For all his great writing, and all the complexities, he simplified stories into a few basic story shapes.
Here is a graphic that explains the concept.
Here is a 17-minute video of Vonnegut discussing his theory of the Shape of Stories. You can get the basic concepts in the first 7 minutes … but he is witty and the whole video is worth watching.
You can explore a bit more elaborate version of his "Shapes of Stories" from his rejected Master's thesis from the University of Chicago.
We're in the middle of annual planning – which I mentioned in my video on Chunking Higher.
Today, I want to focus on another aspect of getting better at planning and alignment … the idea of thinking about your thinking.
I shot a video that discusses several useful techniques to amplify decision making.
One of the ideas is something called "Think, Feel, Know." Basically, it explains that you have to deal with superficial thoughts before getting to deeper feelings. Then, you have to deal with those feelings before you get to "knowing".
Another technique discussed in the video involves adding time to look for "insights" after working on something. Those insights are often the seeds for something greater.
Let me know what you think of the video … and I'd love to hear ways you try to amplify intelligence.
Whether you think you can or you think you can't. You're right. – Henry Ford
Processing the possibilities of tomorrow is very difficult for humans. Part of the problem is that we're wired to think locally and linearly. It's a monumental task for us to fathom exponential growth … let alone its implications. For example, consider what happened to seemingly smart and forward-looking companies like Kodak, Blockbuster Video, or RadioShack.
The world changes quickly.
Change is constant. The wheels of innovation and commerce spin ever-faster (whether you're ready for it, or not).
As a practical matter, it means that you get to choose between the shorter-term pain of trying to keep up … or the longer-term pain of being left behind. Said a different way, you have to choose between chaos or nothing.
It is hard to keep up – and harder to stay ahead.
Personally, I went from being one of the youngest and most tech-savvy people in the room to a not-so-young person close to losing their early-adopter beanie. Sometimes it almost seems like my kids expect me to ask them to set my VCR so it stops flashing 12:00 AM all day.
My company may not really do "rocket science", but it's pretty close. We use exponential technologies like high-performance computing, AI, and machine learning.
But, as we get "techier," I get less so … and my role gets less technical, over time, too.
Because of my age, experience, and tendency to like pioneering … I've battled technology for decades.
Don't get me wrong, technology has always been my friend. I still love it. But my relationship with it is different now.
I tend to focus on the bigger picture. Also, I tend to appreciate technology on a more "intellectual" or "conceptual level" – but in a far less detailed way (and with much less expectation of using the technology, directly, myself).
The Bigger Picture
My father said, not worrying about all the little details helped him see the bigger picture and focus on what was possible.
You don't have to focus on the technological details to predict its progress. Anticipating what people will need is a great predictor of what will get built. That means predicting "what" is often easier than predicting "how'. Why? Because technology doesn't often look for a problem; rather, it is the response to one.
Here's a video from 1974 of Arthur C. Clarke making some very impressive guesses about the future of technology.
Artificial Intelligence, quantum computing, augmented reality, neuro-interfaces, and a host of exponential technologies are going to change the face and nature of our lives (and perhaps life itself). Some of these technologies have become inevitabilities … but what they enable is virtually limitless.
This week, a former senior Israeli military official proclaimed that we've been contacted by Aliens from a Galactic Federation – and that not only is our government aware of this, but they are working together.
How naive to think that election news would be the craziest stuff you'd hear this holiday season …
Back to aliens (for the record, that was a sentence I haven't typed before). There are many stories (or theories) about how we have encountered aliens before and just kept them secret. In contrast, I have found it more realistic and thought-provoking to consider theories about why we haven't seen aliens until now.
For example, the Fermi Paradox considers the apparent contradiction between the lack of evidence for extraterrestrial civilizations and the various high-probability estimates for their existence.
To simplify the issue, there are billions of stars in the Milky Way galaxy (which is only one of many galaxies), which are similar to our Sun. Consequently, there must be some probability of some of them having Earth-like planets. It isn't hard to conceive that some of those planets should be older than ours, and thus some fraction should be more technologically advanced than us. Even if you assume they're only looking at evolutions of our current technologies – interstellar travel isn't absurd.
Thus, based on the law of really large numbers (both in terms of the number of planets and length of time we are talking about) … it makes the silence all the more deafening and curious.
If you are interested in the topic "Where are all the aliens?" Stephen Webb (who is a particle physicist) tackles that in his book and in this TED Talk.
In the TED talk, Stephen Webb covers a couple of key factors necessary for communicative space-faring life.
Habitability and stability of their planet
Building blocks of life
Technological advancement
Socialness/Communication technologies
But he also acknowledges the numerous confounding variables including things like imperialism, war, bioterrorism, fear, moons' effect on climate, etc.
Essentially, his thesis is that there are numerous roadblocks to intelligent life – and it's entirely possible we are the only planet that has gotten past those roadblocks.
What do you think?
Here are some other links I liked on this topic. There is some interesting stuff you don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand or enjoy.
Information Is Beautiful has an interactive data visualization to help you decide if we're alone in the universe.
As usual, for them, it is well done, fun, and informative.
For the slightly geeky amongst us, the model lets you adjust the estimate by playing with two equations: the Drake equation and the Seager equation.
The Drake equation estimates how many detectable extraterrestrial civilizations exist in our galaxy and then in the Universe based on factors like habitable planets, change of life, and then intelligent life, and then the amount of time a civilization sends signals into space.
The Seager equation is a modern take on the equation focusing on bio-signatures of life that we can currently detect – for example, the number of observable stars/planets, what % have life, and then % chance of detectable bio-signature gas.
For both equations, Information Is Beautiful lets you look at various default options but also playing with your own numbers to do the math.
For example, the skeptic default answer for Drake's equation shows 0.0000062 communicating civilizations in our galaxy and which is still 924,000 in the universe. The equivalent for Seager's equation shows 0.0009000 planets with detectable life in our "galactic neighborhood" and 135,000,000 planets in our universe.
Even with the "lowest possible" selection chosen, Drake's equation still shows 42 communicating civilizations (Douglas Adams, anyone?) in the universe.
One of the most interesting numbers (and potentially influential numbers for me) is the length of time a civilization sends signals into space. Conservative numbers are 420 years, but optimistic numbers are 10,000+.
If any aliens are reading this … don't worry, I won't tell. But, we will find out if you voted in the last election.
Covid-19 rates are still rising in many places, and there's an unexpected consequence …
Candle companies are getting much more negative reviews. Angry people everywhere seem to be reporting that the candles have no smell! With Covid, perhaps they need to check if they've lost their sense of smell or taste (and whether they have a mild fever).
Katie Petrova, on Twitter, did some research to check if there was really a correlation.
And the results were as expected. In 2020, consumer ratings for scented candles declined much more than unscented candles, and there are spikes in reviews mentioning lack of scent during months with increased cases.
Since the beginning of this year, the proportion of reviews mentioning lack of scent grew from < 2% in January to close to 6% in November.
That being said, unscented candle reviews are lowering too … which makes you think about the confounding variables. Are sales simply increasing to the point where reviews (and thus negative reviews) are increasing? Is it a result of people being bored/frustrated at home?
I'd be curious to see how much candle (or other home scent improving products) purchases increased during 2020.
via 
via 
via 