MIT, 2003
Particular Types of Creativity
2591. Davis, Murray; What’s So Funny; Univ. of Chicago Press; Chicago; 1993
2592. Kirzner, I.; Competition and Entrepreneurship, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1973
2593. Junge, Maxine; Creative Realities; University Press of America, NYC; 1998
2594. Langton, Taylor, Farmer, Rasmussen; Artificial Life II; Addison Wesley; 1992
2595. Sternberg, R.; Love is a Story, Oxford Univ. Press, 1998
2596. Price, C.; Time, Discounting & Value; Blackwell, 1993
Creation as Information Processing
2599. De Rosnay, Joel; The Symbiotic Man; McGraw Hill, NYC; 2000
2600. Dertouzos, Michael; The Unfinished Revolution; Harper Collins, NYC, 2001
2601. Detert,Schroeder, Mauriel; A Framework for Linking Culture and Improvement Initiatives in Organizations,
Academy of Management Review, October, 2000
2602. Devlin; Infosense: Turning Information into Knowledge; W. H. Freeman, NYC; 1999
2603. Brown and Duguid; The Social Life of Information; Harvard Business; 2000
2604. Duffy, Francis; The New Office; Conran Octopus, London, 1997
Creating Cultures and Cultures Creating
2605. Campbell; The Inner Reaches of Outer Space; Alfred van der Marck Edns, NYC; 1986
2606. Campbell, Joseph; The Hero With 1000 Faces, Bollingen, Princeton, 1949
2607. Douglas, Mary; Purity and Danger; Ark, London; 1984
2608. Douglas, Mary; Natural Symbols; Pantheon, NYC; 1982
2610. Hofstede, Geert; Cultures&Organizations: Software of the Mind; McGraw Hill, 1991.
2611. Hampden-Turner&Tropenaars, The Seven Cultures of Capitalism, Doubleday 1993.
2612. Marcus and Fischer; Anthropology as Cultural Critique, Chicago; 1986
2614. Montuori&Purser; Social Creativity; Vol. 1 & 2; Hampton Press; Cresskill, NJ; 1999
2617. Tannen, Deborah; You Just Don’t Understand; Morrow, NYC, 1990
2619. Taylor, Gary; Cultural Selection; Basic Books, NYC; 1998
2621. Zeldin; The French, Collins Harvill, NYC; 1983
2622. Zelinsky, Marilyn; New Workplaces for New Workstyles; McGraw Hill,NYC, 1998
Review, 19993
Creating History and History as Creating
2628. Dear, P.; Revolutionizing the Sciences, Princeton, 2001
2632. Rothschild, Emma; Economic Sentiments; Harvard University Press, 2001
2633. Rabb, T.; Renaissance Lives; Basic Books, 2000
General Abstract Theories of Creating
2638. Epstein&Axtell;Growing Artificial Societies;Social Science from the Bottom UpMIT98
2639. Gaylord and D’Andria; Simulating Society; Springer-Verlag, NYC; 1999
2640. Feldman; Csikszentmihalyi; Gardner; Changing the World; Praeger; 1994
2641. Amabile, Teresa; Creativity in Context; Westview; Boulder, Co.; 1996
2642. Csikszentmihalyi, Mihalyi; Creativity, Flow, and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention; HarperPerennial,
NYC; 1996
2643. Dacey, John; Lennon, Kathleen; Understanding Creativity, Jossey-Bass, 1998
2644. Lestienne, Remy transed by Neher; The Creative Power of Chance; Uof Illinois, 1995
2645. Lewis, Marianne; Exploring Paradox: Toward a More Comprehensive Guide; Academy of Management
Review; October, 2000
2646. Root-Bernstein, Robert; Discovering; Harvard; 1989
2647. Root-Bernstein, Robert and Michele; Sparks of Genius; Houghton Mifflin, NYC: 1999
2648. Steptoe, Andrew; Genius and the Mind; Oxford University Press, NYC; 1998
2649. Sternberg, Robert; The Nature of Creativity; Cambridge University Press; NYC; 1988
2650. Sternberg; R.; Handbook of Creativity; Cambridge University Press, NYC; 1999
2651. Runco and Pritzker; Encyclopedia of Creativity; Vol. 1&2; Academic; 1999
2652. Runco; Problem Finding Problem Solving and Creativity; Ablex, Norwood, NJ, 1994
2653. Runco; Creativity Research Journal, Special Issue Longitudinal Studies of Creativity; Vol. 12, No. 2, 1999,
LEA, Mahwah, NJ; 1999
2654. Runco; The Creativity Research Handbook, Vol.1&2; Hampton Press; 1997
2655. Sternberg, Robert and Davidson, Janet; The Nature of Insight; MIT Press. 1995
Mass Producing Creativity
2669. Ford, Cameron; Creative Developments in Creativity Theory; Academy of Management Review, October,
2000
2670. Ford and Gioia; Creative Action in Organizations; Sage, San Francisco; 1995
2671. Kanter, Rosabeth; Kao, John; Wiersema, Fred; Innovation; Harper Business; 1997
2672. Nonaka, and Teece; Managing Industrial Knowledge, Sage; San Fran, CA; 2001
2673. Rickards, Tudor; Creativity and the Management of Change; Blackwell, London; 1999
2674. Robinson, Alan and Stern, Sam; Corporate Creativity; Berrett-Koehler San Fran, 1997
2675. Van de Ven, Angle, Poole; Research on the Management of Innovation, The Minnesota Studies; Oxford; 2000
2677. Woodman and Sawyer and Griffin, Toward a Theory of Organizational Creativity, Academy of Management
Review; Vol. 18, 1993
change, HBS, 2004
Creating Communities and Communities Creating
2682. Gould, Weiner, and Levin; Free Agents; Jossey Bass, San Francisco, 1997
England, London, 1986
2684. Frank, Robert; Passions within Reason; Norton, NYC; 1988
2685. Giddens, Anthony; Modernity and Self Identity; Polity Press, Cambridge; 1991
2686. John-Steiner, Vera; Creative Collaboration; Oxford University Press; NYC: 2000
2688. Rothschild, Emma; Economic Sentiments; Harvard University Press, 2001
2689. Rabb, T.; Renaissance Lives; Basic Books, 2000
Conditions and Situations of Creating
2693. Grigorenko&Sternberg; Family Environment and Intellectual Functioning, LEA, 2001
2695. Hendersen; Workplaces and Workspaces; Rockport, Glouster, Mass. 1998
2697. Institute of Cultural Affairs; Summer Assembly 1970; ICA: Chicago; 1970
2698. Hirschhorn, Larry; The Workplace Within; MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.; 1988.
The Cognitive Science of Creating
2700. GoMgnen, Joseph, ed, Journal of Consciousness Studies, Art and the Brain, June 1999
2701. Hobbs; Literature&Cognition; Center for the Study of Language and Information: Menlo Park, CA; 1999
2702. Holyoak, Keith;&Thagard, Paul; Mental Leaps, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.; 1995
2703. Klahr, David; Exploring Science; MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.; 2000
2704. Klahr&Simon; What Have Psychologists (And Others) Discovered About the Process of Scientific Discovery;
Current Directions in Psychological Science; June, 2001
2705. Kukla, A.; Methods of Theoretical Psychology, MIT Press, 2001
2707. Ortony, Andrew; Metaphor and Thought, second edition; Cambridge; 1993
2708. Ward, Thomas; Smith, Steven; Vaid, Jyotsna; Creative Thought; American Psychological Association, Wash-
ington DC.; 1997
2709. Ward; Finke; Smith; Creativity and the Mind; Plenum; 1995
2710. Read&Miller; Connectionist Models of Social Reasoning&Social Behavior; LEA, 1998
2711. Plunkett and Elman; Exercises in Rethinking Innateness, MIT; 1997
2712. Elman and Bates and Johnson and Karmiloff-Smith, and Parisi and Plunkett; Rethinking Innateness, MIT
Press, Cambridge, Mass.; 1999
2713. Smith; Ward; Finke; The Creative Cognition Approach; MIT, Cambridge; 1995
The Art of Creating and the Creating of Arts
2714. Luhman, N.; Art as a Social System; Stanford, 2000
2715. Macauley and Lanning; Technique in Fiction; St. Martin Press, NYC; 1987
2716. Mack, Arien, editor; Social Research, Mind, Spring, 1993, Vol. 60 No. 1
2717. Noice&Noice; The Nature of Expertise in Professional Acting; LEA; 1997
Cambridge, 2006
2719. Sawyer, R.; Creativity in Performance; Ablex Publishing; Greenwich, Conn., 1997
2721. Strasberg, Lee; A Dream of Passion; Penquin, NYC; 1987
2723. Webb, Jimmy; Tunesmith--Inside the Art of Songwriting; Hyperion, NYC: 1998
The Social Cognitions of Creating
2725. Paz, Octavio; The Labyrinth of Solitude; Grove Press, NYC. 1995
2726. Salomon, Gavriel; Distributed Cognitions; Cambridge Univ. Press, London; 1999
2727. Schon and Rein, Frame Reflection; Basic Books, NYC, 1994
2729. Schrage, Michael; No More Teams; Currency Doubleday; NYC, 1995
2730. Segel, Harold; Turn of the Century Cabaret; Columbia Univ. Press, NYC; 1987
2731. Shaw, Melvin and Runco, Mark; Creativity and Affect, Ablex, Norwood, NJ; 1994
2732. Silvester, Christopher; The Penquin Book of Interviews; Penquin Books, 1995
2733. Simonton, Dean; Origins of Genius; Oxford University Press; NYC; 1999
2734. Simonton, Dean Keith; Genius and Creativity; Ablex; Greenwich, Conn.; 1997
2735. Simonton, Dean; Talent Development as a Multidimensional, Multiplicative, and Dynamic Process; Current
Directions in Psychological Science, April, 2001
2736. Sternberg&Horvath; Tacit Knowledge in Profesional Practice; LEA; 1999
2737. Sternberg, Robert and Kolligian; Competence Considered; Yale, 1990
2738. Sternberg, Robert and Lubart, Todd; Defying the Crowd; Free Press, 1995
2739. Sternberg, Robert and Wagner, Richard; Mind in Context; Cambrige, 1994
2740. Tayler and van Every; The Emergent Organization; LEA, Mahwah, NJ; 2000
2741. Thompson,Levine, Messick; Shared Cognition in Organizations; LEA; 1999
2742. Unsworth, Kerrie; Unpacking Creativity; Academy of Managemt Review; April 2001
2743. Smith&Carlsson; The Creative Process; International Universities Press; 1990
Compact MBA
2747. Financial Times, The Complete MBA Companion, Pitman, 1997
2748. Financial Times, The Complete Finance Companion, Pitman, 1998
2749. Bruner, Eaker et al, The Portable MBA, 3rd Edn, Wiley, 1998
2750. Rees and Porter, Skills of Management, 5th edn, Thomson Learning, 2001
2751. Young and McAuley, The Portable MBA in Economics, Wiley, 1994
2752. Mankiw, Principles of Economics, 2nd edn, Harcourt 2001
2753. Ormerod, Butterfly Economics, Pantheon, 1998@
2754. Hollingsworth and Boyer, eds, Contemporary Capitalism, Cambridge, 1997
2755. Mintzberg, Ahlstrand, Lampel Strategy Safari, Free Press, 1998@
2756. March, A Primer on Decision Making, Free Press, 1994@
2757. Cook and Levi, The Limits of Rationality, Chicago, 1990@
2758. Harrison and Huntington, Culture Matters, Basic Books, 2000@
2759. Stern and Shiely, The EVA ChallengeWiley, 2001
2760. Applebaum, The Concept of Work, ancient, medieval, and modern, SUNY, 1992
2761. Atrill&McLaney, Management Accounting for Non-specialists, Prentice Hall 2002@
2762. Kotler, Kotler on Marketing, Free Press, 1999

2763. Harding and Long, MBA Management Models, Glower, 1998
2768. Berstein, the birth of plenty, how the prosperity of the modern world was created, McGraw Hill, 2004
History of Modernity (the below plus books under “Enlightenment” at left)
2769. Tarnas, The Passion of the Western Mind, Harmony, 1991
2770. Braudel, Wheels of Commerce, Civilization&Capitalism15th to18th centuryVol2, Harper&Row, 1986
2771. Eisenstadt, ed., Patterns of Modernity, NYU, 1987
2772. Zeldin, An Intimate History of Humanity, Harper Collins, 1994
2773. Jones and Pennick, A History of Pagan Europe, Routledge, 1995
2774. Fox, Pagans and Christians, Knopf, 1989
2775. Miller;Einstein,Picasso,Space,Time,&the Beauty that Causes Havoc,Basic Bks, 2001@
2777. Giddens, Anthony; Modernity and Self Identity; Polity Press, Cambridge; 1991@
2778. GoMgnen, Joseph, ed, Journal of Consciousness Studies, Art and the Brain, June 1999
England, London, 1986@
2781. Weber, France, Fin de Siecle, Harvard, 1986
2783. Weber, the Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Prentice Hall, 1976
Communication and Media Theory (plus Social Psych Influence books at left)
2785. Kovacic, New Approaches to Organizational Communication, SUNY, 1994@
2786. Dixon, Communication, Organization, and Performance, Academic, 1996
2787. Holtzman, Digital Mantras, languages of abstract and virtual worlds, MIT, 1994
2788. Gladwell, The Tipping Point, Little Brown, 2000@
2790. Matravers, Art and Emotion, Oxford, 1998@
2791. Taylor&Van Every,The Emergent Organization,Communication as Its Site, LEA, 2000
2792. Scollon, Intercultural Communication, Blackwell, 1995
2793. Kincaid, edr, Communication Theory, Eastern&Western, Academic, 87
2794. Severin et al, Communication Theories, A-Wesley Longman, 01
2795. Griffin, A First Look at Communication Theory
2796. Lowery&DeFleur, Milestones in Mass Communication Research, Adison-Wesley94,3rd edn.#
2797. Bryant&Zillmann, Media Effects: Advances in Theory&Research, LEA02, 2nded.#
2798. Liebes&Curran eds, Media, Ritual, and Identity, Routledge, 1998
2801. Mattelart and Mattelart, Theories of Communication, A short intro, SAGE 1999^^^
Collaboration and Communication
Language
2805. Jackendoff, foundations of language, brain, meaning, grammar, evolution, Oxford, 2002
Organization Theory Basics
2806. Tichy, Managing Strategic Change, Wiley, 1983
2807. Bounds, Yorks, et al, Beyond Total Quality Management, McGraw Hill, 1994
2808. Weick, Sensemaking in Organizations, Sage, 1995
2809. Arie de Geus, The Living Company, Harvard B School, 1997
2810. Olson&Eoyang, Facilitating Organization Change, Lessons from Complexity Science, Jossey Bass, 2001@
2811. Adler,International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior,2nd edn.,Wadsworth, 1991
2812. Baskin, Corporate DNA: Learning from Life, Butterworth Heineman, 1998
2813. Fineman and Gabriel, Experiencing Organizations, Sage, 1996
2814. Gormley and Weimer, Organizational Report Cards, Harvard, 1999
2815. Pasmore&Woodman, Research in Organizational Change&Development,vol 10JAI Press97
2816. Baum and Singh, Evolutionary Dynamics of Organizations, Oxford, 1994
2817. McWhinney, Paths of Change, SAGE, 1992
2818. Taylor and Felten, Performance by Design, Sopciotechnical systems in North America, Prentice Hall, 1993
2819. Aldrich, Organizations Evolving, SAGE, 1999@
2820. Kochan, Useem, eds, Transforming Organizations, Oxford, 92
2821. Trist&Murray, eds, The Social Engagement of Social Science, a Tavistock Anthology, vol 2, U Penn, 93
2822. Cameron&Whetten eds, Organizational Effectiveness, a comparison of multiple models, Academic, 83

Thinking Tools (unfortunately made shallow by author/publisher greed, four books below count as 1 for this
sheet’s purposes)
2824. Jones, The Thinker’s Toolkit, Three Rivers Press, 1998
2825. Sternberg and Grigorenko, Teaching for Successful Intelligence, Prentice Hall, 2000
2826. Higgins, 101 Creative Problem Solving Techniques, New Management Publishing 94
2827. Wycoff, Mindmapping, Berkeley,Å@1991
2828. Michalko, Thinkertoys, a handbook of business creativity, Ten Speed, 1991
2829. McKim, Thinking Visually, a strategy manual for problem solving, Dale Seymour 94
2830. Rhodes, Conceptual Toolmaking, expert systems of the mind, Blackwell, 1991
2831. Craig, Thinking Visually, business applicatns of 14 core diagrams, continuum, 2000
2832. Schick and Vaughn, How to Think About Wierd Things, Mayfield, 1995
2833. Covey, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Families, Golden Books, 1997
2834. Pidd, Tools for Thinking, Modelling in Management Science, Wiley 96@
2835. Straker, Rapid Problem Solving with Post-It Notes, Fisher books, 1997
2837. Torrance, edr, On the Edge, Univ of Georgia Lectures in Creativity, Academic, 2000^^^
Ecosystem Theory
2838. Pickett, Kolasa, Jones, Ecological Understanding, The Nature of Theory and the Theory of Nature, Aca-
demic, 1994@
2839. Pimm, The Balance of Nature? Ecological Issues in the Conservation of Species and Communities, Chicago,
1991
2840. Patten&Jorgensen,Complex Ecology,the Part-Whole Relation in Ecosystems,Prentice H95@
2841. Gould, Dinosaurs in a Haystack, Harmony Books, 1995
2842. Charnov, Life History Invariants, Some explorations of symmetry in evolutionary ecology, Oxford, 1993
2843. Levin, Fragile Dominion, Perseus, 1999@
2844. Schneider, Quantitative Ecology, Spatial and temporal scaling, Academic 94
2845. Somit&Peterson, eds, The Dynamics of Evolution, the punctuated equilibrium debate, Cornell89
Policy Making and Analysis Basics
2846. Stokey and Zeckhauser, A Primer for Policy Analysis, Norton, 1978
2847. Weimer and Vining, Policy Analysis, Prentice Hall, 1992
2848. Brams, Theory of Moves, Cambridge, 1994
2849. Gramlich, A Guide to Benefit-Cost Analysis, 2nd edn, Prentice Hall, 1990
2850. Ordeshook, A Political Theory Primer, Routledge, 1992
2851. Sprinz and Wolinsky-Nahmias, eds, Models, Numvers, and Cases, methods for studying international rela-
tions, U of Michigan 2004
2852. Schon and Rein, Frame Reflection, Basic Books, 1994@
2853. Rhoads, The Economist’s View of the World, Govt, Markets & Public Policy, Cambridge, 1985@
2854. Mohr, Impact Analysis for Program Evaluation, SAGE, 1992
2855. Luffman, Sanderson et al, Business Policy, An Intro, 2nd edn, Blackwell 1991
2856. Mayo&Hollander, eds, Acceptable Evidence, science and values in risk management, Oxford, 91
2858. Hardin, Collective Action, John Hopkins, 1982%%%
2859. Williamson, ed, the Political Economy of Policy Reform, Inst. for Internl. Econ94%%%
Game Theory Basics
2862. Miller, Game Theory at Work, How to use game theory to outthink and outmaneuver your competition,
McGraw Hill, 2003@
2863. Camerer,Behavioral Game Theory,experiments in strategic interactn, Princeton,2003@
2864. Ordeshook, A Political Theory Primer, Routledge, 1992
2865. Brams, Theory of Moves, Cambridge, 1994
2866. Rasmusen, Editor, Readings in Games and Information, Blackwell, 2001@
2867. Osborne&Rubinstein, A Course in Game Theory, MIT, 1994
Post-Modern Maths
. Tours of Modern Mathematics
2868. Peterson, The Mathematical Tourist, snapshots of modern maths, Freeman, 1988
2869. Rucker, Mind Tools: the five levels of mathematical reality, Houghton Mifflin, 1987
2870. Stewart, Life’s Other Secret, The New Maths of the Living World, Wiley, 1998
2871. Stewart, Concepts of Modern Mathematics, Dover, 1995
Mathematizing a Couple of Extremes
2872. Lavine, Understanding the Infinite, Harvard, 1994
2873. Rucker, Infinity and the Mind, Princeton, 1995
2874. Maor, To Infinity and Beyond, A Cultural History of the Infinite, Princeton, 1987
2875. Nahin, An Imaginary Tale, the Story of the Square Root of Minus 1, Princeton, 1998
The Maths of Life

2876. Pickover, The Pattern Book, Fractals, Art, and Nature, World Scientific, 1995
2877. Goodwin, How the leopard Changed Its Spots, complexity, Scribner, 1994
2878. Schroeder, Fractals, Chaos, Power Laws, Freeman, 1991
2879. Hildebrandt&Tromba, The Parsimonious Universe, shape&form in the natural world, Copernicus, 1996
2880. Cohen&Stewart, The Collapse of Chaos, Discovering Simplicity in a Complex World, Penquin, 1995@
Maths for Modeling Worlds
2885. Casti, Reality Rules, picturing the world in math, fundamentals, Wiley, 1992
2886. Bohner&Peterson, An Introduction to Dynamic Equations on Time Scales, Birkhauser03@
Mathematicians
2888. Yandell, The Honor’s Class: Hilbert’s Problems and their Solvers,AKPeters, 2002@
2889. Bell, Men of Mathematics, Lives of the Great Mathematicians,Simon & Schuster, 1997
2890. Dunham, Journey Through Genius: the Great Theorems of Math, Penquin, 1990
2891. Hodges, Alan Turing: the enigma, Walker, 2000
2892. James, Remarkable Mathematicians, Euler to Von Neumann, Cambridge, 2002@
Old maths
2894. Penrose, the road to reality, a complete guide to the laws of the universe, Knopf, 2005
2895. Barrow, Davies, Harper, science and ultimate reality, quantum theory, cosmology, and complexity, cam-
bridge, 2004
2897. von Mises, Probability, statistics, and truth, Dover, 1957
2898. Aubin, viability theory, systems, and control foundations and applications, Birkhauser, 1991
2899. Hawking edr., God created the integers, the mathematical breakthroughs that changed history, Running
Press, 2005
2900. Livio, the equation that couldn’t be solved, how mathematical genius discovered the language of symme-
try, Simon and Schuster, 2005
2901. Goldstein, incompleteness, the proof and paradox of kurt godel, norton, 2005
Paradox
2910. Fletcher and Olwyler, Paradoxical Thinking, Barrett Kohler, 1997
2912. Eisenstadt, Paradoxes of Democracy, John Hopkins U, 1999@
2913. Smith and Berg, Paradoxes of Group Life, Jossey Bass, 1988@
2914. Thaler,The Winner’s Curse, Paradoxes&Anomalies of Econ Life, Free Press, 1992@
2915. Lewis, Marianne; Exploring Paradox: Toward a More Comprehensive Guide; Academy of Management
Review; October, 2000
2916. Poundstone, Labyrinths of Reason, Anchor Books, 1988
2917. Skousen and Taylor, Puzzles and Paradoxes in Economics, EE, 1997$$$
Strategy, Overview of All Schools and Approaches
2919. Financial Times, Mastering Strategy, Complete MBA Companion in Strategy, 2000
2920. Strategy Safari by Mintzberg, Ahlstrand, and Lampel, Free press, 1998@.
2921. Cummings and Wilson, eds, Images of Strategy, Blackwell, 2003
2922. Yavitz and Newman, Strategy in Action, Free Press, 1982
2923. Lele, Creating Strategic Leverage, Matching Company Strengths with Market Opportunities, Wiley, 1992
2924. Hitt et al, eds, The Blackwell Handbook of Strategic Management, 2003@
2925. Zeckhauser, edr, Strategy and Choice, MIT, 1993
Managing Non-Profits
2927. Smith, Bucklin, Assts,2nd Edn. Complete Guide to Nonprofit Managemt, Wiley, 2000
2928. Drucker, Managing the Non-Profit Organization, Harper, 1992
2929. Harvard Business, Harvard Business Review on Nonprofits, 1994
2930. Wolf,Managing a Nonprofit Organization in the 21st Century, Simon & Schuster, 1984
2931. Brinckerhoff, P.; Social Entrepreneurship, Wiley, 2000@

Public Administration and Management Basics
2932. Brudney, O’toole, Rainey eds, Advancing Public Management, Georgetown, 2000@
2933. Frederickson&Johnston, eds, Public Management Reform&Alabama, 1999
2935. Laxonick, Business organizn&the myth of the market economy, Cambridge, 1991
2936. Hirschman, Shifting Involvements, private interest and public action, Princeton 1982
2937. Wittman, The Myth of Democratic Failure, Why Political Institutions are Efficient, Chicago, 1995@
2938. Lessig,theFutureofIdeas,thefateofthe commons in a connectedworld,RandomHse, 2001
2939. Hammond, Human Judgement and Social Policy, Oxford, 1996@
2940. Baron, Judgement Misguided, intuition&error in public decision making, Oxford, 1998
2941. Miller, Benjamin, North, The Economics of Public Issues 9thedn, HarperC, 93
2942. Williamson, ed, the Political Economy of Policy Reform, Inst. for Internl. Econ94%%%
2945. Sprinz and Wolinsky-Nahmias, eds, Models, Numvers, and Cases, methods for studying international rela-
tions, U of Michigan 2004
History of Capitalism
2946. Hirschman, The Passion and the Interests, political arguments for capitalism before its triumph, Princeton,
1977@
2947. Braudel, Wheels of Commerce, Civilization&Capitalism 15th to 18th century, Vol 2, Harper&Row, 1986
2948. Hollingsworth and Boyer, eds, Contemporary Capitalism, Cambridge, 1997@
2949. Means, Money and Power, the history of business, Wiley, 2001
2950. Greenfeld, The Spirit of Capitalism, Harvard, 2001
2951. Mackay&De la Vega,Extraordinary Popular Delusions&Confusion de Confusiones Wiley96
2952. Mokyr, Gifts of Athena: Historical Origins of the Knowledge Economy
2954. Aries, Dubry eds, A History of Private Life, vol. 1-4, Rome, Medieval, Renaissance, Revolution, Harvard,
1990
Applications of Happiness Theory: Design the Emergence of Happy Lives for Self & Others
Happiness Theory
2955. Argyle, The Psychology of Happiness, Routledge, 2nd edn, 2001
2957. Csikszentmihalyi; Creativity, Flow the Psychology of Discovery&Invention; Harper96
2958. Arendt, The Human Condition, Chicago, 1954@
2959. Nettle, Happiness: the science behind your smile; Oxford. 2005###@
2960. Loy, Lack and Transcendence, Humanity Books, 1996
2961. Haidt, The Happiness Hypothesis, finding modern truth in ancient wisdom, Basic Books, 2006
2962. White, A Brief History of Happiness, Blackwell, 2006
2963. Marar, The Happiness Paradox, Reaktion, 2003
2964. Berns, Satisfaction, Henry Holt, 2005@
2965. Gilbert, Stumbling on Happiness, Knopf, 2006@
2966. Layard, Happiness, lessons from a new science, Penguin, 2005
2967. McMahon, Happiness, a history; Atlantic Monthly, 2006
2968. Myers, the Pursuit of Happiness, Morrow, 1992
2969. Elster & Roemer, eds, Interpersonal Comparisons of Well-Being, Cambridge, 1991
2970. Bruni and Porta, Economics & Happiness, Oxford, 2005@
2971. Loy, A Buddhist History of the West, SUNY, 2002
2972. Kahneman, Diener, Schwarz, eds, Well-Being, the foundations of hedonic psychology, Russell Sage, 1999@
2973. Csikszentmihalyi eds., Optimal experience,Cambridge, 1988
2974. Sternberg, Love is a Story, Oxford, 1998
2975. Sternberg and Hojjat eds, Satisfaction in close relationships, Guilford, 1997
2976. Kohn, No context, the case against competition, Houghton Mifflin, 1986
2977. Hochschild, the managed heart, commercialization of human feeling, U of California, 1983
2978. Hayes, Measuring customer satisfaction, ASQ, 1998
2979. Roland, In search of self in India and Japan, Princeton, 1988
2980. Konner, the tangled wing, biological constraints on the human spirit, Owl, 2002@
2981. Klein, The Science of Happiness, Marlowe, 2002
2982. Davidson and Harrington, eds, Visions of Compassion, Oxford, 2002@
Cultural Relativity of Happinesses
2985. Hatfield and Rapson, Love and Sex: Cross Cultural Perspective
Bases of Happiness
2986. The Artful Universe by John D. Barrow, Penquin Books, 1995@
2987. Provine, Laughter, A Scientific Investigation, Penquin, 2001@
California, 1992
Developing Your Self and Its Happiness
2993. Klar, Fisher, Chinsky, Nadler; Self Change; Springer Verlag, NYC; 1992@
2995. Oliver, Satisfaction, A Behavioral Perspective on Consumer, McGraw Hill, 1997
2996. Hayes, Measuring Customer Satisfaction, ASQC, 1992
2998. The Boundaryless Career by Arthur and Rousseau, Oxford Univ., 1996@
2999. McRae, Negotiating and Influencing Skills, SAGE 1998
3000. Gardner, Howard; Creating Minds; Basic Books, NYC, 1993
2005
Industrial Anthropology & the Cultures of Industry
3002. Gellner, Relativism and the Social Sciences, Cambridge, 85
3003. Geertz, Local Knowledge, Basic, 83
3004. Thurow, Building Weaalth, Harper Collins, 1999
3005. Collins & Porras, Built to Last, Successful Habits of Visionary Companies, Harper Business, 1994
3006. Eberts & Eberts, The Myths of Japanese Quality, Prentice Hall95
3008. Jordan, Business Anthropology, Waveland, 2003^^^
Japanese Studies: Demystifying Imperialist, Government Sold, Self Serving, & Self Fulfilling Images
The Varieties of Japanese Managements
3009. Calder, Crisis and Compensation, Princeton, 1988
3010. Gluck, Japan’s Modern Myths: Ideology in the Late Meiji Period, Princeton85
3011. Buruma, Inventing Japan: 1853-1964, Weidenfeld&Nicholson, 03#
3012. Ramseyer&Rasmusen, Measuring Judicial Independence: the political economy of judging in Japan, U Chi-
cago, 03#
3013. Gordon, edr, Postwar Japan as History, California, 1993
3014. Gordon, The Evolution of Labor Relations in Japan, Harvard85%%%
Is There an Oriental Type of Self
3015. Rosenberger, Japanese Sense of Self, Cambridge, 1992
3016. Besser, Team Toyota,transplanting the Toyota culture in Kentucky,SUNY96
3022. Shono Still Life
Is There an East Asian Type of Self
3026. Munro,ed,Individualism&Holism, Studies in Confucian&Taoist Values,Mich 85
3027. Marsela et al eds; Culture and Self, Asian and Western Perspectives,Tavistock,85
3028. Schwartz, The World of Thought in Ancient China, Harvard 1985
Government Sponsored Senses of Self
3031. Mouer&Sugimoto, Images of Japanese Society, Routledge86
3032. Kerr, Dogs and Demons, the fall of modern Japan, Penguin 2001
3033. Myers and Peattie, eds, the Japanese Colonial Empire, 1895-45, Princeton, 1984
3034. Harootunian, Things Seen and unseen, discourse and ideology in Tokugawa Nativism, Chicago, 1988
3035. Ito, The Japanese Economy MIT, 1992
Review, 19993
3042. Koh Japan's Administrative Elite
Anthropology in General (the below plus items in “Managing Globality, Diversity, & Cultures” at left)
The Power of Culture
3043. Weber, the Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Prentice Hall76
3044. Levi-Strauss, The View from Afar, trans. Neugroschel and Hoss, U Chicago, 83
3045. Fox, Pagans and Christians, Knopf, 1989
3046. Nixon, Advertising Cultures, SAGE, 2003
3047. Schwartz, The Creative Moment, How Science Made Itself Alient to Modern Culture, Harper Collins 1992
3048. Collins and Porras, Built to Last, Successful habits of visionary companies, Harper Business, 1994
3050. Kotkin, Tribes, how race, religion and identity determine success in the new global economy, Random
House, 1992
Modernity as a Culture
3053. Miller;Einstein,Picasso,Space,Time,&the Beauty that Causes Havoc,Basic Bk01@
3055. Giddens, Anthony; Modernity and Self Identity; Polity Press, Cambridge; 1991@
England, London, 1986@
3058. Weber, France, Fin de Siecle, Harvard, 1986
3059. Rothschild, Economic Sentiments, Adam Smith, Concorcet, and the Enlightenment, Harvard, 2001@
3060. Green, Mountain of Truth, Tufts, 1986
3061. Munck, The Enlightenment, Arnold, 2000
3063. Chemers, et al, Diversity in Oganizations, SAGE 1995%%%
Theory in Anthropology and in Cultures
3067. Crane, the Sociology of Culture: Emerging Theoretical Perspectives, 2002
3068. Geertz, Negara, Theatre State in 19th Century Bali, Princeton, 1980
3069.Marcus and Fischer, Anthropology as Cultural Critique, Chicago, 1986
3070. Todorov, On Human Diversity, nationalism... in french thought, Harvard, 1993
3071. Ortner, The Fate of Culture, Geertz and Beyond, California, 1999
3072. Hage and Harary, Structural Models in Anthropology, Cambridge, 1983
3073. An Introduction to Theory in Anthropology by Robert Layton, Cambridge, 1997
3074. Campbell; The Inner Reaches of Outer Space; Alfred van der Marck Edns, NYC; 1986@
3075. Campbell, Joseph; The Hero With 1000 Faces, Bollingen, Princeton, 1949@
3076. Douglas, Mary; Purity and Danger; Ark, London; 1984
3077. Douglas, Mary; Natural Symbols; Pantheon, NYC; 1982
3079. Hofstede, Geert; Cultures&Organizations: Software of the Mind; McGraw Hill,91.
3081. Marcus and Fischer; Anthropology as Cultural Critique, Chicago; 1986
3082. Miller; Einstein,Picasso,Space,Time,&the Beauty that Causes Havoc,Basic Books, 2001@
3083. Montuori&Purser; Social Creativity;Vol. 1 & 2; Hampton Press; CresskillNJ; 99
3091. Chemers, et al, Diversity in Oganizations, SAGE 1995%%%
The Femininity of Productivity and Asian-ness
3092. Tannen, Deborah; You Just Don’t Understand; Morrow, NYC, 1990@
3094. Taylor, Gary; Cultural Selection; Basic Books, NYC; 1998
3095. Zeldin; The French, Collins Harvill, NYC; 1983
3096. Zelinsky; New Workplaces for New Workstyles; McGraw Hill,NYC, 1998
3097. Gellner, Relativism and the Social Sciences, Cambridge, 85
Review, 19993
3100. Geertz, Local Knowledge, Basic, 83
3101. Greene, Managing Complex Adaptive Systems, Bestest-Mostest, 1990

The Cultures of Everything
3102. Baron, Robert; Psychological Perspectives on Entrepreneuship; Current Directions in Psychological Science,
February, 2000
3103. Berger;The Culture of Entrepreneurship, Inst of Contemporary Studies, San Fran; 1991@
3105. Bledstein, the Culture of Professionalism, Norton, 1976
3106. Eberts, The Myths of Japanese Quality, Prentice Hall, 1995
3109. Dissanayake, Homo Aestheticus, where art comes from and why, UWash92
3110. Coote & Shelton eds, Anthropology Art and Aesthetics, Oxford92
3111. Anderson, Calliope’s Sisters, a comparative study of philosophies of art, PH90
3112. Goodwin, Personal Relationships Across Cultures, Routledge, 1999$$$
The Culturedness of Cultures
3116. Shimizu and Levine, eds; Japanese Frames of Mind, Cultural Perspectives on Human Development, Cam-
bridge, 01
3117. Cross-Cultural Psychology by Berry, Poortinga, Segall&Dusen, Cambridge, 1992
3119. Birnbaum and Leca, eds; Individualism, Theories and Methods, Oxford, 1990@
3120. Carrithers, Collins, Lukes, editors; The Category of the Person, Anthropology, Philosophy, History, Cam-
bridge, 1985
3125. Wierzbicka, Understanding cultures through their key words, Oxford, 1997
The Culture of Being Together
3135. Pheysey, Organizational Cultures, Routledge, 1993
3136. Denison, Corporate Culture and Organizational Effectiveness, Wiley, 1990
3138. Raelin, the clash of cultures, managers and professionals, Harvard Bsns, 1991@
3139. Canetti, Crowds and Power
3140. Kotkin, Tribes, how race, religion and identity determine success in the new global economy, Random
House, 1992
3141. Eisenstadt, Paradoxes of Democracy, John Hopkins U, 1999@
3142. Smith and Berg, Paradoxes of Group Life, Jossey Bass, 1988@
Fields Applied to Sexuality
3145. Foucault The Use of Pleasure, the history of sexuality,m volume 2
3146. Diamond Why is Sex Fun?
3147. Faure Buddhist Approaches to Sexuality
3148. Nanda Gender Diversity, cross cultural variations
3149. Harrell Ways of Being Ethnic in Southwest China
3150. Herdt Sambia Sexual Culture
3151. Abramson and Pinkerton Sexual Nature Sexual Culture
3152. LaFont Constructing Sexualities
6. Bio-Logic
83 Emerging Forms of Computation:
biologic, machine, social, mind, medicine/management, creativity,
nature, learning, blends
BIOLOGIC COMPUTATION
development of life
alternate biologic lifetypes invention
3153. Smith: the Major Transitions in Evolution;
3154. Baum: What is Thought;
3155. Smith: Origins of Life;
the gene computer
human programmed genetic biologic systems
3157. Landweber: Evolution as Computation;
3158. Bentley, Digital Biology, how nature is tranforming our technology and our lives, Simon and Schuster,
3160. Hull and Ruse, eds, the philosophy of biology, oxford, 1998 2001
ontogenesis, morphogenesis, self repair, stem celluarity
bio-molecular self assembly; embryonic hardware; self repairing systems
3161. Mittenthal: Principles of Organization in Organisms;
3162. Goodwin: How the Leopard Got its Spots;
3163. Segel: Design Principles for Immune ...;
3164. Stein: Thinking about Biology;
3165. Schlosser: Modularity in Development & Evolution;
3166. Kumar & Bentley: On Growth, Form, & Computers;
metabolism: phenotype self regulation circuits
biologic behavior hijacking; supa-molecular self assembly; synthetic biology; parts shops for humans
3167. West-Eberhard: Developmental Plasticity in Evolution;
3168. Stein: Thinking about Biology;
bio-logic
3174. Forbes, imitation of life, how biology is inspiring computing, MIT, 2004
3175. Clark, natural-born cyborgs, minds, technologies, and the future of human intelligence, oxford, 2003
behavior: development & regulation
experience capture systems; memory compilation systems; environment sensing systems; reflex evolution
systems
3177. Smith&Thelen: Dynamic Systems Approach to Development;
3178. Dawson: Minds & Machines;
3179. Belew: Adaptive Individuals in Evolving Populations;
3180. Kelso: Dynamic Patterns;
3181. Clark: Natural-Born Cyborgs;
ecology
non-biologic ecosystems
3182. Gurney: Ecological Dynamics;
3183. Gunderson: Panarchy;
3184. Pimm: Balance of Nature;
3185. Patten: Complex Ecology;
3186. West-Eberhard: Dev. Plas. in Evoln.;
niche
evolution ecology linkage; rich get richer exponential growth take-offs of technologies, ideas
3187. Odling-Smee: Niche Construction;
3188. Chase: Ecological Niches:
3189. West-Eberhard: DPinEvoln.;
3195. Schlosser and Wagner, eds, Modularity, in development and evolution, Chicago, 2004
3197. Rose, and Lauder, eds, Adaptation, academic press, 1996
plex systems, MIT, 2005
3200. Gregory, the evolution of the geneome, elsevier, 2005
evolution
natural selection evolving of wanted human designs; evo-art, evo-music
3201. Rice: Evolutionary Theory;
3202. Michod: Darwinian Dynamics;
3203. Keller: Levels of Selection in Evolution;
3204. West-Eberhard: Developmental Plasticity and Evolution;
3205. Crutchfield: Evolutionary Dynamics;
3206. Aldrich: Organizations Evolving;
3207. Belew: Adaptive Indls. in Evolvg Poplns.;
3208. West-Eberhard: DPinEvln.;
3209. Schlosser: Modularity in Development & Evolution;
3210. Rose: Adaptation;
3218. Hull: the Philosophy of Biology;
3220. Sterelny and Griffiths: Sex and Death;
3221. Schlosser and Wagner: Modularity in Development and Evolution;
3227. Schlosser and Wagner, eds, Modularity, in development and evolution, Chicago, 2004
3229. Rose, and Lauder, eds, Adaptation, academic press, 1996
plex systems, MIT, 2005
3232. Gregory, the evolution of the geneome, elsevier, 2005
synthetic biology (engineered new parts of biologic systems) & directed evolution (evolution engineering)
humans invent/design new evolution systems; evolvable electronic hardware
bio-logic
MACHINE COMPUTATION
biologic, social, mental, creativity phenomena as computations
biology programmed by humans; tissue engineering; replaceable human body parts
3245. Foddy: Resolving Social Dilemmas;
3247. Ballard: Intro to Natural Computation;
alife and alternate: biologies, societies, minds, creativities
reverse bio-engineering; non-carbon life; silicon life; alternate chemistries
3249. Langton: Alife;
3250. Langton: Santa Fe Alife;

3251. Adachi: Alife; Proceedings: Alife 8 & 9;
computations done: biologically, socially, mentally, creatively
biocomputing: DNA, membrane, protein, etc. computing regimes; social cellular automata
3253. Forbes: Imitation of Life:
3255. Calude: Computing with Cells and Atoms;
3256. Sipper: Evolution of Parallel Cellular Machines;
3257. Paun: DNA Computing;
basic machine computation regimes
biomolecular electronics; self reconfiguring and programming hardware
3258. Bergeron: Bioinformatics Computing;
3259. Floridi: Blackwell Guide to Philosophy of Computing & Info;
3260. Copeland: Essential Turing;
3261. Jones et al: Bioinformatics Algorithms;
3263. Floridi, edr, philosophy of computing and information, blackwell, 2004
natural
computing
natural hardwares; natural software; natural netware; digital immune systems
3265. Ballard: an Intro to Natural Computation;
3266. Back: Evolutionary Computation 2;
3267. Forbes: Imitation of Life;
3269. Segel: Design Principles for Immune Systems...;
3270. Dasgupta: Artificial Immune Systems...;
3271. de Castro: Artificial Immune Systems;
3272. Sipper: Machine Nature; Bentley: Digital Biology
puting, Taylor and Francis, 2002
ics, 2000
3280. Kumar and Bentley, eds, on growth, form, and computers, Elsevier, 2003
3282. Langton, edr, artificial life, an overview, MIT, 1995
robotics: sensor, motor, reflex, planning systems
distributed sensor-actor nets; distributed experience embedding; engineered cybords; lifeform biobots
3283. Brooks: Flesh & Machines;
3284. Brooks: Natural Robotics--Subsumption Architecture;
3285. Rose: Adaptation; Langton, Alife III;
3286. Steels in Langton’s ALife;
biologic aspects of computer/software systems: evolutionary development of computer programs; program
ecosystems
computational evolving ecosystems of niches; self evolving software invention systems
3287. Koza: Genetic Programming I & II;
3288. Huberman: Ecology of Computation;
3290. Langdon & Poli: Foundations of Genetic Programming;
blackwell, 1991
systems, MIT, 2003
evolutionary algorithms
new evolutionary regime inventions
3303. Fogel: Evolutionary Computation;
3304. Mitchell: Intro to Genetic Algorithms;
3305. Corne: Creative Evolutionary Systems;
3306. 2nd Int. Confce: Evolvable Systems: from Bio to H/W;
blackwell, 1991
systems, MIT, 2003
complex adaptive systems dynamics
self emerging design; whistle and tipping point finding
3317. Cowan: Complexity;
3318. Bak: How Nature Works;
3319. Schelling: Micromotives and Macrobehaviors;
3320. Epstein: Growing Artificial Societies;
3321. morowitz&Singer: Mind, Brain,& CAS;
3322. Belew et al: Adaptive Individuals in Evolving Populations;
SOCIAL COMPUTATION
culture, economy, technology evolution
directed evolution of cultures, technologies, economies
3325. Richerson: Not by Genes Alone;
3326. Arthur: Increasing Returns;
3327. Anderson: Economy as Complex Adaptive System;
3329. Sterelny: Thought in a Hostile World, the Evolution of Human Cognition;
3330. Powel: God in the Equation;
3331. Odling-Smee et al: Niche Construction;
3332. Chase & Liebold: Ecological Niches;
3333. Seebright: Company of Strangers;
rise & fall of civilizations/organizations
error science; founding robust venture clusters
3336. Roehner: Pattern&Repertoire in History;
3338. Brown: Social Life of Info;
3339. Swedberg: Entrepreneurship the Social Science View;
3340. Bernstein: the Birth of Plenty;
3341. Seabright: the Company of Strangers;
social computation (social style computing)
organizational computing; social simulation; robot societies
3342. Huberman: Organizational Computing;
3343. Dorigo: Ant Colony Optimization;
3344. Bonabeau: Swarm Intelligence;
Aspects, Psychology Press, 1999
computational sociality (using social forms to compute)
social cellular automatons; viral growth regimes; micro institution development
3346. Yunnus: Grameen Bank homepage;
3347. Greene: Are You Creative? 60 Models;
3348. Arthur et al: Economy as an Evolving Complex System II;
game & gaming theory
game programmed social and computer networks
3349. Sigmund: Games of Life;
3350. Eigen: Laws of the Game;
3351. Smith: Evolution and the Theory of Games;
3352. Rasmusen: Readings in Games&Info;
3353. Camerer: Behavior Game Theory;
3354. Hofbauer and Sigmund: Evolutionary Games & Population Dynamics;
3355. system effects
3356. surprise/disaster option pricing; robust systems theory and practices
3357. Jervis: System Effects;
3358. Thompson: Culture Theory;
system globalizations
practice transplants; attention maintenance; message stickyness design; education systems; diversity sci-
ence
3362. Greene: 21st Century Human Capabilities;
3363. Nisbet: Geography of
3364. Thought; Diener & Suh: Culture & Subjective Well Being
3365. Bernstein: the Birth of Plenty;
policy ecologies & evolutionary engineering (design of self consciously evolving entities)
social simulations; niche networks re-engineering; robust computing; bio-architectures
3368. Mitsch: Ecological Engineering;
virtuality, ubiquity, agility (social & technical)
amorphous computing coatings/lawns; self founding net ventures; socially virtual groups
3371. Greene: Are You Creative? 60 Models;
3372. Greene: Managing Complex Systems;
MIND COMPUTATION
influence & social cognition
self directedness recovery systems; designed social micro-environments; trend design; self implementing
policy designs
3373. Kunda: Social Cognition;
3374. Kahneman: Well Being;
3375. Knowles&Lynn: Resistance & Persuasion;
3376. Dillard: the Persuasion Handbook;
3377. Cialdini: Influence;
memory, language, & other mind extensions
cognitive: architecture, furniture, apparel, friend nets, files, libraries
3378. Hawkins: Evolution of Human Languages;
3379. Jackendoff: Foundations of Language, brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution;
3380. Belew: Adaptive Individuals and Evolving Populations;
3381. Rowe: Machine Musicianship;
3382. Rogers & McClelland: Semantic Cognition;
3383. Manning and Schutze, Foundation of Statistical Natural Language Processing, MIT, 1999
consciousness
sentient materials science; organizational consciousness systems
3384. Morowitz: Mind, Brain, & Complex Adaptive Systems;
3385. Edelman: Universe of Consciousness;
3386. Marcus: Birth of the Mind;
3387. Baars et al: Essential Sources in the Scientific Study of Consciousness;
3388. Koch: the Quest for Consciousness;

3389. Edelman: Wider than the Sky
3392. Marcus, the birth of the mind, how a tiny number of genes creates the compexities of human thought,
Basic, 2004
neural hardware
neuro-morphic engineering; silicon neuroscience;
3398. Dawson: Minds & Machines;
3399. Pinker: Blank Slate;
3400. Ramachandran: Phantoms in the Brain;
3401. Nadel: 1992-3 Lectures in Complex Systems;
3402. Bechtel & Abrahamsen: Connectionism &the Mind;
3403. Arbib, Handbook of Brain Theory & Neural Nets;
3404. Galaburda et al: Languages of the Brain;
emotion,
percept, impression
affective computing; system personalization learning systems; reality specialized social module assemblies
3405. Booker: the 7 Basic Plots;
3406. Lewis: Emotion, Development, & Self Organization;
3408. Ramachandran: Phantoms in the Brain;
3409. Manstead: Feelings & Emotions;
concepts, reasoning, & learning
computational learning theory; learn-by-experience; commonsense self development systems; hemispheric
flaw correctives
3411. Ballard: Intro to Natural Computation;
3412. Rogers: Semantic Cognition;
3413. Thornton: Truth from Trash;
3414. Wolpert: Math of Generalization;
3415. Margolis; Concepts Core Readings;
3416. Sterelny: Thought in a Hostile World, the Evolution of Human Cognition;
cambridge, 1987
meaning & judgement
robust interfaces; emotion and concept flaw correctives; science as the new global, ecumenic, ecologic reli-
gion of all;
3419. Rappaport: Ritual and Religion in the Making of Humanity;
3420. Arkes & Hammond: Judgement and Decision Making;
3421. Hogan: the Mind and its Stories;
3422. Arendt: the Human Condition;
3423. Arendt: On Revolution;
3424. Hacking: Scientific Revolutions;
structures & indexing
structural cognition; macro diagrams; regularized fractal concept targets of mental operations; biologic info
retrieval;
quantum retrieval;
3425. Kintsch&Dijk: Macrostructures;
3426. Kintsch: Comprehension;
3427. Svenonius: The Intellectual Foundation of Info Organization;
3428. Rijsbergen: the Geometry of Info Retrieval;
3429. Bowker & Star: Sorting Things Out;

3438. Rogers and McClelland, semantic cognition, a parallel distributed processing approach, MIT, 2004
thoughts as natural selection processes in minds
productivity routes to creativity; insight automation
3442. Baum: What is Thought;
3444. Simonton: Origins of Genius;
MEDICAL AND MANAGEMENT COMPUTATION
diagnosing:
presentation-history-symptom-hypothesis-test cycle
= Strategy and Focus
diagnostic event assembly over inter-networks; standard evolving solving processes;
disease maps; manage by balancing; whistle point finding;
3445. McGee: Evidence Based Physical Diagnosis;
3446. Tierney et al: CMDT;
3447. Jenick: Foundations of Evidence-Based Medicine;
3448. Spece et al: Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Practice and Research;
3449. Keagy and Thomas: Essentials of Physician Practice Management;
3450. Cummings & Wilson: Images of Strategy;
3451. Mintzberg et al: Strategy Safari;
3452. Coyle: Practical Strategy, Structured Tools & Techniques:
3453. Volberda & Elfring: Rethinking Strategy;
treating & prescribing:
(invention,
trials, tools,
compliance)
= Solution, Product, and Implementation
evidence based policy & treatment; theory optimal practices; practice optimal styles; standard leading func-
tion repertoires; alternate leadership delivery modes; JIT leading
3454. Berwick: Escape Fire, Designs for the Future of Health Care;
3455. Spece et al: Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Practice & Research;
3456. Berwick et al: Curing Health Care;
3457. Atkinson et al: Prnciples of Clinical Pharmacology;
3458. the Arbinger Institute: Leadership & Self Deception;
3459. Christensen et al: Seeing what’s next;
3460. Whetten & Cameron: Developing Management Skills, 5th;
3461. DiClemente,Crosby, Kegler, eds, emerging theories in health promotion practice and research, strategies
for improving public health, jossey-bass, 2002
3462. Glanz, Rimer, Lweis, eds, Health behavior and health education, theory, research, and practice, 3rd edi-
tion, Jossey-Bass, 2002
3463. Albert, a physician’s guide to health care management, blackwell, 2002
3464. Keagy and Thomas, essentials of physician practice management, Jossey bass, 2004
3465. Van de Ven: Innovation;
change, HBS, 2004
3470. Greene: Global Quality
free press, 1998
practice
development:
(own career & profession’s standards/basis)
= Career & Market
Development
client self resource mobilization routines; biologic/behavior tipping points “tippers”; attention engineering;
institutional interface theory;
3477. Albert: A Physician’s Guide to Health Care Management;
3479. Keagy and Thomas: Essentials of Physician Practice Management;
3480. Longest: Managng Health Programs and Projects;
3481. Berwick, Godfrey, Roessner, curing health care, new strategies for quality improvement, Jossey bass, 1990
3482. Gerteis, Edgman-Levitan, Daley, Delbanco, eds, through the patient’s eyes, understanding and promoting
patient-centered care, jossey-bass, 1993
3483. Chapman and Sonnenberg, eds, decision making in health care, theory, psychology, and applications, cam-
bridge, 2000
3485. Lee, Buse, Fustukian eds, health policy in a globalizing world, cambridge, 2002
3486. Spece, Shimm, Buchanan, conflicts of interest in clinical practice and research, oxford, 1996
3487. Longest, managing health programs and projects, jossey bass, 2004
3488. Hammer, Haas-Wilson, Peterson, Sage, eds, Uncertain Times, Kenneth arrow and the changing economics of
healthcare, Duke, 2003
3489. Berwick, escaqpe Fire, designs for the future of health care, jossey bass, 2004
tion, Jossey-Bass, 2002
3493. March: A Primer on Decision Making;
3494. Kotler: Kotler on Marketing;
3495. Citrin & Smith: The Five Patterns of Extraordinary Careers;
3496. Bardwick: The Plateauing Trap & how to avoid it in your career;
3499. Collin & Young: the future of career; Arthur et al: handbook of career theory;
2005
personal health maintenance
(lifestyle/psychic/social/financial)
= Person to Self Leadership
optimize ideal energy flow; optimize signal to noise ratio; optimize to tunable line of values not single
optima; quality totalization & globalization; whistle point finding
3501. Phaedke: Robust Engineering;
3502. Greene: Global Quality;
3504. Kegan: In Over Our Heads;
3505. Arthur & Rousseau: The Boundaryless Career;
3506. Cannon: Sartre and Psychoanalysis;
3507. Klar et al: Self Change;
3508. Gladwell: the Tipping Point;
3509. Brown & Lent: Career Development & Counseling;
2005
public health maintenance
(organization)
= Person to Person Leadership
flaw
surveillance: cognitive/organizational/political flaws; error transmission mode monitoring/intercepting;
3511. Chapman & Sonnenberg: Decision Making in Health Care;
3512. Spece et al: Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Practice & Research;
3513. Hammar et al: Uncertain Times, Kenneth Arrow & the Changing Economics of Health Care;
3514. Grint, The Arts of Leadership;

3515. Chemers: An Integrative Theory of Leadership;
3516. van Maurik, Writers on Leadership;
3517. Vaill: Managing as a Performing Art;
free press, 1998
ecosystem health
maintenance
(economy, nation, trade-block, globe)
= Person to System Leadership
non-linearity of effects flagging; visual self management; manage by events;
3523. Lee et al: Health Policy in a Globalizing World;
3524. Gurney: Ecological Dynamics;
3526. Pimm: Balance of Nature;
3527. Patten: Complex Ecology;
3528. West-Eberhard: Dev. Plas. in Evoln.;
3529. Jervis: System Effects;
3530. Thompson: Culture Theory;
3532. Ulrich et al: the GE work-out;
preventative personal health:
personal fitness
(self change to robust routines)
ecology of self maintenance and self change; stages of psychic development; bridge community dynamics
3533. Gerteis et al: Through the Patient’s Eyes;
3535. Klar et al: Self Change;
3536. Palombo: The Emergent Ego;
3537. Kegan & Lahey: How the Way We Talk Can Change the Way We Work;
3538. Bruch, Learning Psychotherapy;
3539. Brandtstadter & Lerner: Action & Development, Theory & Research thru Life Span;
3540. Thomas: Recent Theories of Human Development;
3541. Sternberg: Love is a Story;
3542. Arthur & Rousseau, The Boundaryless Career;
2005
preventative public health:
public & policy fitness
(societal change to robust routines)
emulation disciplines: generationality & educativity of change; ecology of public change;
3544. DiClemente et al: Emerging theories in Health Promotion Practice & Research;
3545. Glanz et al: Health Behavior & Health Education;
3546. Dewar: the Second Tree: Stem Cells, Clones, etc.;
3547. Cialdini Influence;
3548. Cialdini: Influence, the Psychology of Persuasion;
3550. Levine: the power of persuasion, how we’re bought & sold;
3552. Knowles & Linn: resistance & persuasion;
3553. Dillard & Pfau; the persuasion handbook;
3554. Hatfield et al: Emotional Contagion;
3555. Keller & Berry: The Influentials;
preventative medical system & organization health:
profession
fitness (knowledge change & demystifications for robust routines)
continual compilation of inventions to layers of semi-profession hierarchy; clien t fitness measures; manage
by balancing; automatic knowledge deployment cascade processes;
3556. Albert: A Physician’s Guide to Health Care Management;

3558. Lee et al: Health Policy in a Globalizing World;
3559. Hammer et al: Uncertain Times, Kenneth Arrow & the Changing Economics of Health Care;
3560. Keagy & Thomas: Essentials of Physician Practice Management;
3561. Illych: Medical Nemesis;
3562. Beldstein: Culture of Professionalism;
3563. Myers: Intuition, Its Powers & Perils;
3564. Sternberg: Why Smart People Can Be So Stupid;
3565. Easterby-Smith: Blackwell Handbook on Org Learning & Knowdge Mngt;
3566. Kidd: Knowledge Acquisition for Expert Systems;
3567. Dierkes, et al; Handbook of Organizational Learning & Knowledge Management
CREATIVITY COMPUTATION
catalog, blend, social and group models of creativity: combinatorial creating across boundaries/norms
idea/person/resource islanding; dimensions of difference analysis
3568. Becker: Art Worlds;
3569. Green: Mountain of Truth;
3570. John-Steiner: Creative Collaboration;
3571. Miller: Einstein & Picallo;
3572. Florida: the Rise of the Creative Class;
3573. Shrage: Serious Play;
3574. Segel: Turn of the Century Cabaret;
3575. Farrell, Collaborative Circles, friendship dynamics and creative work, Chicago, 2001
knowledge evolution, experiment, and system models of creativity; knowledge operators that create
idea schaffolding
3577. Brown: Seeing Differently;
3578. Christiensen: Seeing What’s Next;
3579. Bazerman: Predictable Surprises;
3580. Schon: Frame Reflection;
3581. Kauffman: Investigations;
3582. Johnson: Fire in the Mind;
3583. Wolfram: New Kind of Science;
purity, self, and mind models of creativity; personal operators that create
individuation engineering; self inventions
3584. Sternberg: Handbook of Creativity;
3585. Amabile: Creativity in Context:
3586. Runco: Encyclopedia of Creativity vol I & II;
3588. Root-Bernstein: Sparks of Genius; [accelerated learning & culture penetration models]
what X created; for biology, machine computers, society, and mind: what & how--biology, computers, soci-
eties, minds--create
reducing actions to codes; reducing codes to more compact codes; stochastic requireements extensions;
syntax/semantics/pragmatics inter-compilations
3591. Wolfram: New Kind of Science;
3592. Mandelbrot: the Misbehavior of Markets;
3596. Hull: the Philosophy of Biology;
3597. Sterelny and Griffiths: Sex and Death;
what X we create: for biology, machine computers, society, and mind: how we create new--biologies, com-
puters, societies, mentalities
substrate translation: abstract operators/results from substrates then try new substrates
3598. Casti: Art and Complexity;
3599. Kelly: Out of Order;
3601. Burt: Structural Holes;
3602. Arthur: Increasing Returns;
3603. Nonaka: Managing Industrial Knowledge;
3604. Florida: the Rise of the Creative Class;
3605. Christensen: Seeing What’s Next;

3606. Van de Ven: Managing Innovation;
3608. Rowe: Machine Musicianship;
what created X for biology, machine computers, society, and mind: biologic, computer, societal, mental
creativity operators
science as the new ecumenic global ecologic relition: what to safely believe, where authority to live is
found,
3609. Arendt: On Revolution; @
3610. Davis: Genetic Algorithms&Simulated Annealing; @
3611. Bonabeau: Swarm Intelligence; @
3612. Holland: Hidden Order;
3613. Watts: Small Worlds; @
3614. Cambell: Hero with 1000 Faces; @
3615. Keith: Arts of Leadership; @
3616. Martindale: the Clockwork Muse; @
3617. Barrow: the Artful Universe;@
all fields of knowledge and practice as standard creativity operators applied to different parts of the world
creativity engineering: 60 creativity operators appliable to all parts of the world
3618. Root-Bernstein: Sparks of Genius;
3620. Sternberg: Intuition;
3621. Dumont: Essays on Individualism;
3622. Palombo: Emergent Ego;
3623. Kegan: In Over Our Heads; @
3624. Brockman: Curious Minds;
3625. Goldstein: Incompleteness, Godel
all creativity as the same paradox generators applied to different parts of the world, so paradox doorways to
creation appear everywhere
measurement and observational revolutions: of means, of scale, of relevance, of intent
3626. Clark: Paradoxes from A to Z;
3627. Fletcher: Paradoxical Thinking;
3628. Farson: Management of the Absurd;
3629. Eisenstadt: Paradoxes of Democracy;
3630. Smith: Paradoxes of Group Life;
3631. Thaler: the Winner’s Curse;
3632. Lewis: Exploring Paradox;
3633. Poundstone: Lambrynths of Reason;
3634. Skousen: Puzzles&Paradoxes of Economics;
all creativity as bootstrapping of further pattern and complexity from prior pattern and complexity
complex adaptive systems engineering
3636. Gladwell: the Tipping Point;
3637. Cilliers: Complexity & Postmodernism;
3638. Scfhelling: Micromotives & Macrobehaviors;
3639. Strevens: Understanding Complexity thru Probability;
3640. Zureck: Complexity, Entropy, & the Physics of Info;
3641. Kauffman: Investigations;
3643. Corne: Creative Evolutionary Systems;
NATURE COMPUTATION
finite element analysis, simulated annealing, renormalization groups
cellular telecommunications; cellular computing; cellular ubiquity;
3644. Laughlin: A Different Universe, Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Up;
3645. Wolfram: A New Kind of Science;
3646. Barrow et al: Science and Ultimate Reality;
3647. Penrose: the Road to Reality;
3648. Bruce: Schrodinger’s Rabbits;
3649. Yougrau: a World Without Time;
cellular automata
social
automata;
3650. Wolfram: A New Kind of Science;

3651. Pollack et al: Artificial Life 9;
3652. Standish et al: Artificial Life 8;
ant algorithms
terrain/internet/interface marking systems;
3653. Dorigo: Ant Colony Optimization;
swarms
local optima emergenetics;
3656. Kennedy: Swarm Intelligence;
3657. Bonabeau: Swarm Intelligence;
populations of intelligent agents
learned coordination mechanisms; learned democracies;
3660. JIT organization form; socially virtual organizations;
3661. Sipper: Machine Nature;
3662. Bentley: Digital Biology;
simulated societies
inventor-less inventions; societal repertoires;
3665. Ilgen&Hulin, Computational Modeling of Behavior in Organizatns;
3666. Prietula et al: Simulating Organizations;
3667. Gilbert & Troitzsch: Simulation for the Social Scientist;
3668. Carley & Prietula: Computational Organization Theory;
3669. Gilbert &Conte: Artificial Societies, computer simulation of social life;
3670. Epstein&Axtell, Growing Artificial Societies, social science from the bottom up;
3671. Durlauf and Young, Social Dynamics;
3672. Lomi &Larsen, Dynamics of Organizations:Computational Modeling&Organizatn Theories;
3673. Casti, Complexification, Explaining a Paradoxical World Through the Science of Surprise;
3674. Casti, Would-BeWorlds, How Simulation is Changing the Frontiers of Science;
3675. Carley & Prietula, Computational Organization Theory;
3676. Foddy, et al, Resolving Social Dilemmas;
neural nets
non-representational memories; social neural nets;
3677. Eliasmith and Anderson: Neural Engineering;
3678. Ballard: an Intro to Natural Computation;
3680. Sipper: Machine Nature;
3681. Bentley: Digital Biology;
3682. Arbib: Handbook of Brain Theory & Neural Nets
evolutionary & genetic algorithms
alternate biologies; recapitulated bioforms;
3683. Langdon & Poli: Foundations of Genetic Programming;
3684. Tanaka et al: Evolvable Systems, from Biology to Hardware, 4th Internl. Confce.;
3685. Fogel & Corne: Evolutionary Computation in Bioinformatics;
3686. Sipper et al: Evolvable Systems, from Biology to Hardware, 2nd Internt. Conferece;
3687. Tyrrell et al: Evolvable Sysgtems, from Biology to Hardware, 5th Internl. Confc.;
3688. Back et al: Evolutionary Computation 1; Back:
3689. Evolutionary Computation 2;
immune
algorithms
identity engineering: self/non-self marking systems; dynamic identity marking systems;
3691. deCastro: Artificial Immune Systems;
3692. Dasgupta: Artificial Immune Systems;
3693. Segel: Design Principles for Immune Systems...;
LEARNING COMPUTATION
machine learning
theory automation; alternate sciences;
3694. Thornton: Truth from Trash;
3695. Weiss et al: Computer Systems that Learn;

3696. Fisher et al: Concept Formation;
3697. Ballard, An Intro to Natural Computation;
3698. Klosgen & Zytkow: Handbook of Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery;
3699. Weiss: Distributed AI Meets Machine Learning;
cambridge, 1987
human
learning
structural cognition; mental operator repertoires; cognitive furniture, cognitive architecture, cognitive
apparel;
3702. Granott & Parziale: Microdevelopment;
3703. Arendt: the Life of the Mind;
3704. Cilliers: Complexity & Postmodernism;
3705. Baum: What is Thought?;
3706. Elman et al: Rethinking Innateness;
3707. Vallacher&Nowak, Dynamical Systems in Social Psych;
3708. Brown &Gaertner: Blackwell Handbk of Inter-group Social Psychology;
3709. Tesser&Schwarz: Blackwell Handbk of Intra-indvl Social Psychology;
3710. Fletcher & Clark: Blackwell Handbk of Interpersonal Social Psych,;
3711. Hogg & Tindale: Blackwell Handbk of Group Process Social Psych;
3712. Kunda: Social Cognition;
organization learning
idea rooms; phone research events; research assemblies; cognitive process deployment cascades;
3714. Brown and Duguid: The Social Life of Info;
3715. Cohen & Sproul: Organizational Learning;
3716. Damasio: Unity of Knowledge;
3717. Mokyr: the Gifts of Athena;
natural selection as learning
idea-niche-environment tri-partite exploration engineering; Lamarcian evolution engineering;
genetic organization forms;
genetic markets;
3718. Mayr: What Makes Biology Unique;
3719. Dawkins: the Ancestor’s Tale;
3723. Rice: Evolutionary Theory;
3725. Keller: Levels of Selection in Evolution;
3726. West-Eberhard: Developmental Plasticity and Evolution;
3728. Aldrich: Organizations Evolving;
lifeform learning behavior
experience indexing; stratified responding;
3729. Dawkins: the Ancestor’s Tale;
3730. Smith&Thelen: Dynamic Systems Approach to Development;
3731. Dawson: Minds & Machines; Belew: Adaptive Individuals in Evolving Populations;
3732. Kelso: Dynamic Patterns;
culture as learning
unlearning learning; culture as high performances & vice versa; “culturing” wanted capabilities;
3733. Nisbett: Geography of Thought;
3734. Tannen: You Just Don’t Understand;
3735. Kahneman et al: Well-Being;
3736. Diener & Suh: Culture & Subjective Well-Being;
3737. Vinken et al: Comparing cultures;
3738. Greene: Defining 21st Century Human Capabilities
automation of research & invention
discovery automation; idea farms; venture incubation;
3741. Rosenberg et al: Technology&the Wealth of Nations;

3742. Janszen, The Age of Innovation;
3743. Mayes, Sources of Productivity Growth;
3744. Hesselbein et al: Leading for Innovation;
3745. Rogers: Diffusion of Innovations;
3746. Scherer: Innovation & Growth, Schumpeterian Perspectives;
3747. Nelson: National Innovation Systems, a comparative analysis;
3748. Christensen et al: Seeing what’s next; @
3749. Wind et al: the Power of Impossible Thinking;
3750. Shekerjian: Uncommon Genius, how great ideas are born;
3751. Brown: Seeing Differently, insights on innovation;
3752. Iansiti & Levien: the keystone advantage, business ecosystem dynamics;
knowledge factories (venture clusters)
idea combinatorics; dimensions of difference designing;
3753. Brown & Duguid: The Social Life of Info; @
3755. Swedberg: Entrepreneurship, the Social Science Perspective;
3756. Lee: the Silicon Valley Edge;@
3757. Illych: Medical Nemesis; @
3758. Beldstein: Culture of Professionalism;@
3759. Myers: Intuition, Its Powers & Perils; @
3760. Sternberg: Why Smart People Can Be So Stupid;@
3761. Easterby-Smith: Blackwell Handbook on Org Learning & Knowdge Mngt;
3762. Kidd: Knowledge Acquisition for Expert Systems;
3763. Dierkes, et al; Handbook of Organizational Learning & Knowledge Management@
orthogonal disciplines
auxiliary universities; orthogonal universities; colleges of orthogonals;
3764. Greene: Defining 21st Century Human Capabilities;
3765. Damasio: Unity of Knowledge; @
BLENDS COMPUTATION
self applying recursion and embedding:
example--evolving of natural selection algorithms, or natural selection subsystems within organisms
immuno-tronics
3769. Charnow: LifeHistory Invariants;
mixed applying, recursion, embedding:
example--evolving morphogenesis systems
biologic device invention agriculture
3771. Landweber: Evolution as Computation; @
continuua:
game-simulation-work, software-firmware-hardware-wetware, gene-genecontroller-geneswitch
learning as culture/world penetration and contributing
3772. Bower: Computational Modeling of Genetic & Biochemical Networks;
3773. Casti: Would-be Worlds; @
3774. Prietula: Social Simulation; @
3775. Epstein: Growing Artificial Societies;@
3776. Koster, a theory of fun, for game design, paraglyph, 2005@
3777. Wolf and Perron, the video game ,theory reader, routledge, 2003@
Aspects, Psychology Press, 1999@
error, noise, event tolerant robustness
robustness engineering: optimizing for reliability and survival
3779. Rappaport: Ritual and religion in the Making of Humanity;
3781. Phaedke: Robust Engineering;
3782. Greene: Global Quality; Jen: Robust Design
modeling regimes for complex biologic, computer, societal, mind, creativity systems
representation engineering: abstracting across implementation substrates
3784. Nadel: 1991 Lectures in Complex Systems; Auyand: Foundations of Complex System Theories; Mandelbrot:
the Misbehavior of Markets;
elimination of death
de-aging treatments; aging cessation; life extension treatments; genetic/cytoplasm/metabolism level death
cause eliminations;
3785. Dewar: the Second Tree, Stem Cells, Clones, Chimeras, & Quests for Immortality, Carroll & Graf, 2004;
3786. Hall: Merchants of Immortality;
3787. Kurzweil & Grossman: Fantastic Voyage:
3788. Hall, merchants of immortality, chasing the dream of human life extension, Houghton Mifflin, 2003
evolution
puting, Taylor and Francis, 2002@
ics, 2000
3796. Dorigo and Stutzle, ant colony optimization, MIT, 2004@
3797. Paun, Rozenberg, Salomaa, DNA computing, new computing paradigms, springer, 1998@
3798. Kumar and Bentley, eds, on growth, form, and computers, Elsevier, 2003@
3799. Langdon, Poli, foundations of genetic programming, springer, 2002@
3800. Langton, edr, artificial life, an overview, MIT, 1995@
interfaces
3801. Fogg, Persuasive Technology, using computer to change whatwe think and do, Morgan Kaufmann, 2003@
3802. Norman, Things that Make Us Smart, Perseus, 1993@
3803. Norman,The Psychology of Everyday Things, Basic, 1988@
3805. Frascara, edr, Design and the Social Sciences, Taylor&Francis02%%%@
modules
3808. Baldwin & Clark, Design Rules, vol. 1, The Power of Modularity@
3809. Fodor, Modularity of Mind, MIT Press, 2000
3810. Riel, Object-Oriented Heuristics, Addison-Wesley, 1996
selves
3811. Leak, Jean Paul Sartre, Reaktion, 2006@
2006@
3818. Cervone and Mischel, eds., Advances in Personality Science, Guilford, 2002@
3819. Sternberg and Kolligian, Competence Considered, Yale, 1990 (plus nearly all other Sternberg edited books)
3820. Boekaerts, Pintrich, Zeidner, Handbook of Self Regulation, Academic00@
3821. Higgins, Kruglanski, eds., Motivational Science, Psychology Press, 2000
3822. Gollwitzer and Bargh, eds., The Psychology of Action, Guilford, 1996
2005
science as the new religion
the science of religion
3826. Tremlin, minds and gods, the cognitive foundations of religion, Oxford, 2006@
3827. Dennett, breaking the spell, religion as a natural phenomenon, Viking, 2006@
3828. Illich, as told to Cayley, the rivers north of the future, the testament of Ivan Illich, Anansi, 2005@
Altamira, 2005
3831. Jacoby: FreeThinkers, a History of American Secularism; Metropolitan, 2004@
3832. Norris and Inglehart, sacred and secular, religion and politics worldwide, cambridge, 2004
3833. Boyer, religion explained, the evolutionary origins of religious thought, Basic, 2001
3834. Wilson, Darwin’s Cathedral, evolution, religion, and the nature of society, Chicago, 2002
7. 2006 Add Ons

recency has certain advantages, the books below were recently acquired
and found good in quality
quantum computing
3839. Lloyd, Programming the Universe, Knopf, 2006@
3840. Seife, Deconding the Universe, Viking, 2006@
stein’s spookiest theory, Plume, 2001@
3842. Laughlin, a different univers,e reinventing physics from the bottom down, Basic, 2006@
Japanese aesthetics
3846. Odin, Artistic Detachment in Japan and the West, Hawaii, 2001@
Chance and Probability Theory
3847. Jaynes, Probability Theory, the logic of science, Cambridge, 2003@
3848. Kaplan and Kaplan, Chances Are, adventures in probability, Viking 2006
democracy theory
3849. Cunningham, Theories of Democracy, Routledge, 2002@
3850. Dahl, Shapiro, Cheibub, eds, the Democracy Sourcebook, MIT, 2003@
3851. Terchek and Conte, eds, Theories of Democracy, a reader, Rowman, 2001@
innovation theory
change, HBS, 2004
bio-logic
brain science
3858. Silvia, exploring the psychology of interest, Oxford, 2006@
3860. Panksepp, affective neuroscience, Oxford, 1998@
3863. Elster, strong feeling, emotion, addiction, and human behavior, MIT, 1999@
3864. Morris, Tarassenko, Kenward, cognitive systems, information processing meets brain science, Elsevier,
2006@
3871. Ramachandran, A brief tour of human consciousness, Pi press, 2004@
3872. Juslin and Sloboda, music and emotion, theory and research, Oxford, 2001@
Basic, 2004
3876. Edelman, wider than the sky, the phenomenal gift of consciousness, Yale, 2004@
3877. Hameroff, Kaszniak, chalmers, eds, toward a science of consciousness III, MIT, 1999@
math
3882. Livio, the equation that couldn’t be solved, how mathematical genius discovered the language of symme-
try, Simon and Schuster, 2005
3890. Penrose, the road to reality, a complet guide to the laws of the universe, Knopf, 2005
bridge, 2004@
3892. von Mises, Probability, statistics, and truth, Dover, 1957
Press, 2005@
3895. Goldstein, incompleteness, the proof and paradox of kurt godel, norton, 2005
complexity
3899. Granovetter and Swedberg, the sociology of economic life, 2nd edition, Westview, 2001@
School, 2006@
the nature and origins of the self
3901. Leak, Jean Paul Sartre, Reaktion, 2006@
2006@
2005@
educational philosophy
3906. Palmer, edr, 50 major thinkers on education, Routledge, 2001
3907. Noddings, philosophy of education, Westview,1995
3908. Reed and Johnson, philosophical documents in education, 2nd edition, Addison Wesley, 2000
fashion
ness, Kaplan, 2005@
3910. Shaeffer, high fashion sweing secrets from the world’s best designers, Rodale, 1997
3911. McKelvey and Munslow, fashion design, process, innovation, and practice, blackwell, 2003@
design
3912. Bennett, edr, design studies, theory and research in graphic design, Princeton architectural press, 2006@
3913. Boland and Collopy, eds, managing as designing, Stanford business press, 2004@
3915. Wilson, information arts, intersections of art, science, and technology, MIT, 2002@
3916. Laurel, design research, methods and perspectives, MIT, 2003@
Arendt and virtue
3922. Arendt, responsibility and judgement, Schocken, 2003@
expertise
Cambridge, 2006@
the science of religion
3925. Tremlin, minds and gods, the cognitive foundations of religion, Oxford, 2006
3926. Dennett, breaking the spell, religion as a natural phenomenon, Viking, 2006@
3927. Illich, as told to Cayley, the rivers north of the future, the testament of Ivan Illich, Anansi, 2005@
Altamira, 2005
3930. Norris and Inglehart, sacred and secular, religion and politics worldwide, cambridge, 2004@
3931. Boyer, religion explained, the evolutionary origins of religious thought, Basic, 2001@
3932. Wilson, Darwin’s Cathedral, evolution, religion, and the nature of society, Chicago, 2002@
3935. Jacoby: FreeThinkers, a History of American Secularism; Metropolitan, 2004@
collaboration and communication
3937. Braman, Communicatiion researchers and policy-making, MIT, 2003@
software
3938. Jackson, software abstractions, logic, language, and analysis, MIT, 2006
3939. Maindonald and Braun, data analysis and graphics using R, an example based approach, cambridge, 2003@
3940. Paulson, ML for the working programmer, cambridge, 1991
language
3941. Jackendoff, foundations of language, brain, meaning, grammar, evolution, Oxford, 2002@
biographies
3942. Boulton, edr, the selected letters of D. H. Lawrence, cambridge, 1979
personality
comedy research
3947. Chapman and Foot, eds, humor and laughter, theory, research, and applications, transaction, 2004@
law
3948. Bartol and Bartol, psychology and law, theory, research, and applications, Thompson, 2004@
policy
3949. Sabatier edr, theories of the policy process, westview, 1999@
culture
3950. Schaller, Crandall, the psychological foundations of culture, LEA, 2004@
politics
3952. Sprinz and Wolinsky-Nahmias, eds, Models, Numbers, and Cases, methods for studying international rela-
tions, U of Michigan 2004@
structural cognition
innovation
change, HBS, 2004@
Intellectual Property
3957. Bouchoux, Intellectural Property, 2nd edition, Thomson, 2005
3958. Elias and Stim, Patent, Copyright & Trademark, an intellectual property desk reference, 4th edition, Nolo,
2003
3959. Inside the Minds, The Art and Science of Patent Law, Aspatore books, 2004
3960. Gilbert, the Entrepreneur’s Guide to Patents, Copyrights, Trade secrets, and Licensing, Berkeley, 2004@
creative people
3961. Browne, Charles Darwin, the origin and after, the years of fame, Knopf, 2002@
concepts
3970. Rogers and McClelland, semantic cognition, a parallel distributed processing approach, MIT, 2004@
cambridge, 1987
3972. Murphy, the Big Book of Concepts, MIT, 2002@
design
3973. Birkhauser, Design: history, theory, and practice of product development, Birkhauser, 2005@
science of religion
biology evolution
design
creativity and innovation
change, HBS, 2004
psychology
innovation
change, HBS, 2004
design of cities
biology as engineering
3989. Bentley, Digital Biology, how nature is tranforming our technology and our lives, Simon and Schuster, 2001@
game design
3990. Koster, a theory of fun, for game design, paraglyph, 2005@
sports
3993. Wann, Melnick, Russell, Pease, Sports Fans, the psychology and social impact of spectators, routledge,
2001
leadership
free press, 1998
3996. Antonakis, cianciolo, Sternberg, eds, the Nature of Leadership, SAGE, 2004@
3997. Klitgaard and Light, eds, High-Performance Government, RAND, 2005@
quality
3998. Ross, Taguchi Techniques for Quality Engineering, McGraw Hill, 1988
theatre and performance
art criticism
science of religion
killing death
4002. Hall, merchants of immortality, chasing the dream of human life extension, Houghton Mifflin, 2003
4005. Dewar, the second tree: stem cells, clones, chimeras, and quests for immortality, Carroll & Graf, 2004
quantum
emotion
culture, Japan
Review, 19993
creativity
4011. Farrell, Collaborative Circles, friendship dynamics and creative work, Chicago, 2001
change, HBS, 2004
4026. Kaufman and Baer, eds, creativity and reason in cognitive development, cambridge, 2006
4034. Simonton, Creativity in science, chance, logic, genius, and zeitgeist, Cambridge, 2004
Oxford, 2002
4037. Gardenfors, conceptual spaces, the geometry of thought, MIT, 2004
4039. Feinstein, the nature of creative development, Stanford business books, 2006
Oxford, 2003
computation
4043. Lomi and Larsen, Dynamics of Organizations, comutational modelling and organization theories, MIT, 2001
Aspects, Psychology Press, 1999@
4046. Copeland, The Essential Turing, the ideas that gave birth to the computer age, Oxford, 2004@
4048. Manning and Schutze, Foundation of Statistical Natural Language Processing, MIT, 1999@
Concepts
4052. Prinz, furnishing the mind, concepts and their perceptual basis, MIT, 2002@

4055. Rogers and McClelland, semantic cognition, a parallel distributed processing approach, MIT, 2004@
math--comprehensive overviews
4056. Penrose, the road to reality, a complet guide to the laws of the universe, Knopf, 2005@
bridge, 2004@
4058. von Mises, Probability, statistics, and truth, Dover, 1957@
Press, 2005@
complexity
brain science
4064. Sterelny, thought in a hostile world, the evolution of human cognition, blackwell, 2003@
Basic, 2004
4066. Edelman, wider than the sky, the phenomenal gift of consciousness, Yale, 2004@
4067. Hameroff, Kaszniak, chalmers, eds, toward a science of consciousness III, MIT, 1999@
evolutionary biology
4073. Goodwin, how the leopard changed its spots, the evolution of complexity, scribner, 1994@
the history of life, MIT, 2005@
4081. Gregory, the evolution of the genome, elsevier, 2005@
genetic computation
4082. Landweber, Winfree, eds, Evolution as computation, springer, 2002@
blackwell, 1991
4086. Ballard, an introduction to natural computation, MIT, 2000@
systems, MIT, 2003@
medicine
tion, Jossey-Bass, 2002@
economics of pricing in markets
4095. Mandelbrot and Hudson, the (mis)behavior of markets, a fractal view of risk, ruin, and reward, Basic,
2004@
4096. Seabright, the company of strangers, a natural history of economic life, Princeton, 2004@
4097. Mirowski, natural images in econmic thought, markets read in tooth and claw, cambridge, 1994
4098. Copeland and Antikarov, real options, a practitioner’s guide, Thomson, 2003
4099. Smit and Trigeorgis, strategic investment, real options and games, Princeton, 2004@
evolution theory
4100. Hammerstein, edr. genetic and cultural evolution of cooperation, MIT, 2003@
4103. Smith and Szathmary, the origins of life, from the birth of life to the origin of language, oxford, 1999@
4104. Richerson and Boyd, not by genes alone, how culture transformed human evolution, Chicago, 2005@
complexity
creativity persons
4108. Brockman, edr, curious minds, how a child becomes a scientist, pantheon, 2004@
the MacArthur award, Penguin, 1990@
quantum
4110. Laughlin, a different universe reinventing physics from the bottom down, Basic, 2006@
statistics
economics origins
4115. Berstein, the birth of plenty, how the prosperity of the modern world was created, McGraw Hill, 2004@
philosophy of computing
4116. Floridi, edr, philosophy of computing and information, blackwell, 2004@
career
2005
indexing ideas
bioengineering
math
4125. Goldstein, incompleteness, the proff and paradox of kurt godel, norton, 2005
music composition
4126. Rowe, machine musicianship, MIT, 2001
philosophy of science
4127. Hacking, edr, scientific revolutions, oxford, 2004@
4128. Stevenson, edr, the study of human nature, a reader, 2nd edition, oxford, 2000@
human nature
4131. Dupre, Human Nature and the Limits of Science, Oxford, 2001
4132. Ashworth, Psychology and Human Nature, Psychology Press, 2000
health care management
4133. Berwick, Godfrey, Roessner, curing health care, new strategies for quality improvement, Jossey bass,
1990@
4134. Gerteis, Edgman-Levitan, Daley, Delbanco, eds, through the patient’s eyes, understanding and promoting
patient-centered care, jossey-bass, 1993@
4135. Chapman and Sonnenberg, eds, decision making in health care, theory, psychology, and applications, cam-
bridge, 2000@
4136. Lee, Buse, Fustukian eds, health policy in a globalizing world, cambridge, 2002@
4137. Spece, Shimm, Buchanan, conflicts of interest in clinical practice and research, oxford, 1996@
4138. Longest, managing health programs and projects, jossey bass, 2004@
4139. Hammer, Haas-Wilson, Peterson, Sage, eds, Uncertain Times, Kenneth arrow and the changing economics of
healthcare, Duke, 2003
4140. Berwick, Escape Fire, designs for the future of health care, jossey bass, 2004
consciousness
4146. Ramachandran, A brief tour of human consciousness, Pi press, 2004@
communication theory
philosophy of biology
4149. Hull and Ruse, eds, the philosophy of biology, oxford, 1998@
biologic computation regimes
puting, Taylor and Francis, 2002@
ics, 2000
4157. Kumar and Bentley, eds, on growth, form, and computers, Elsevier, 2003@
4159. Langton, edr, artificial life, an overview, MIT, 1995@
2007 ADD ONS

Sciences
4160. Ulanowicz, Ecology, the Ascendent, Perspective, Columbia Univ. Press, 1997@ = updates energy and trophic
paradigms with complexity theory and emergence
4161. Randall, Lisa; Warped Passages, Unraveling the Mysteries of he Univers’s Hidden Dimensions, Ecco 2005 =
portrays how we may be in extra dimensions whose effects we see in our 4 dimensions, tracing from those
effects to the extra dimensions that generate them
4162. Ridley, eminent lives, francis crick discoverer of the genetic code, harper collins 2006
4163.
Culture
4164. Darnton, the Kiss of Lamourette, Reflections in Cultural History (of France) Norton1990
4165. Berreby, Us and Them, Understanding Your Tribal Mind, Little brown, 2005
4166. Harrison and Carroll, Culture and demography in organizations, Princeton, 2006
4167. Rogoff, the cultural nature of human development, Oxford, 2003
4168. Epstein, friendship and expose, houghton mifflin, 2006
Statistics
4169. Davison, Statistical Models, Cambridge, 2003
4170. Wasserman, All of Statistics, A concise course in statistical inference, Springer, 2004
4171. Sivia, Data Analysis, a bayesian tutorial second edition, Oxford, 2006
4172. Cox, Principles of Statistical Inference, Cambridge, 2006
4173. Jaynes, Probability theory, the logic of science, cambridge, 2003
Creativity
4174. Holmes, Investigative Pathways, patterns and stages in the careers of experimental scientists, Yale Univer-
sity, 2004
4175. White, new ideas about new ideas, insights on creativity from the world’s leading innovators, Perseus, 2002
4176. Lienhard, how invention begins, echoes of old voices in the rise of new machines, Oxford, 2006
4177. Runco, creativity: theories and themes, research, development, and practice, academic press, 2007
Business
4178. HBR, Harvard business review on brand management, HBR, 1994
4179. Tushman and anderson, managing strategic innovation and change, a collection of readings, second edition,
Oxford, 1997
4180. Goranson, the agile virtual enterprise, cases, metrics, tools, Quorum, 1999
4181. Prusak and Matson eds, knowledge management and organizational learning, Oxford, 2006
4182. Toffler, revolutionary wealth, knopf, 2006
4183. Pine and gilmore, the experience economy, work is theatre and every business a stage, HBS 1999
Mind and Brain
4184. Davidson and Harrington, visions of compassion, Oxford, 2002
4185. Wallace, contemplative science, where buddhism and neuroscience converge, columbia, 2007
4186. Valiant, circuits of the mind, oxford, 1994
4187. Elliot and Dweck eds, handbook of competence and motivation, oxford, 2005
4188. Laming, understanding human motivation, blackwell, 2004
4189. Dai and Sternberg, eds, Motivation, emotion, and cognition, integrative perspectives on intellectual func-
tioning and development, LEA, 2004
4190. Barrett, niedenthal, winkielman, eds, emotion and consciousness, guilford 2005
4191. Edelman, second nature, brain science and human knowledge, yale, 2006
4192. Minsky, the emotion machine, commonsense thinking, artificial intelligence, and the future of the human
mind, simon and schuster, 2006
4193. Birren, color psychology and color therapy, university books 1961
4194. Holtzschue, understanding color, an intro for designers, 2nd edition, wiley, 2002
Music Machines
4195. Price, the beginnert’s guide to computer based music production, cherry lane, 2004
4196. collins, choosing and using audio and music software, focal, 2004
Leadership
4197. Popper, leaders who transform society, what drives them and why we are attracted, praeger, 2005
Lamguage
4198. Wolf and Gibson, coherence in natural language, data structures and applications, MIT, 2006
4199. Hinzen, mind design and minimal syntax, oxford, 2006
2007 LATE FALL ADD ONS

Ontologic Engineering
4200. Lytras and Naeve Intelligent Learning Infrastructure for Knowledge Intensive Organizations, a semantic
web perspective
4201. Gomez-Perez, Fernandez-Lopez, Corcho Ontological Engineering
Venturing and Leadership
4203. Livingston Founders at Work GREAT
4204. Antonakis, Cianciolo, Sternberg The Nature of Leadership
4205. Ancona, Bresman, X-teams, how to build teams that lead, innovate, and succeed, Harvard Business, 2007
Complexity--Adaptation
4206. Booker, Mitchell, Forrest, Riolo Perspectives on Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems
4208. Wagner Robustness and Evolvability in Living Systems
4209. NOwak Evolutionary Dynamics, exploring the equations of life
4210. Huberman The Law of the Web, patterns in the ecology of information
4214. Miller and Page Complex Adaptive Systems, an introduction to computational models of social life
GREAT
Group Creativity
4221. Houtz The Educational Psychology of Creativity
4222. Runco Creativity, Theories and Themes, Research Development and Practice
4223. Isaacson Einstein, his life and universe
4224. Sawyer, Group Genius, the creative power of collaboration, basic 2007
4225. Stokes, Creativity from constraints, the psychology of breakthrough, Springer, 2006
4226. Paulus, Nijstad, eds, Group Creativity, innovation through collaboration, Oxford 2003
4227. Schwartz, Juice, the creative fuel that drives world-class inventors, Harvard Business, 2004
General Psych Overviews

4228. Elliot and Dweck Handbook of Competition and Motivation
4229. Gross Handbook of Emotion Regulation
4230. Hassin, Uleman, Bargh The New Unconscious
4231. Varela, Thompson, Rosch The Embodied Mind, cognitive science and human experience
4232. Munger, the History of Psychology., fundamental questions

4233. Carruthers, Laurence, Stich The Innate Mind, vol. 2, culture and cognition
4234. Stainton, edr, Contemporary Debates in Cognitive Science, Blackwell, 2006
4236. Carruthers, Laurence, Stich, eds, The innate mind, structure and contents, Oxford 2005
Fields Applied to Sexuality
4240. Foucault The Use of Pleasure, the history of sexuality,m volume 2
4241. Diamond Why is Sex Fun?
4242. Faure Buddhist Approaches to Sexuality
4243. Nanda Gender Diversity, cross cultural variations
4244. Harrell Ways of Being Ethnic in Southwest China
4245. Herdt Sambia Sexual Culture
4246. Abramson and Pinkerton Sexual Nature Sexual Culture
4247. LaFont Constructing Sexualities
Acting Basics
4248. Brestoff Great Acting Teachers and their Methods
4249. Meisner and Longwell Meisner on Acting
4250. Stanislavski An Actor Prepares
4251. Stella Adler and the Art of Acting
4258. Page, The Difference, how the power of diversity creates better groups, firms, schools, and societies, Prin-
ceton, 2007
Culture
4260. Platt French of Foe? getting the most out of living and working in France
All is Information
Religion as Poison
4267. Hitchens, God is not Great, how religion poisons everything, Twelve 2007
4268. Stenger God, the Failed Hypothesis, How science shows that God does not exist
4269. King Evolving God, a provocative view of the origins of religion
4270. Sagan The Varieties of Scientific Experience, a personal view of the searhc for God
Japan Aesthetic Elite
4271. Koh Japan's Administrative Elite
4272. Shono Still Life
Math Basics
4273. Dunham The Calculus Gallery, masterpieces from Neton to Lebesque
4274. Dixon Mathographics
4275. Byers How Mathematicians Think
4276. Nahin When least is Best
4277. Stewart Why Beauty is Truth, a history of symmetry
4278. Nahin, Chases and Escapes, the math of pursuit and evasion, Princeton 2007
Research as Knowledge Management
4279. Matheson, Matheson, the Smart Organization, creating value through strategic R&D, Harvard Business, 1998

Social Neuroscience

Research on Designing
4285. Bennett Design Studies, theory and research in graphic design
Research Process Basics
4288. Robinson, Shavfer, Wrightsman Measure of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes
4289. Groves, Fowler, Couper, Lepkowski, Singer, Tourangeau Survey Methodology
4290. Bradburn, Sudman, Wansink Asking Questions, the definitive guide to questionnaire deisgn
4291. DeVellis Scale Deveelopment, theory and applications
4292. Fields Taking the Measure of Work, a guide to validated scales for organization research and diagnosis
4293. Robinson, Shaver, Wrightsman Measures of Political Attidues
4294. Iarossi The Power of Survey Design
Systems Biology
4295. Alon, Introduction to Systems Biology, design principles of biological circuits
4296. Davidson The Regulatory Genome, gene regulation networks in development and evolution
Japanese Mentality Models

Education Theory and Practice
4299. Ritter, Nerb, Lehtinen, O’Shea, eds. In Order to Learn, how the sequence of topics influences learning,
Oxford, 2007
4300. Sykes, A Nation of Victims, the decay of the american character, St. Martins 1992
4301. Bok, Our underachieving colleges, Princeton 2006
4302. Boulding, The Image, knowledge and life in society, Ann Arbor, 1968
The above booklist represents 450 topics I continually study

and 450 courses I am competent to teach.
TOTALIZE DECADE
BODIES OF COLLEGES
KNOWLEDGE
p205 11 p361 19
NEW NESTED
p332
AUTOMATA 20
PURPOSE
OF ALL
p427
SUBSTRATES
INSIGHT
13 NON-LINEAR
KNOWLEDGE
TIPPING
21
WORLD NEW BASIC
3
DESIGN COMMON-
75 PULSED POINTS
SYSTEMS
79
3 16
DIGITAL CREATIVITY
GRAMMAR 14 SOCIAL-
NESS
22 27
290 p439
2 WORLD & NOVELTY
4 15 67 23
4
2
p35
p41 DIVERSITY
p519 p535 SOCIAL 28
MONASTIC FOUR DEMO-
1
ZENOVATION
p16
THE HEAVY
CHANGE
p47
66 SOCIAL
RELATIONS
EVOLUTION
LEVERAGING
25
BECOME
THEORIST
EXTENDING
CRATIC
iNNOVA-
TING p542
INNOVATION
NOISE
HITTERS
INNOVATION
AS CULTURE
5
p742
p749
68 TECHNOLOGY
GENERATIONS
SEARCH
29
SOCIAL LIFE
p558
NET HERO p546
FRACTAL
p160
30
NATIVE
MODEL p130
7
1 65 p755
31p550
FUNCTION
5
92 FUNDING
PULSES
(PUBLIC + 58
DARWIN-
IAN
59
INNOVATION
CULTURE BY COPYING
EXCELLENCE
SCIENCES
p774 EXCELLENCES
ORDER FOR FREE
69 34 TECH
TIPPING
35
STRATEGY
81
FUTURE +
PUNCTURE
PROFESSION
(HIGHER
CULTURE TION
TION 36 CULTURES
p722 p727 SELF p568 p572
OF INCREASING
SILICON
p759
33 p604 THINKING
INTROJECT
p577
DE-LOCAL-
IZATION
DYNAMIC
COSTS MANAGE
DYNAMICS
37
p739 ADJACENT p768
70 MENTAL NICHE
RIDING
64 GLOBALI-
ZATION
p737 THEORY
SIMPLE
PROGRAMS
BEYOND
p732
62
8 MEDIA 51 71
p764
NET
p615 43
6 MODELS
40 INVENTOR DE-
MENTAL
SPACES
ORGANIZE
p588
p584
38
63 p733
PROJECT
42 HOLE NEED-
FUNCTION-
p599
39
GENCE 52 SPAN
44
7
83 82
MODELS
88 p670 p611 IDEA +
49 KNOWLEDGE
EVOLUTION
p691
41 PASSION +
p622 SOCIAL
PLASMA
EXAGGERATE
OBSTACLES
SOCIAL
53 INFO ECOSYSTEM
ECOLOGY
TRUST
48 SPAN IS
FOUNDER
STORIES
p631
46
p706 TROJAN SPAN
55 PRODUCTS
FRACTAL 47
MODEL
87 META-PRODUCT
RECURSIVE REBALANCE
SERVICE

Sel PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sel PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

72 INNOVATION MODELS

by Richard Tabor Greene

by Richard Tabor Greene

SUMMARY PARAGRAPHS FOR THE 72 MODELS

SUMMARY PARAGRAPHS FOR THE 72 MODELS

SUMMARY PARAGRAPHS FOR THE 72 MODELS

SUMMARY PARAGRAPHS FOR THE 72 MODELS

SUMMARY PARAGRAPHS FOR THE 72 MODELS

SUMMARY PARAGRAPHS FOR THE 72 MODELS

SUMMARY PARAGRAPHS FOR THE 72 MODELS

SUMMARY PARAGRAPHS FOR THE 72 MODELS

SUMMARY PARAGRAPHS FOR THE 72 MODELS

SUMMARY PARAGRAPHS FOR THE 72 MODELS

SUMMARY PARAGRAPHS FOR THE 72 MODELS

SUMMARY PARAGRAPHS FOR THE 72 MODELS

SUMMARY PARAGRAPHS FOR THE 72 MODELS

SUMMARY PARAGRAPHS FOR THE 72 MODELS

SUMMARY PARAGRAPHS FOR THE 72 MODELS

SUMMARY PARAGRAPHS FOR THE 72 MODELS

by Richard Tabor Greene

SOME EXAMPLES FROM YESTERDAY IN TOKYO:

I repeat: there are almost NO books, speeches, or presentations on inno-

Seeing Innovation Clearly--by Stripping Off Dis-

1. publish-or-perish academic culture of the American sort, widely aped globally

Every few years, when the Academy of Management journal/review/executive

THE RESULT FOR INNOVATION--DEATH BY FULL IMPLEMENTATION OF “BEST”

Gamble’s Corporate New Ventures program using Amabile’s “research” at Har-

THE RESULT FOR INNOVATION--THE AUTISTIC ECONOMY AND ITS PRODUCTS--we

3. dying East Coast religion of business bastions--Harvard-MIT, the ivies--lately

THE RESULT FOR INNOVATION--THE EAST COAST ALZHEIMER’S PLAQUE KILLING

2. software engineer nerd-otaku culture--the autism that produces software tools

3. East Coast religion of business invading West Coast religion of business--replac-

Hennessey, President of Stanford, went to New York City, to examine setting up a

THE RESULT: like an Alzheimer’s plaque the snobberies, ruthless self-uberalles,

Some Particular Means and Ends of This Book’s

1. REPERTOIRES OF MODELS--from single right-y models of innovation to plural

2. MEASURE AMOUNTS OF NOVELTY ACHIEVED--from no concern with and mea-

3. BEYOND MERE BUSINESS AREAS OF INNOVATION--from the “innovations” prod-

HOW THIS HELPS--economic development requires 3 things (says Grondana in Hun-

5. BEYOND MERE AMERICANISMS--from American centric views of innovation to

2. PERFORMANCES CROSSING NATIONAL OR GENDER CULTURE BARRIERS--all the

Proven Personally, Proven by Generations of My

41 of my students at the University of Chicago, at Temple University in Japan, at Keio Univer-

Sources of this book’s Models

Origins of this book’s Models

of the innovation topic.

So What Do 100 Models of Innovation Do for Me,

Some Non-Models of Innovation by Typical Con-

1. ZENOVATION--The Jobs-Apple Model of

3. THE POWER OF SINGULARITY Practice undistraction--aiming that is true and

How to Build the World's

INFO FLOW MANUFACTURE

takes to make stuff; it's how long it takes the information to

OLD PRACTICES + NEW PRACTICES + DEVICE DIALOG

NEW LIVES, PRACTICES, FEELINGS, IMAGININGS,

CREATIVITY AS SEEING DIFFERENTLY

VERY SHY VERY MUCH PERFOMER—DRAMATIC PRODUCT

idea. Pick the best one, and let's go

GOAL AND MOTIVATION IF RIGHT MINIMIZE AND SOLVE

MANUFACTURING IS A SOFTWARE PROCESS WITH FUNNY

23. So, to build a great company, you need more than a

Otherwise, you'll spend half your time fixing things that

Turn Steve Jobs' Life

#$ $ :! /"" -5 *,

*