March 28th, 2015
in Op Ed
by Roger Erickson
If a collection of cells (you) can act entrepreneurially, why can't a collection of 330 million citizens act as a team? They can? How? How often WILL they? And why not all of the time, or at least more often than we have been cooperating recently?
How do we get our nation to explore it's aggregate options?
First, recruit an electorate to recognize and explore their BIGGEST options? Please tell me, if you know where to start, and how to do that. Clearly, there are many options. How do we most productively explore those aggregate options?
Now THAT is an interesting topic!
How can a RAIDLY EXPANDING auto-catalytic aggregate continuously reform both its internal-feedback sensing AND external-scouting strategies to constantly re-extract adaptive, aggregate context modeling from its (exponentially expanding? factorially expanding?) "option space?" (More plainly, simply explore its rapidly expanding options.)
Why, that would make us an Entrepreneurial Aggregate! That would be a whole far greater than just the sum of our individual entrepreneurs, "entrepreneurially" sequestering resources back and forth FROM one another! :(
This is truly the "Evolving Aggregate's Task." In fact, it's quite obviously every aggregate's #1 task, by far.
Making aggregate option explorations a snap? Now that would be exciting. Much more so than just trivial tactical tasks.
That's obviously what happens when agile teams explore contexts. It's the most important task facing national aggregates, and probably the most neglected. That's what Context Nomads do, and we are all Context Nomads, all the time, whether we know it or not.
The deeper meaning of entrepreneurism is to occasionally turn away from frictions and sequestering existing resources FROM one another, to the rarely practiced activity of exploring aggregate options for creating not just more resources ... but actually creating a pool of resources another order of magnitude larger than what we could previously access. Total teamwork? What a mundane, but ignored, concept! :(
The simple truth is that we as an aggregate are always capable of creating more wealth than any of us can currently imagine. Yet instead, for spurious reasons, we spend most of our time hoarding what we've already got ... FROM one another, instead of optimally provisioning our most valuable asset, our aggregate teammates! That is embarrassingly dumb, and the opposite of being entrepreneurs.
How much of available aggregate information do we need, in order to perceive emerging, aggregate context? Not as much as we initially imagine. It's clearly a matter of data-sampling methods and context-modeling methods and option-exploration methods. Surely that's not to hard to practice, aka, between wars, not just during world wars?
We actually have mathematicians patenting algorithms for extracting data images from complex data sets.
Why patent? Exactly so we can constrain the adoption rate of the application of the advanced method just invented, for narrow vs aggregate gain. And thereby slow our aggregate adaptive rate? Do tell! When is too much of one method (patent protection) too much to bother with as an aggregate? When it's time to adjust, can we DISCERN when to make aggregate adjustments fast enough to keep from harming our aggregate selves? Do we have ways to even sense that, soon enough to matter? Or only long after the damage has been done?
And why slow the population penetration of new inventions at all? Do we really know what we are doing? Is too soon ever too soon?
Since those two tolerance limits change, how do we stay safely between them, and pursue that moving target?
Our application of our emerging knowledge parsing methodology is too timid.
Our emerging methods are too useful to be limited ONLY to compartively trivial applications such as medical imaging or molecular modeling.
What about modeling our own cultural context, and our our aggregate adaptive rate?
Really? What if we tried being an effective NATION? What would motivate us to try that? I mean, something other than another war?
No one person can supply adequate answers, but we can start asking more challenging questions of one another.