Copying, Synergy, and the Test Kitchen

30 Jun

I’m thinking about another entry in Maslow’s Eupsychian Management, “Synergic versus Antisynergic Doctrine.”

Here Maslow beings by exploring two ways of seeing availability of resources: as limited and as unlimited or regenerating.  In the general, dog-eat-dog world of life or the office, (or in Theory X, as Maslow would say), we see things as limited, so we have to grab what we can get and do whatever we can to keep others from grabbing it back. The problems with this are fairly obvious in general, but it’s particularly problematic when the “limited” way of thinking is wrongly extended to things which when shared generate more of themselves in an ever-increasing way. Good things, like ideas, knowledge, psychological well-being.

Science, for instance, only works when ideas and learnings and experiments are shared. Of course, that is the whole idea of science. Everyone can build on each other’s experiences in an ever-increasing virtuous circle. The times when we try to limit knowledge–like to keep it out of the hands of the Soviets, for instance–hurt the “us” more than it hurts the “them,” because the us don’t benefit from the virtuous cycle of the knowledge percolating through the aquifer of our collective thought. And the them probably find their way to the information in any event.

To share knowledge is to generate more knowledge; and that’s a “synergic” way of looking at things, from a generative perspective rather than a perspective of limitation. To think “I need to hide the secret in the safe,” that’s “anti-synergic.”

Anti-synergic thinking shows a confusion of the product with the more complex and more beautiful and more fleeting and more valuable and less reproducible people-thought-action-system (my words) that produced it. Ideas in business are a good example. Of course it’s common to develop a product and then want to keep the stuff we learned while developing it secret so our competitors can’t redo it and thus steal our potential earnings and glory, etc.

But you can look at things differently. Take the voltmeter from Nonlinear Systems (Maslow’s example). Nonlinear invented the voltmeter, apparently, and could have kept how to make it secret, but they didn’t. Allan Kay, the leader, pointed out that anyone could copy the voltmeter, but they couldn’t as easily copy the complex system that developed it.

About that “system.” For Maslow, it seems, this system consists of three key parts: a creative disposition, a commitment to iterate, and an ability to perceive things in their truth, regardless of predispositions.  (I guess a fourth necessary part that goes without saying is that the system needs to have people in it). These three, or four, things make a process or flow, a virtuous circle–a thing half ceremony, half discovery, have foundry–from which the particular product is but a kind of snapshot or a thrown-off snakeskin, only marking where things were at a certain point.

Someone can copy the snakeskin, but it would be hard to copy the “snake,” the fluid, creative, productive, self-corrective, honestly-perceiving ecosystem that gave it birth.  And if you did recreate the snake, or Nonlinear Systems, that would be good in any event, because you’d be bringing a “Theory Y,” healing, self-affirming, goodness-making, not-believing-in-limitations, social machine into being, and that would have all sorts of positive effects on the lives of the people that came into contact with it. And your new Nonlinear Systems would probably get along OK with the Old Nonlinear Systems, since good organizations would of course get along with good organizations. You would probably form a system between you of a higher order of mind-process-production that couldn’t have been conceived until then.

The flow of the creative-iterative-perceptive system feels like it has parts in it of my idea of the information “sluice;” but it also contains a built-in doing component (the “foundry,” per me, above), because you’re making things. It feels akin to Basadur’s Creative Problem Solving process, which says an idea is not creative if it’s not implemented. But it’s also meta. I take Basadur’s CPS as a kind of subroutine; whereas the kind of organization or process Maslow is talking here about feels more like a superordinate way of going about things. One that might contain within its parts both synergic and anti-synergic subroutines.

I should stress the observation part. I added it; Maslow doesn’t break it out as such in this entry, but it pops up in others. And it resonates. Perhaps the most important part of this creative synergic flow is the ability to look at yourself or your process with Bergsonian pure perception, or with Maslow’s B-cognition. Objectively and lovingly and without predetermined ideas, but rather seeing the context for the context, the product for the product. Not clouded by a desire for the thing to be good, or for the struggle to be over so that you can coast, or for a desire to defeat your enemies, but just in itself. This ability to step out of yourself would seem crucial to generating the kind of creative ideas that would fuel iterative improvement.

For the record, the idea of sharing things in order to have more of them, for Maslow, works for other things we often assume we have to hoard in work or in life: power and love being two.  He refers to Linkert’s idea (in New Patterns of Management) of the “influence pie:” where managers allowed their reports to have more influence and suddenly discovered they themselves (the managers) had more, too.

As an aside, cooking shows are connected to this. You can watch the person make a dish and know how to make that dish, but you won’t learn much about the life of their kitchen, or how they relate to food, and what sparks new dish ideas, and how they refine things, and how they get feedback. You might mistakenly focus on sourcing ingredients and getting the right pot and wake up to find yourself in a antisynergic mode. When it’s not about the particular ingredient or pot or outcome, but about the culture hidden behind and among those things. Even America’s Test Kitchen doesn’t really teach you how to have your own test kitchen.  Which is sad because I think a synergic life would be a kind of continual test kitchen.

About these ads

9 Responses to “Copying, Synergy, and the Test Kitchen”

  1. orthomentor June 30, 2013 at 4:28 pm #

    Johnson O’Connor 10 T-Groups with objective to choose who would best represent them at the “next level” (of eupsychian government if they must know).

    Then roll up with adggridants.

    Personality characteristics of alpha.

    Keep up the JND’s at the boundaries!! Thrilling.

  2. orthomentor June 30, 2013 at 4:31 pm #

    Digital voltmeter, actually. Someone will goose you on it. There used to be silly things with DIALS, eh?

  3. orthomentor June 30, 2013 at 4:39 pm #

    Y-man and Z-man [notion] plus B-values = Discriminator

    Extreme Y at .001 and Extreme Z at .001 “Porch Types” on Beauty, etc. Justice is Playful Playfulness is Just

  4. orthomentor June 30, 2013 at 5:27 pm #

    Andy Kay Allan Kay — Family? Andy’s son=David Kay, WordSmart

    Andrew Kay M.I.T. ’40 See Wayback Machine on kaycomputer[s].com

    In re anti-synergic something, you should have the attached at hand for the Interocitor (he does greps, awks and crons through by using the psychedelic Inodalyn). Remember UNIX and Maslow share the same hierarchy.

    Andy Kay: I interviewed him. Believe me, he was Y. So what we have here is Kay, high-IQ mechanomorphic ideaphoria and Maslow’s B-eye associations rolled into the Maslow DeadJim Nuggets. (Toys for the Dead).

    DeadJim Society, you know. Dead but not silent. My orthomentor is, of course, Maslow.

    Taught me about proctopsychology vs. corrected vision psychology.

    And then….Sam’s Personal Gravity Secrets.

  5. orthomentor June 30, 2013 at 5:32 pm #

    Synergic vs. Zero Sum

    None as good as all quote (Bennis). And Y-men will never herd cats.

    Should Bill Ouchi be chided for obfuscating Theory Z ontology? Errors will not be tolerated.

  6. orthomentor June 30, 2013 at 8:03 pm #

    This has to be an experiment for straightening the crooked picture on the wall, lost letter, etc.

    “Correct the schmendlich”

  7. orthomentor June 30, 2013 at 8:12 pm #

    Self-actualization is about aptitudes. Best in class on data is Johnson O’Connor Research Institute –back to the 20’s. See “Born That Way” book and think self-actualization.

    Andy Kay was Johnson O’Conner guy.

    Now notice the notion of “porch mechanomorph.”

  8. orthomentor June 30, 2013 at 8:19 pm #

    Client-centered therapy–>Eupsychian education.

  9. orthomentor June 30, 2013 at 8:21 pm #

    Tried to tell them about the B-signature, but got gift box of Reynold’s Wrap.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: