Skip to main content

The Meeting



You go to meetings; so do I. If the meeting is small with just a few attending, and if the meeting about a specific topic, much can be accomplished.  Attendees are not only on the same page but often on the same sentence or even same word.  Focus, sift, winnow, achieve, do.  Move on.  Love it.

Such is not the norm.  Let's talk about big meetings with lots of folks, with vague directives, with no clear focus, and without any central core other than generalized commands.  For example, "We need to get a grant," or “We need more profits for the third quarter,” or some such thing. I've been to lots of these meetings and you too.  

Much time is brainstorming; that is, with conversants storming all with a blizzard of ideas, most of which are little more than chaff or specks on the wall.  

Some do this just to participate.  A new idea is thrown out, not because it is relevant, but because it hasn't been mentioned earlier. (You get participation points.) The thrower feels good having said something, maybe believing it is key, knowing he/she contributed, but not having considered the few details on how it fits with the other specks on the wall. 

This is a hallmark of many participants. You get theoretical chit-chat.  No targeted ideas, just a new directions in an already highly dimensional tensor of stuff. Others listen politely but privately wonder how this fits; they know little about the idea and little is explained. So they shut up not wishing to expose themselves as ignorant. With a room full of such folks, each promoting the half-baked, the meeting notes extend page after page. The poor meeting manager, probably lost at the beginning,  is even more so at the end.  

Enter "cleaver-man/woman,"  the superhero that cuts through the fodder of ideas, and shows what should be the center core direction and cleverly demonstrates that the proposal wrapper can contain in some fashion much of what lies on the floor as chaff.  

Have you been to such meetings?  Often there is nothing but white noise, but suddenly someone sees a way.  Most often this comes not from the collective but a single person.  This unification serves not to deny the collective but to celebrate the individual. 

Current thinking tends toward the collaborative, thinking,  learning, developing, and solving, with the lonely individual left standing outside.  It is about time to recognize that both the group and the individual are integral components in seeking pathways forward.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Accepting Fake Information

Every day, we are all bombarded with information, especially on news channels.  One group claims it's false; another calls it the truth. How can we know when to accept it or alternatively how can we know it's false? There are several factors which influence acceptance of fake or false information. Here are the big four.  Some just don’t have the knowledge to discern fact/truth from fiction/fact/false*. Some fake information is cleverly disguised and simply appears to be correct. Some fake information is accepted because the person wants to believe it. Some fake information is accepted because there is no other information to the contrary. However, the acceptance of  information  of any kind become a kind of  truth , and this is a well studied topic. In the link below is an essay on “The Truth About Truth.” This shows simply that what is your point of view, different types of information are generally accepted, fake or not.   https://www.linkedin.com/posts/g-donald-allen-420b03

Your Brain Within Your Brain

  Your Bicameral Brain by Don Allen Have you ever gone to another room to get something, but when you got there you forgot what you were after? Have you ever experienced a flash of insight, but when you went to look it up online, you couldn’t even remember the keyword? You think you forgot it completely. How can it happen so fast? You worry your memory is failing. Are you merely absent-minded? You try to be amused. But maybe you didn’t forget.   Just maybe that flash of insight, clear and present for an instant, was never given in the verbal form, but another type of intelligence you possess, that you use, and that communicates only to you. We are trained to live in a verbal world, where words matter most. Aside from emotions, we are unable to conjure up other, nonverbal, forms of intelligence we primitively, pre-verbally, possess but don’t know how to use. Alas, we live in a world of words, stewing in the alphabet, sleeping under pages of paragraphs, almost ignoring one of

Is Artificial Intelligence Conscious?

  Is Artificial Intelligence Conscious? I truly like the study of consciousness, though it is safe to say no one really knows what it is. Some philosophers has avoided the problem by claiming consciousness simply doesn’t exist. It's the ultimate escape clause. However, the "therefore, it does not exist" argument also applies to "truth", "God", and even "reality" all quite beyond a consensus description for at least three millennia. For each issue or problem defying description or understanding, simply escape the problem by claiming it doesn’t exist. Problem solved or problem avoided? Alternately, as Daniel Dennett explains consciousness as an account of the various calculations occurring in the brain at close to the same time. However, he goes on to say that consciousness is so insignificant, especially compared to our exalted notions of it, that it might as well not exist [1] . Oh, well. Getting back to consciousness, most of us have view