He paused for a second, and then start[ed] talking about a group he had joined called the Russian-American Folk Dance Company. It was odd, given how hard and scientific he had sounded. “I guess I used to think of myself as a lone agent, who made certain choices and established certain alliances with colleagues and friends,” he said. “Now, though, I see things differently. I believe we inherit a great river of knowledge, a flow of patterns coming from many sources. The information that comes from deep in the evolutionary past we call genetics. The information passed along from hundreds of years ago we call culture. The information passed along from decades ago we call family, and the information offered months ago we call education. But it is all information that flows through us. The brain is adapted to the river of knowledge and exists only as a creature in that river. Our thoughts are profoundly molded by this long historic flow, and none of us exists, self-made, in isolation from it.

“And though history has made us self-conscious in order to enhance our survival prospects, we still have deep impulses to erase the skull lines in our head and become immersed directly in the river. I’ve come to think that flourishing consists of putting yourself in situations in which you lose self-consciousness and become fused with other people, experiences, or tasks. It happens sometimes when you are lost in a hard challenge, or when an artist or a craftsman becomes one with the brush or the tool. It happens sometimes while you’re playing sports, or listening to music or lost in a story, or to some people when they feel enveloped by God’s love. And it happens most when we connect with other people. I’ve come to think that happiness isn’t really produced by conscious accomplishments. Happiness is a measure of how thickly the unconscious parts of our minds are intertwined with other people and with activities. Happiness is determined by how much information and affection flows through us covertly every day and year…”

— Social Animal: How the new sciences of human nature can help make sense of a life by David Brooks from the January 17th, 2011 issue of The New Yorker.

“This lively RSA Animate, adapted from Dan Pink’s talk at the RSA, illustrates the hidden truths behind what really motivates us at home and in the workplace.” Thanks Ann!

Debbie Millman: You started your career with a strong sense of “work first, and survival will come.” What advice would you give to students who are just graduating?

Milton Glaser: I often say that the most important thing in those first ten years out of school is not to take a job that will determine your entire life—which happens to a lot of people. They start working for a magazine and they start by assisting, and then they become a junior art director, and then an art director, and ten years later, they’re married and have children. And then the option to change course has been reduced to almost nothing. So you have to be careful.

–from “How to Think Like a Graphic Designer” by Debbie Millman

Questions about whether design is necessary or affordable are quite beside the point: design is inevitable. The alternative to good design is bad design, not no design at all. Everyone makes design decisions all the time without realizing it—like Moliere’s M. Jourdain who discovered he had been speaking prose all his life—and good design is simply the result of making these decisions consciously, at the right stage, and in consultation with others as the need arises.

— Douglas Martin

iPad. Never have so many embraced a great product for exactly the wrong reasons. Too many designers and publishers see the iPad as an opportunity to do all the wrong things—things they once did in Flash—without the taint of Flash.

In the minds of many, the iPad is like Flash that pays. You can cram traditional publishing content into an overwrought, novelty Flash interface as The New York Times once did with its magazine. You may win a design award but nobody will pay you for that content. Ah, but do the same thing on the iPad instead, and subscribers will pay—maybe not enough to save publishing, but enough to keep the content coming and at least some journalists, editors, and art directors employed…

Everything we’ve learned in the past decade about preferring open standards to proprietary platforms and user-focused interfaces to masturbatory ones is forgotten as designers and publishers once again scramble to create novelty interfaces no one but them cares about.

Amen.

It’s a well-argued and good read, particularly for anyone active and interested in social media:

Facebook activism succeeds not by motivating people to make a real sacrifice but by motivating them to do the things that people do when they are not motivated enough to make a real sacrifice. We are a long way from the lunch counters of Greensboro.

…

Boycotts and sit-ins and nonviolent confrontations—which were the weapons of choice for the civil-rights movement—are high-risk strategies. They leave little room for conflict and error. The moment even one protester deviates from the script and responds to provocation, the moral legitimacy of the entire protest is compromised. Enthusiasts for social media would no doubt have us believe that King’s task in Birmingham would have been made infinitely easier had he been able to communicate with his followers through Facebook, and contented himself with tweets from a Birmingham jail. But networks are messy: think of the ceaseless pattern of correction and revision, amendment and debate, that characterizes Wikipedia. If Martin Luther King, Jr., had tried to do a wiki-boycott in Montgomery, he would have been steamrollered by the white power structure. And of what use would a digital communication tool be in a town where ninety-eight per cent of the black community could be reached every Sunday morning at church? The things that King needed in Birmingham—discipline and strategy—were things that online social media cannot provide.

…

[Social media tools] makes it easier for activists to express themselves, and harder for that expression to have any impact. The instruments of social media are well suited to making the existing social order more efficient. They are not a natural enemy of the status quo. If you are of the opinion that all the world needs is a little buffing around the edges, this should not trouble you. But if you think that there are still lunch counters out there that need integrating it ought to give you pause.

Read more of Gladwell’s “Small Change: Why the revolution will not be tweeted” here.

Update: An excellent response by Maria Popova “Malcolm Gladwell Is #Wrong” is worth a read.

“The key to innovation is to first understand a big hairy problem that, to date, nobody’s been able to solve. Once you’ve got that, then, and only then, does it even begin to make sense to do something about it. Otherwise you’ll just end up with a great product nobody needs.”

—The 7 Habits of Highly Innovative People.

An excerpt:

As a user experience designer, I have made a career out of having to say No. It is my job to put an end to bad design practices within an organization before I can make any progress on improving the lives of our customers. And it’s rarely easy…

Each one of us brings an area of specialization to our projects, and it is our responsibility to exhibit that expertise. If you don’t know anything that no one else on your team knows, then it’s probably time to walk away. But if you do, it is your duty to assert that capability and share your knowledge for the betterment of the final product.

Mahatma Gandhi said, “A ‘no’ uttered from deepest conviction is better and greater than a ‘yes’ merely uttered to please, or what is worse, to avoid trouble.” As people who create stuff with the hope that other people will use it, it is outright cowardly for us to protect ourselves before defending the needs of our users.

Read the full article.

Business is all about solving problems for our customers and for our organizations. So whenever an idea pops up that seems to solve a problem, we automatically shut down our critical thinking processes and accept it as the solution. We might take the time to debate how the idea needs to be implemented. But once an idea gets accepted as the solution, we become blind to anything else that might solve the problem in a different, more effective or efficient way.

Unfortunately, good ideas are not necessarily the best ones. To do what’s best for our organizations, we need to open our minds and consider all possible options, not just the first one that looks good. We need to consider that there may be multiple solutions to the same problem and focus on advantages and disadvantages of each or even if more than one solution is called for to meet the needs of differing stakeholders.

How do we stop jumping to solutions?
Start by encouraging divergent points of view during discussion of the problem. If people aren’t offering them, make a point to ask for them. For example, “We all seem to be locked into this one track. Does anyone have a different point of view?” “What if we had to come up with three solutions, what would they be?”

Make it a policy not to automatically accept the first good idea that comes along. Write it down on a flip chart and say, “That sounds good. Before we get into that, let’s see what else we can come up with.”

—Holy Green, “Stop Jumping to Solutions”

Startups need people able and willing of doing the actual work. They need programmers, designers, and eventually folks to do marketing, support, and more. What they don’t need, though, is someone who’s just going to be The Idea Guy.

—David Heinemeier Hansson, There’s no room for The Idea Guy