Jonathan Brun

Think Different, Think Better

Pooling ideas from multiple disciplines and creating a coherent picture is at the heart of genuine progress. The greatest contributers are often people working outside their apparent expertise – Einstein, Ghandi, MLK, Yunnus, Picasso, and all the ones who never made it through school, Hughes, Gates, Jobs….

Hence the renaming of my blog to “The Beekeeper”, which hopefully expresses my fascination with gathering thoughts from a wide spectrum of the human collective à la Tipping Point, Gun’s Germs and Steel, and Freakonomics. The TED conference (www.ted.com), which gathers luminaries from all fields to share big – nay I say huge – ideas, is one of my favorite sources of information.

However, going against the societal grain often means being wrong for extended periods of time and being ostracized. And the difference between a loon and a genius is simply success as demonstrated here: Here

A favorite childhood bedroom poster of mine stated, “Beaten paths are for beaten men”.

Open-Source Life

Open-Source systems are projects where people can build on existing work without the worry of copyright infringement. Open-source projects and online communities have taken off in the past few years. Linux, Wikipedia, and Joomla have driven software and collaborative work, MySpace, Facebook and Youtube have become beehives of cultural activity and World of Warcraft, Dungeons and Dragons and MIR II have formed alternate universes.

These communities have produced important technical products and spurred creativity. Which begs the question: What are the possibilities of applying open-source philosophy to non-technical concerns?

The best News website that has taken this approach is Guerrilla News Network. At the site, anyone can post an article, which is then awarded points by fellow community members; once the article has passed a specified threshold of points, it is published. This method allows for rapid peer-reviews and dissemination trustworthy information. Their system works relatively well. The articles are then subject to comments and discussion.

Can such a system be applied on a broader social level? Can the city of Montréal (4 million people) have a central website where people post initiatives for city authorities, tips to police, resources for fellow citizens to consult, etc etc. Or, is it necessary to allow the internet and its users to discuss topics on specific websites for their respective organizations?

One issue with these communities is reaching critical mass. It takes a certain quanitity of people for a community to remain active. It would therefore take an initiative on the part of the government to set this up. For example, all proposed bills could be posted along with the ability to comment and link. The discussions would have an expiry date where a vote would be taken on the topic, closing the topic – or opening another.

However, the real problem with collaborative work on non-scientific matters, is the difficulty of proving a concept right or wrong. Political ideas and their implementation are always open to interpretation and it is therefore not obvious that an open-source collaborative platform would help launch good initiatives. I do maintain that it would encourage debate and the dissemination of relevant information.

Moderators would be needed and large decisions would still require some form of paper voting. Collaboration and discussion is far more powerful than any army or elite. The EU rose out of the ashes of WWII, discussion brought about the end of slavery (in the UK), and collaboration was essential to scientific progress.

The old format of feeding pre-packaged goods to a stagnant consumer or individual is dead. A good talk by Leadbeater was recently given at the TED conference

TED is a conference where the brightest people in various fields come together to share ideas and demonstrate new technologies. Make sure to look at the presentations by Wade Davis (National Geographic), Robert Wright, Neil Gershenfeld (MIT), Ray Kurzweil, Peter Donnelly, and many many more.

There is substantial proof that students at schools who embrace an open, collaborative environment learn much more. The original school is Summerhill, where kids are encouraged to run projects and utilize resouces from teachers, but are not spoon fed excercises in a typical classroom. There have been pilot projects in Quebec for project-driven curriculum and students do in fact learn much more. Just as humans are inherently good (in a good environment), students have a natural desire to learn when placed in a good environment (see Ted Talk by Gershenfeld).

Another great example of the miscommunication is a study which identifies the right time to intervene with problem children. While it is extremely to change the behavior patterns of a 17 year old, 13, or 10 year old: small changes at the kindergarten (6 years old) level can make a world of difference. A student with poor hearing is likely to feel ostracized from his peers and will compensate with disruptive behaviour (bullying, fighting…), by identifying the problem early and providing a hearing aid, the child will have much fewer problems.

We need to take a step back from emotionally charged issues (poverty, children, health care, military intervention, …) and share ideas amongst many people, not just the politicians. Once we see our options and the research available, then we can start to move forward.

Some friends and I have taken these ideas and developed Strike a Light, a program that provides a platform for teaching students environmental sustainability at school. Without providing the detailed checklist format that is typical of school curriculums, we provide a general outline and the ability to collaborate on projects within a school and between schools. The students can then build on each other, the resources provided and their teachers’ knowledge to create solutions to our resource consumption.

We have just started, but it feels promising, and we hope to work with more schools over the summer to give this program a chance. We are always looking for help, so drop me a line and check out the site.

The future is only possible through collaboration, the concepts of uni-directional information, a teacher in front of a class, an all powerful New York Times editor or traditional patent protection is dying.

Porter Airlines is the Apple inc. of Airlines

I am not easily impressed. In fact, I would say that it takes something truly remarkable to impress me. The new airline, Porter, that currently services Montréal, Toronto and Ottawa has brought back what flying used to be: civilized, courteous, beautiful flight attendants, great food (snacks really), beverages in glasses – not plastic. Essentially, it is first class for the (relative) masses.

The plane itself is a beautiful new Bombardier Q400, which is quite, fast, comfortable and even has that new plane smell. A key feature is that they land in downtown Toronto, as opposed to the ever-delayed Pearson Airport. This allows you to walk out of the airplane and onto Baystreet – on time for your 3 o’clock. The flight attendants even wear hats!

Yet, sitting on an empty plane now, I wonder how much money they are losing. There is certainly a market for this company and their management seems geared towards minimalism and continuous improvement. Long live Porter Airlines!

Three books that changed my life

Identifying my favorite book, music, movie, or female hair colour remains a challenge. Recently visited subjects or people often occupy more prominence in your thoughts than events that occurred years ago. That being said, there are three books that help define the way I see society at large, humans at large and success in the modern (post 1950) world.

Guns, Germs, and Steel

Guns, Germs and Steel won the Pulitzer Prize and the author, Jared Diamond, is widely recognized as an important intellectual. Though my endorsement of the book will not affect its sales, I must say that it had an important impact on me when I read it four years ago.

The book attempts (rather successfully) to explain why Europe, Asia, Africa and the rest of the world developed the way they did. The main contributing factors are boiled down to geography, domesticable animals (pigs and chickens for protein and disease immunology; cows, horses and ox for work power), domesticable plants (rice, wheat: carbohydrates), proximity of enemies, and proximity of allies.

The real impact of this book is that it removes – at least for me – any notion of racism or inherent supremacy. The explanations provided are logical, factual and fit with basic evolutionary theory. Once you have examined the arguments, you may find it difficult to criticize Africa or Asia for their current state of affairs.

The book also lead me to conclude that if Asians had colonized North America prior to Europeans, the massacres would not have been any different. Largely it satisfies a lingering feeling most of us have but are unable to answer without the scent of racism: why are whites on top?

The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature was a New York Times Notable book and built upon evolutionary theories by Richard Dawkins and others. The basic premise is that our genes and more importantly, their desire to propagate, is the determining factor of our actions. The book synthesizes innumerable studies on a variety of animals. As with most amazing books, it manages to create a coherent picture out of thousands of different scientific voices.

The applications of the findings are wide ranging from mating rituals to social interactions and power struggles. This book answered a lingering question that I could not adequately address, why do humans do stupid things? By stupid, I simply mean things that are not logical on the surface: mating with a poor person, an ugly person, destroying the environment, allowing a powerful young prodigy to overtake the master, monogamy, social structures, fiefdom, and a million other trends. Now, I tend to believe in evolutionary biology (though it has a few gaps) and its application to human behavior patterns. Amazing stuff!

Good to Great: What makes some companies make the leap and others don’t is a great description of what it takes to create company and make a difference in the modern world. Based on 5 years of research by Jim Collins and his management sleuths the book outlines what makes a great company (and probably society): A level 5 leader without an ego, great people (not great skills), scalability, perfect execution of one task, simple metrics to analyze success, the willingness to face the facts and debate without hard feelings and the use of technology as an accelerator, but not as an end all.

The end story is that simplicity and deduction is what matters in business and life.

Here

UPDATE: I have changed my mind and am no longer certain that this book is any good, let alone great.