Closer Together or Further Apart? Digital Devices and the New Generation Gap

Angry Birds: 1, Grandparents: 0

Last week Chuck and Janet Bloom gave their only daughter a night off by taking their grandchildren out for dinner at a local pizza parlor. Both were looking forward to a playful evening with the kids. But as soon as they sat at the table, even before the menus appeared, they noted with dismay that their beloved grandkids were more engaged with and attentive to their holiday-acquired digital devices than to their loving, pizza-partying grandparents. Miriam, their sweet 14-year-old granddaughter, had her eyes intently focused on the contents of her iPad Facebook page. Briana, the 11-year-old, was posting her whereabouts on Twitter, Facebook and Foursquare. And at the far end of the table, 7-year-old Sam's lips pursed in silent focus as he furiously engaged in a PlayStation cowboy shootout. Feeling frustrated, hurt, and angry -- like they might as well have dined alone -- Chuck and Janet quietly launched into an oft-held discussion about how these devices are ruining not just their three grandkids, but young people in general.

At the very same moment and just one table over, half a dozen 20-something work friends were seated, also preparing to order pizza. And just one look over at that crowd affirmed Chuck and Janet's worries about a "lost generation." At that table, two of the diners amicably swapped office gossip, but the others were as engaged with their digital devices as the aforementioned grandkids. What the clucking Chuck and Janet failed to notice was that no one at this second table seemed even remotely concerned or bothered by the fact that technology held as much sway as actual people.

So, why were Chuck and Janet seething about the "digital snub" from their grandchildren, while everyone at the other table managed to enjoy themselves, completely unruffled by the ever-shifting sands of live conversation, texting, tweeting and posting? In great part this difference stems from the fact that Chuck and Janet are digital immigrants, while their grandkids and the 20-somethings one table over are all digital natives -- different generations divided by different definitions of personal respect, attentiveness, interpersonal communication and what constitutes a meaningful relationship.

Digital Natives vs. Digital Immigrants

Generally speaking, people born before 1980 are digital immigrants, and those born after are digital natives. This somewhat arbitrary dividing line attempts to separate those who grew up actively using the Internet and those who did not. Another, and perhaps better, way of looking at things is to say that digital natives unquestioningly value and appreciate the role that digital technology plays in their lives, whereas digital immigrants hold mixed views on the subject. Not surprisingly, thanks to continual advances in digital technology (such as the introduction of Internet-enabled smartphones a few years ago), the separation between digital natives and digital immigrants is widening almost by the day, resulting not so much in a generation gap as a generation chasm.

This new generation gap is evident in practically every facet of modern life. For instance, there are extreme differences in the ways digital natives and digital immigrants conduct business, gather news and information and spend their paychecks. They also differ significantly in the ways they define personal privacy, experience entertainment and socially engage (as evidenced in the pizza restaurant scenario above). Simply put, in a mere 25 years our basic forms of interpersonal communication and interaction have been drastically reformatted, and those who prefer the old ways of mostly face-to-face contact often feel left out and unappreciated.

In some ways this new generation gap sounds a lot like every other generation gap in history. However, previous generation gaps have mostly centered on young people vocally, visually and in-real-time challenging the beliefs and experiences of their elders. Today, the divide is more about the fact that young people neither see nor hear their elders because, from a communications standpoint, the two generations are not in the same room. For instance, in the pizza restaurant Chuck and Janet are "present" and interacting at the dinner table, while their grandkids are "present" and interacting in a completely different, entirely digital universe. In some ways, this means that Chuck and Janet are dinosaurs. Basically, because they're not texting, tweeting or posting to social media, they're not effectively communicating with their grandkids. Thus it seems the 1960s mantra that Chuck and Janet used to utter, "Don't trust anyone over 30," has for their grandkids morphed into, "We don't care about anyone over 30 because we can't see or hear them."

Connection/Disconnection

Interestingly, many digital natives think that young people are isolated and disconnected -- more interested in machines than people. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, no generation in history has been more interconnected than Generations Y and Z. Statistics readily back this up. One study found that in 2009 more than half of American teens logged on to a social media site at least once per day, and nearly a quarter logged on 10 or more times per day. In the same year, a study by the Pew Internet and American Life Project found that more than three-quarters of U.S. teens owned a cellphone, with 88 percent texting regularly. Boys were sending and receiving 30 texts per day, with girls averaging 80. A more recent Pew study, this one conducted in 2012, finds these numbers are rising rapidly among every Gen Y and Z demographic. In fact, the first sentence of the 2012 study's overview reads: "Teens are fervent communicators." Indeed!

This same survey also reveals (to the chagrin of many digital immigrants) that texting is now the primary mode of communication between teens and their friends and family, far surpassing phone calls, emails, and face-to-face interactions. Depending on your age and point of view, of course, this may or may not be a bad thing.

Consider Brad, a tech-savvy digital immigrant who recently flew home from the West Coast to visit his family in Chicago. One evening at dinner there were three generations -- his parents, him and his sister, and his sister's kids. During dinner the oldest child, 17, asked him via text:

"Are you going to marry that girl you brought home last year?"

He texted back: "Yes, but no one else knows yet. Is that OK?"

In response, she typed: "I'm so excited. I know you don't want your mom and dad to know yet, but they are really hoping you will. They liked her. So just between us, can I be a bridesmaid?"

He texted: "I know my secret would be safe with you, and of course you will be a bridesmaid!"

For Brad, this poignant conversation with his niece was one of the more meaningful exchanges of his entire five-day visit. And it is possible that without the privacy shield provided by texting, his 17-year-old niece may not have had the courage to broach the subject, even if she'd been able to find a moment alone with him. For her, the digital buffer of texting made this sweet and intimate exchange possible. And the conversation was no less meaningful for either person just because it was conducted via text.

Talk Versus Text: Does It Matter?

It is possible that human interactions are no less meaningful or productive simply because they are digital rather than face-to-face. It is also possible the exact opposite is true. Frankly, it depends more on those doing the communicating than anything else. Most often, digital immigrants (Baby Boomer and Gen X types) tend to want/need/prefer in-person, live interactions or at least telephone conversations where they can hear the other person's voice.

Digital natives, on the other hand, seem to feel that communication is communication, no matter the venue. To them, it seems silly to wait until they run into someone when they can text that person right now and get an instant response. They ask: "Why would I be disconnected when I can post, tweet and text to let my family and friends known what I'm doing and what I need, and they can do the same with me?" This, of course, is the crux of the current generation gap -- shifting from a fully analog world to one that is increasingly digital.

In my recently released book Closer Together, Further Apart, my coauthor Jennifer Schneider and I note that in today's world the best communicators are those who are willing and able to engage other people in whatever venue is most appropriate and useful at the time. They neither avoid nor insist on a particular mode of interaction. Instead, they work hard to make sure their message is fully understood by the intended audience no matter what. In other words, they embrace the idea that they need to live and communicate fluently in both the digital and analog worlds. As technology evolves, so do good communicators, and they do so without forgetting or discounting what has worked in the past, remaining constantly aware of the fact that some people may prefer the older methodology, while others prefer the new.

Unfortunately, as has always been the case when changes in technology have swiftly and profoundly affected our day-to-day lives, many people, young and old alike, become entrenched in the belief that "the way we do it is the best way." The simple truth is that cultural/technological assimilation is rarely an easy task. Sometimes it can feel easier to judge and avoid, rather than to embrace and evolve. Thus we have the current communications-driven generation gap. That said, the effort of reaching out beyond our generational comfort zone is usually well worth the effort. Brad found that to be true with his niece, and Chuck and Janet might also find it to be the case if they were only willing to give it a shot.

_____


Robert Weiss LCSW, CSAT-S is Senior Vice President of Clinical Development with Elements Behavioral Health. He has developed clinical programs for The Ranch outside Nashville, Tennessee, Promises Treatment Centers in Malibu, and The Sexual Recovery Institute in Los Angeles. An author and subject expert on the relationship between digital technology and human sexuality, Mr. Weiss has served as a media specialist for CNN, The Oprah Winfrey Network, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and the Today Show, among many others. He has also provided clinical multi-addiction training and behavioral health program development for the US military and treatment centers throughout the United States, Europe and Asia.

No Longer Science Fiction: Start-Up Unveils Radical Consciousness Technology

CONSCIOUSNESS APP from Subtangle on Vimeo.

The world reads news together. The world listens to music together. But can the world feel together? And furthermore, can this shared awareness - this collective consciousness - actually impact the physical world?

What would you do if you could tap into that collective consciousness?

Hardware hacker Adam Michael Curry wants to do just that, by releasing a smartphone app based on scientific research that suggests human consciousness can influence physical reality.




The app, aptly called Collective Consciousness, is already generating some serious buzz around its potential. It's backed by a team of leading consciousness researchers and Silicon Valley techies, including Dean Radin of IONS, Robert Jahn of Princeton University, and Joey Primiani - Lady Gaga's own tech boy genius.

Here's the idea. Laboratories like Princeton University's PEAR lab, the Institute of Noetic Sciences, and others have been doing experiments to look at how deeply consciousness (our minds) are connected to the fabric of physical reality. They've shown some interesting results that our minds can have an unexplained ordering affect on chaotic systems. The Global Consciousness Project has been showing that a few dozen such systems, called random number generators spread around the world can produce anomalies when global events happen that polarize human attention. Most famously during the attacks of 9/11.


The odds that the combined Global Consciousness Project data are due to chance is less than one in one hundred billion. The implication is that there's some deep connection between the mind and physical reality, which we don't yet fully understand.


When downloaded, the Collective Consciousness app turns your phone into just such a random number generator, so you can explore the effects yourself. This data is uploaded from users around the world, to create a living network of consciousness information. It's an inquiry into the nature of mind, global consciousness, and the possibility of creating a new kind of "consciousness technology." Sci-Fi fans rejoice.

Me, I'm not a scientist, nor do I play one on TV, thus these thoughts are in a jumble as I hasten toward the birthday party of the one and only Nichelle Nichols -- she of original Star Trek fame ("Hailing frequencies open!") -- where I am to interview Mr. Curry as he presents Ms. Nichols with his impressive "Mind Lamp" (in brief: a glowing tube which changes to the color one contemplates!). It's based on the same technology as his app.


Nichelle's Party! Live Long and Prosper!


He's a disarming figure, this Mr. Curry, with his tony togs and boy-band coif, and an unexpectedly reassuring one to boot, comforting the nodding non-scientist with gentle coos of "That's a good question."

"I was super skeptical about this research at first," says Mr. Curry. "There was a lot of internet hate speech against scientists who studied consciousness. And on the other side, a lot of wild claims by believers. But when I actually read the research papers and rebuttals I was blown away at how much evidence existed. Both sides of the debate were mostly ideological, and less data-driven. But that was ten years ago. Since then, mainstream science has started to embrace consciousness -- the mind -- as a thing that needs to be studied for the mystery it is."

The potential for consciousness to influence chaotic systems is called mind-matter interaction. It's still controversial, but is getting lots of mainstream attention these days. (This month 80 scientists including a Nobel prize winner called for more research into the field).

Over joyful whoops from the nearby Nichols kitchen, Mr. Curry continues.

"Far more exotic ideas are popular now. Like, 'Do we live in a virtual reality?'"

"Are we just brains in jars?" I suggest, knowingly. Adam concurs, laughs, and shifts into academic gear.

"These are small effects, behave strangely, and are not predicted by our theories, which is why scientists have been divided on them for so long," says Curry. "But that's starting to change. The possibility is more parsimonious with contemporary thinking about consciousness and physical reality. I think that even though we don't fully understand it, we know enough now to harness that interconnection and do cool stuff."

Smart fellow, and turns a phrase with grammatical adroitness. I decide that I like Adam. While consciousness makes its transition into popular science, Curry sees an opportunity to cut ahead of the curve, betting that mind-matter interaction will become a new kind of "consciousness technology."


Collective Consciousness: The App


Thus do we find ourselves with the seed of an idea - our minds interacting with our phones in a new way - but enough to grok the basics of how Adam's app could work. You couldn't write a script this cool. Well, maybe you could. But at this moment, the lady of the day herself: Nichelle "Uhura" Nichols, calls out, "I hear people!" from the staircase, and descends to join us crewmen. It wouldn't be going too far to state that our collective consciousness has radically shifted the energy of the afternoon: it has become a party, a party with Nichelle. And her sister, and friends. Brilliant.

Somewhere in the mix, Adam's adviser Michael Mazzola pulls me aside and fills in some details. The unassuming Adam is a pretty accomplished kid; as a teenager, MIT named an asteroid after him for inventing a method to help forecast seismic events, like earthquakes. He has his hands in multiple projects, and lives, rather romantically, in the converted attic of a theatre in San Francisco.


Adam presents birthday girl Nichelle with the Mind Lamp


And now, a little experiment: Nichelle and her partygoers gather around Adam and the mysterious little lamp, which glows ghostly white. The lamp employs a random number generator similar to the mechanism in Curry's app. Each possible color is an equal probability outcome of this random system, and Nichelle is instructed to use her mind to tip the scale towards the color she desires. We are mesmerized as the lamp slowly fades to red, indeed the color she intended. We repeat this experiment several times, the lamp always obeying the intention of the group.

Astonished but satisfied, Nichelle reiterates her oft-quoted thoughts on consciousness: "I've grown up just thinking that what people refer to as 'powers' are a natural extension of our lives, of our abilities, and are hidden somewhere in that 90% of our brain that even Einstein hadn't used yet."

I retire with Mr. Curry to the music room of the Nichols household. The original Vulcan lyre hangs on the wall. I want to know what motivates him. "I'm fascinated by big ideas like the Singularity, and whether the Internet is becoming conscious," Curry says. "The Collective Consciousness app is an audacious project, but I believe in asking big questions. And the benefits could be huge. This project may force us to confront the deeper interconnection between everyone and everything. That could forever change our society."

I asked Mr. Curry about his goals for the start-up. "It's twofold. On the one hand to spread awareness of consciousness and learn new things. On the other, to push ahead with the technological possibilities. I want to build a platform for other creators to tap into global consciousness data, to do things we can only imagine now. I want to enable other developers to use consciousness technology in their own apps. I can even imagine art installations, concerts, or buildings tapping into this global consciousness. The Internet has different layers; Facebook is the social layer, Foursquare is the location layer, etc. Ultimately I want to build the consciousness layer of the Internet."

And who knows. Maybe Mr. Curry's greatest hack yet will be the interface between consciousness and the fabric of reality. The Collective Consciousness app will be free, and the team is crowdfunding the project over at Indiegogo.

Look out! The Singularity might be closer than we think.

Leave 3D Printing Alone

I thought John Sarik was trying to shake my hand when we met last Spring at the Columbia Laboratory for Unconventional Electronics (CLUE). Instead he was trying to hand me a small tan-colored plastic figurine of smuggler and rouge Han Solo, of Star Wars fame, frozen in carbonite.

Sarik told me that he and his team produced the figurine themselves, on site, using a 3D printer. The technology that powers these machines, which allow users to create physical objects from digital designs, threatens to disrupt traditional manufacturing the way MP3 and peer-to-peer file sharing have disrupted the media business over the past decade.

Touring CLUE with Sarik, I saw a room full of complicated and unfamiliar and gadgets. I had to wear goggles and leave my cell phone outside. To an outsider, CLUE looked noisy. It was a cacophony of stuff. It was unclear where one workstation or piece of technology ended and where another began. But for the CLUE engineers, everything was in its right place. Chaos blissfully organized.



Indicative of its mysteriousness, CLUE's logo is simply a question mark.

3D printing remains intangible to most people, and yet the rush to regulate it has begun. But experts are warning lawmakers that haphazard regulation could potentially do more harm than the technology itself.

A classic ink-jet desktop printer reads information from a digital document, for example a Microsoft Word file, and prints the formatted text in ink, line by line, onto paper. A 3D printer interprets computer aided design (CAD) files -- three-dimensional schematics used by engineers since the 1980s -- and builds objects up layer-by-layer out of plastic, metal, or in principle any other material.

The technology holds out the promise that anyone, anywhere, can create anything. The printers can be used to produce low-cost replacement parts for appliances, tools, from dishwashers to aircraft. They are being used for medical prosthetics, and even, experimentally, for building actual biological organs out of organic material.

What one can't do -- legally -- is print out a toy that depicts Han Solo frozen in carbonite. The character is part of an original work, the Star Wars films, and is therefore protected by a copyright owned by the studio that produced it, Lucasfilm Ltd.

The right applies automatically and gives Lucasfilm the right to sue violators for a period that extends until 70 years after the death of the work's creator, filmmaker George Lucas.

"When you're faced with digital disruption you can certainly spend a lot of time and a lot of money and a lot of resources trying to sue everyone and to stop them from using this new technology," said Michael Weinberg, Vice President of Public Knowledge, a free-internet advocacy group.

This is just what the music and movie industries did when confronted by the advent of the MP3 compression format for music files along peer-to-peer file sharing networks on which to copy and exchange them.

But in the case of 3D printing, it is not entirely clear who they would sue.

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) spent a decade suing individual file-sharers, only to give the practice up in the face of evident failure and public outrage.

Jane Ginsburg, a copyright expert at Columbia Law School, said manufactures will likely avoid replicating the RIAA's approach. "Big companies are unlikely to go after end users," she said, because the scale of the litigation would be too small and would be likely to produce a backlash.

The music industry had more courtroom success against Napster, an online service that centralized the wide and rapid distribution of illegally copied music file.

The website Thingiverse, where Sarik found the CAD file he used to create the Han Solo toy, is 3D printing's closest analogue to Napster.

"If history is any guide, there would be a much stronger effort to try to target all the sites that make available the 3D plans," said Tim Wu, a professor at Columbia Law School and author of The Master Switch.

But Wu also said there were limits to the analogy. Copyright protects original, artistic and non-useful works. While this definition covers most of the MP3s on Napster, it excludes most of the content on Thingiverse; the Han Solo toy is actually an exception.

Most 3D-printed objects -- and most of the digital designs they are derived from -- are not protected under current law. Creating objects for personal use is fair game, as is 'remixing' copyrighted forms--say, a figurine of Barack Obama frozen in carbonite.

Sites that host user-generated content, as Thingiverse does, operate under a 'safe harbor' provision in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DCMA). The DMCA set up a notice and takedown system, dictating that content holders, and not content hosts, are responsible for monitoring infringement--an arrangement that SOPA and PIPA tried to reverse. Intermediaries like Thingiverse, as safe harbors, "don't have a duty to police their websites," said Ginsburg, and are not directly liable for infringing content on their sites so long as they address takedown request expeditiously.

While Thingiverse cannot be saddled with liability as long as there are sufficient non-infringing uses for its platform, "this Supreme Court has not defined sufficient non-infringing use," warns Ginsburg, whose mother, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, serves on the Court. "Is it 50% [of the website's content]? Is it 30%?" If resolved in court, the answer to this question will have a large impact on the legal viability of online platforms hosting CAD designs.

"The reason we have Facebook, the reason we have Twitter, the reason we have YouTube, the reason we have Thingiverse is there are these safe harbors that websites, as long as they follow the rules, know they won't be held responsible," said Weinburg.

This is no guarantee of long term protection. "There will be some industries that decide that the best way to adapt is to come to Washington and try and get the laws changed instead of recognizing reality," said Weinberg.

One type of file you can't won't find on Thingiverse, at least since December 2012, are designs for firearms.

Cody Wilson, 3D-printed gun activist and founder of Defense Distributed, said Thingiverse amounts to no more than "hipsters selling toys." Wilson. The 25-year-old University of Texas at Austin law student has made his name by being the first to produce usable AR-15 rifle components and demo-firing them himself on his popular Youtube channel.

In May 2013, Defense Distributed designed, manufactured, and tested the world's first fully printable firearm, the 'Liberator' pistol (pictured below).



The backlash among lawmakers has been swift. Representative Steve Israel (D-NY) introduced legislation earlier this year that would extend the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988 to specifically include target 3D-printed guns. On November 21st, Philadelphia became the first city to ban the manufacture of printable firearms--even though none have yet turned up in the city.

"They're working on literally any choke point they can find," said Wilson. The activist, who styles himself a 'crypto-anarchist,' sees these moves as the desperate acts of uncomprehending paternalists bent on curtailing personal freedom.

Wilson said it would be impossible to stop Defense Distributed without threatening 3D printing in general. "And that was the goal," he said, "to basically make people recognize the kind of civil liberties you're going to lose if you want to stop us."

Weinburg and other 3D-printing activists agree. "I hope that people will take time to really think" before regulating 3D printed guns, he said.

"It turns out that from a regulatory standpoint, from a policy standpoint, there's nothing really new about people being able to or actually making high precision firearms at home," said Weinburg. In fact, last March, Wilson successfully applied to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobocco and Firearms to become a federally licensed gun manufacturer.

Weinberg's organization, Public Knowledge, has told lawmakers "if you care about undetectable firearms, outlaw undetectable firearms. Don't focus on specific technology." The group supports an alternate proposal put forward by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) that would modify existing law without touching on 3D printing specifically.

Banning 3D-printed guns instead of undetectable guns would cause "a lot of collateral damage without any real policy benefit," said Weinberg.

Ginsburg said the most likely regulatory outcome is similar to DMCA's takedown-notice-based system. But, she said, it's also possible that "industries that are currently not protected" -- traditional manufactures -- might try to convince Congress to expand copyright rules the way SOPA and PIPA were meant to.

"I hope that all of these industries, when faced with 3D printing, would say 'let's adapt to this," said Weinberg.

The more laissez-faire approach -- a version of which Wu, Ginsberg and Wilson all favor -- requires the acceptance of some amount of risk and uncertainty. The technology promises breathtaking possibilities for both innovation and disruption.

"Everything is going to be scanned and it's all going to be uploaded so it's just a matter of finding who's got the iPhone schematics out there and stopping them," Wilson said.

For Weinberg, while Congress and the courts should think of 3D printing more in terms of continuity than change, the technology will force successful manufacturing companies to revolutionize how they do business.

"For better or worse, it's the only option," he said, "he history of the Internet has taught us that you have to make the change. You can accept that early or you can accept that late but that's what you have to do."

By Max Marder of The Morningside Post

A Bright Spot in the Dark Side of Technology

It was a privilege and an honor for me to have the opportunity to interview John Hagel, who brings 30 years of experience of working at the intersection of business strategy and technology. As a management consultant, author, speaker and entrepreneur, Hagel is the co-chairman of Deloitte's Center for the Edge, where he is helping to identify emerging business opportunities and persuade CEO's to put them on their agenda. Hagel frequently blogs about business and technology strategy.


John Hagel, Deloitte

Deloitte's Center for the Edge considers the digital technology infrastructure to be one of the core forces which is getting exponentially better every year. But Hagel says there is a "delicious paradox" being that the very same technologies that bring awesome opportunities and new possibilities, at same time bring mounting performance pressures, accelerating change and growing uncertainty. He calls this the "dark side of technology" and it has real implications for businesses that have been built around the notion of predictability, standardization and tight integration to remove inefficiencies.

The effects of the "dark side" are showing up in research numbers. The Center for the Edge has documented that for all public companies in the U.S. since 1965 the return on assets has collapsed by 75%. Additionally, there is the declining age of the S&P 500, which has gone from 61 years in 1960 to just 16 years today. Hagel says the problem (and opportunity) is that both the digital technology components (computing, storage and bandwidth) as well as the infrastructure are not stabilizing which leads to companies that are running faster and faster yet falling farther and farther behind.

According to Hagel, we are going into a period where there is going to be no stability, a period of punctuated disruption coming at a faster and faster rate. Businesses will have to adopt a different set of practices and rethink at the most basic level the institutions they have built to figure out how to not only survive, but thrive, in a world where exponential technology will continue to drive uncertainty, rapid change and instability.



In his latest book, The Power of Pull, Hagel captures the essence of the changes going on in today's business landscape. Here, he offers his advice (the bright spot) on how companies can survive, and even thrive, in this new kind of world.


7 ways for individuals and institutions to thrive in these disruptive times:


1. Practice the power of pull - According to Hagel; we are in the transition of going from a world of push to a world of pull. "It is harder to predict and forecast in an uncertain world and those who master the power of pull will survive," says Hagel who offers the following three "levels of pull" for drawing out resources where and when you need them in a scalable way so you can operate in a world of increasing uncertainty:

1. Access people and resources when and where you need them - a classic example of this is the powerful pull platform, Google.


2. Attract people to you in unexpected ways - in an increasingly uncertain world we don't even know what questions to ask or what to look for, so individuals need to enhance serendipity.


3. Draw out the full potential of individuals and institutions - focus on learning faster together for more rapid advancement.

These 3 levels together come into play in powerful ways in this new world and create opportunities. "Small moves smartly made can set very big things in motion if you have scalable pull platforms," says Hagel.

2. Focus on the long and very short term - The paradox of success is that the more successful we are, the more we come to rely on what brought us success and not even question it. As uncertain as the world is, executives need to fight the natural tendency in times of mounting pressure to shorten time horizons and instead take an outside-in perspective and engage in longer term thinking of where the world is headed. Hagel advises companies to look ahead and on a 10-15 year time frame develop a high-level view of what their market or industry might look like and what the implications are for their company. Without doing this companies get easily distracted by what's going on in the short term and risk spreading their resources too quickly on too many things because they are in a reactive mode.

Next, companies need to flip it around and focus on the next 6-12 months (not the typical next 1-5 years) and ask, "What are the 2 or 3 activities that will have the greatest potential to accelerate movement based on the larger goal?"

3. Move to a model of scalable learning - Not only is scalable learning a different rational and focus for an institution, it is fundamentally opposed to the scalable efficiency model that is the predominant model for large companies today. If you are operating in an environment where predictability and low risk are the essence of success, this is no space to innovate and without that you are not going to learn. Efficiency does still matter, so the question becomes how to achieve it in an increasing volatile and uncertain world. Hagel believes the way to get the highest level of efficiency is through scalable learning.

The idea behind the scalable learning model is that in a rapidly changing world the faster everyone can learn at scale the better we will be. Companies need to focus on broader eco-systems and connecting, mobilizing and learning from third parties rather than trying to do it all themselves. One of Hagel's favorite quotes is by Bill Joy, one of the founders of Sun Microsystems: "No matter how many smart people you have in your organization, just remember there are a lot more smart people outside your organization." Hagel says, "You will never scale unless you can find ways to connect with outside organizations and create relationships where you are all learning faster than you could on your own."

4. Tap into the power of corporate narratives - Hagel draws a distinction between stories and narratives; the later which he feels are powerful and will become very important to the pull thesis in terms of engaging at an emotional level. The essence of most stories is that they are self-contained. They are about "me" the story teller or about "those people"; not about "you" the listener. A narrative on the other hand is open-ended. There is no resolution yet; the resolution hinges on "you" and the choices you make will determine the outcome. "Millions of people have given their lives for narratives. How many people have given their lives over a story?" Hagel asks.

5. Scale at the Edge - Since politics can get in the way of transforming the enterprise, Hagel says the best way to drive change is not by trying to transform the core but going out to an edge that has the potential to scale and ultimately become a new core of the business. Doing this allows change agents to demonstrate the different approaches to business that are going to be necessary on that edge and overtime pull more and more people and resources from the core to the edge to the point where the edge becomes a new core. Hagel calls this the "methodology of scaling edges".

6. Ask the right questions - Hagel says that one of the key changes in leadership in a rapidly changing world is that power comes less from the answers you have and more from the questions you ask. In this new world the powerful leaders are those who have the right questions and help to focus people on the questions that are most important. This interesting reframing of what leadership is all about, has to do with the kind of networks you build. The old world hub-and-spoke network where everyone was connected to the leader and the goal was to get as many followers as you could is being replaced with the building of mesh networks where leaders are helping to create platforms and environments where people can connect with each other around the questions they are framing. This helps to find the right answers and move the ball forward. We need to stop settling for the perfect answers to the wrong questions.

7. Accept vulnerability as the path to earning trust -In this new world trust is more essential to achieving goals. Individuals and companies with a willingness to express vulnerability by admitting they don't always have the answer will build trust. This is the polar opposite of the notion of building a personal brand where we present all of our strengths and accomplishments in the most compelling way and hide any weaknesses at the cost of undermining the brand.

Being authentic will become increasingly important to participating in knowledge flows where a key issue in the interest of learning faster is acquiring tacit knowledge. Hagel explains that tacit knowledge is the most valuable form of knowledge, but the most difficult to share. It is the knowledge in our heads that comes from new experiences. We often have trouble articulating this type of knowledge and it does not flow easily, which makes it only accessible in the context of trust-based relationships. "If I trust you I will make an effort to try to frame the tacit knowledge I have," says Hagel. Pulling this type of essential knowledge and learning places an increased importance on trust-based relationships.
"At the end of the day the only sustainable pull is around trust based relationships," says Hagel, "it is the only way to amplify efforts so that small moves really do achieve amazing things."

You can watch the full interview with John Hagel here. Please join me and Michael Krigsman every Friday at 3PM EST as we host CXOTalk - connecting with thought leaders and innovative executives who are pushing the boundaries within their companies and their fields.

The Asymmetrics, the WEF, ICANN, Brazil, and the 'Little Red Book' of Multistakeholderism

Few weeks ago, candid minds did wonder whether Brazil would challenge the asymmetric US governance over Internet, or be fooled by the 'Asymmetrics', or even accept to be fooled for other 'good' reasons, since president Dilma Rousseff called for a rebalancing of Internet power structure and a full stop to US global surveillance and spying during her speech at the United Nations General Assembly back in September 2013 in NY -- remember the NSA effect? Less candid minds are now able to see that Brazil has lost an historical opportunity to be more than just a promising member of the BRICS club.

There is a lot of evidence to support the idea that Brazil has recently changed its request for a major change in Internet power structure and governance. One of them is the upcoming Brazilian Internet conference, now organized in association with ICANN. Let's first give the floor to Fadi Chehadé. On January 7, 2014, during a MIT cyber conference, the head of ICANN declared in front of many Asymmetrics present in the room, most of them from the US and many doubtful of Chehadé's idea of globalizing ICANN: "We knew she (Rousseff) could be a good leader for the middle countries, the ones who didn't know what to do about the ITRs updates during the last WCIT, an international telecommunication conference held in Dubai in December 2012 by the ITU -- 83 countries signed the updated treaty. We also knew, and this is very important, that Brazil was the only big country in the world over the last 18 years that actually manages its national Internet policy based on a multistakeholder body where the government does not have the majority. This body is called CGI -- it is very important. So we went to her and said to her: "What you have done in Brazil could be a model that we use to the world." A very flattering and smart move, indeed.

As participants to the MIT Cyber security conference were able to hear directly from Chehadé, his move to visiting Rousseff in Brazil in October 2013 was given a 'go' by the State department. In any case Chehadé didn't need to publicly confirm this 'go', as the matter was obviously of such diplomatic critical importance after Rousseff's UN speech. Chehadé continued: "And she agreed. And so she moved away from her position at the UN in September and said "I am willing to explore with you that middle ground you propose." So we are now bringing middle countries in the process of the Brazilian meeting. I see Turkey in there, South Korea, Germany, Ghana, and other countries... We are aiming not at a system that will replace the current one, but a thoughtful and meaningful evolution."

Another interesting development about the Brazilian u-turn is that the conference is no longer organized solely by Brazil but by Brazil and ICANN. For the record, and with all due respect, CGI is certainly not the policymaker conducting Brazilian public view and governance over digital affairs. Chehadé is having a bit of a dream here, even though CGI has a real contribution to it, and has been selected by Brazil and ICANN to be the organizer on the ground to prepare the Sao Paolo April conference. Finally, it is also interesting to see that ICANN and other members of a grouping called the I* (pronounce i-stars) have set an empty ad-hoc black box to filter and select the MS representatives that will be allowed to participate to the Brazilian multistakeholder conference. This empty box has a name: 1net. Any observer could really wonder how Brazil could rely on a non existing body such as this new 1net initiative with no constituencies, no bylaws, no rules. How can this 'thing' suddenly become a legitimate body to establish who is good to participate to the Brazil/ICANN conference in April 2014? The Internet Governance Forum and its diversity of participants could have been a better option, but sadly the Asymmetrics have turned this venue into a dead-end. For the clarity of the debate, the 1net is an initiative set by the I*, and more specifically by ICANN -- who is claiming no authority over it, except for all the money it is pouring in.

Considering that good job, Chehadé deserves to be given some credit as Brazil is now more or less handcuffed by the Asymmetrics. Whatever should come out of the Brazilian conference will be of no legitimacy and very poor impact, even with a dozen of 'middle countries' a little bit more lost into that bizarre process. Moreover it will not restore what the Asymmetrics tend to ignore most in any honest debate: trust between participants. Manipulation tends to produce the opposite.

And the story does not stop with this brilliant 'twist'. The Asymmetrics are defending their dominant role with great commitment, absolutely confident in their views, rights and model: the multistakeholder (MS) one. The only problem is that this MS model is a very fluffy one, only supported by a high-level narrative and argumentative rhetoric with enough money so to be constantly repeated and inflated. The MS model keeps at bay any alternative Internet Governance that could build more trust, justice and equity around the globe. This is something the MS model doesn't do. Today's Internet governance benefits firstly to the surveillance cyber capacities of the US and some of its allies, such as the UK and Sweden for example -they are hosting part of the Internet roots; and to the profits of the big digital corporations, in particular the ones accessing our metadata. This is done with no respect to anyone privacy and free will, and little concern for true competition and taxpayer's money whatever his or her citizenship can be. Therefore it is assuredly the right time to open and critically understand that MS narrative and rhetoric.

While the Maoist Little Red Book was compiled by an office of the PLA Daily (People's Liberation Army Daily) as an inspirational political and military document, today's Internet Governance Little Red iBook should be assembled not by Maoists, but by Asymmetrics. They act under self-regulation and render justice as some sort of digital posse comitatus would do. Their holly mission is to defend and protect the current status-quo, or any thoughtful evolution so as to preserve the US oversight under a MS Internet governance and its current imbalance. Remember that the US -- the leading party in this MS model -- declare themselves the champions of Freedom of Expression i.e. "the more we talk, the more the NSA listen!" The Asymmetrics have a major strength apart from their funding power. They have built a robust narrative capacity and talent. Since the end of the '90s -- when ICANN was incorporated and a new state of Internet Governance was set under the supervision of the USG. In 2013, following Snowden wake-up call, unprecedented pressure has rapidly grown out of an international audience (citizens, governments, and civil society) and the US narrative has found its limits which, therefore, needs to refurbish it tralala.

Before helping the Asymmetrics to fill their Little Red iBook, maybe I should clarify what is an Asymmetric, apart from supporting the asymmetric role of the US and the current status-quo.

Let's start with a few examples of what an Asymmetric will never do because it would contradict this dominance:

• To launch a campaign to ask for Edward Snowden's immunity as a global diplomat, including the right to return to his country.


• To encourage people to subscribe to the Guardian, the leading independent media fighting against the US abuse of power over international telecommunication, information and data surveillance.


• To say anything positive about the UN, multilateralism, international law and governments (except for the US).


• To denounce the sudden ending of a 2-year Federal Trade Commission investigation against Google, in January 2013, described as a major victory by the New York Times. "By allowing Google to continue to present search results that highlight its own services, the F.T.C. decision is enabling Google to further strengthen its already dominant position on the Internet." This surprising decision came few days after WCIT 12, and after Google's hysterical campaign against any possible update referring to Internet within the International Treaty under revision at the times. Was this a reward for good conduct during the last battle over Internet Governance in Dubai? Indeed, Google's anti-ITU and anti-multilateral campaign was of great support to the US delegation at WCIT 12, Google being also participant to this delegation of 120 people. As a solid defender of the US status-quo, Google can only support and be supported by the Asymmetrics.

The keystone of asymmetric standard thinking and narrative is rather simple. Such a quality makes sense when one wants to gain support from the multitude:

• The Internet is a decentralized world. How can one govern a decentralized world? If Internet is relying on networks infrastructures based all over the planet, it doesn't mean it has no core and critical points of power. The same reasoning would certainly conclude that 51 decentralized States cannot be governed by a single umbrella such as a federal government.


• The Internet is an innovative and disruptive world. Amusingly, any innovation to its governance is not welcomed. The current US Internet governance should not be disrupted because "It works." The "If it works -- for US --, don't fix it" theory!


• The Internet is better managed and coordinated by no one government, no one entity, no one individual except by the US (government and corps). Some Asymmetrics recognize the US asymmetric role, but it is, in their view, the least terrible governmental influence they can think of. Moreover, they can deal with it thanks to lobbying, corruption, and nepotism.


• Regulation is killing innovation. A very old rhetoric indeed is saying that 'regulations' are bad, so governments should stay away. Such assumption has been challenged and the opposite view has been supported by many academics.


• Voice of a corporation equals voice of a state. That is the MS meaning for "equal footing," the true conceptual pearl of MS narrative, even though it has no substance. Indeed for Asymmetrics, the MS model of governance convenes all stakeholders -- apart from the end-user. They assume that an Internet user is a consumer who has not much more to do than to pay for accessing the Internet (see Vint Cerf, a senior employee at Google, for more on this, and on his position about privacy "Anyway, it doesn't exist anymore"). Therefore why bother about the NSA looking into our information, calls and data? On this, please keep in mind that the UE has a legal position that states and defends the ownership of any European over his/her data and metadata.


• Using the verb to govern is not correct. To coordinate is fine. Think of soft power.

So now I presume you are ready for some asymmetric quotations --please note that if you are a true Democrat, some of these might hurt your convictions.

"We should not accept the term governance gap. That's an invention that has been a very popular invention but we should not use it in our vocabulary." For Asymmetrics, this governance gap is used by progressists who are concerned with the digital gap between developed and developing or less developed countries. It is also a reference to the fact that part of the current governance by the Asymmetrics is done without mentioning it.

"We should have no single definition of Internet governance. We should push against the idea that the Brazil meeting, or anything else, will produce a definition of Internet Governance." In any consensus building or reforming or transitioning, a set of common definitions is among the primary attempts to find a common ground for honest negotiations. As Asymmetrics think that the MS model is the best model, there is no need for common definitions. Confusion is a better option, or call it chaos if you prefer.

"We should not use in our vocabulary orphan issues." To admit orphan issues would implicitly means that the current status quo needs some additional power rethinking. For Asymmetrics, this is not necessary. So the message here is that everything is already being taken care of.

"We should not have a single list of issues for governance. There are people who got it one way, people who got it another way. Let that happen. Let these thousand flowers of definition blossom." (My favorite!). Again, chaos is a better option. By avoiding single definition, the status quo is presumably more stable. Amusingly, the same Asymmetrics love the idea of a unified Internet, a ONE Internet (see I*, 1net...).

"We should avoid to establish a single set of principles which is, among other things, one declared objective of the Brazilian meeting." That is quite interesting as principles are described as an enemy to the MS model. I leave it to your reflection.

All of these quotations are from a single Asymmetric : Alejandro Pisanty during the last ICANN 48 in Buenos Aires. With such good advice in mind, one can easily understand that trust is not part of the game in IG matters and debates. Amusingly, no one in the room opposed such a totalitarian language. Pisanty is not only Chair of ISOC Mexico, but also gained influence over the small MS priesthood in the IT technical community. He served three terms as an ICANN board member, and is currently on ISOC's Board of Trustees. There are a few other fanatics of this kind so the Little Red iBook of the MS Internet Governance model has plenty to quote from.

Contrary to what they are supposed to fight for, Asymmetrics are used to play with what they are so prompt to reproach to others. Take for example the behind-close-doors argument, often exposed to denounce governmental or multilateral meetings. During the same ICANN event, Lynn Saint Amour, ISOC CEO by then, declared: "We started the I* meetings 3 years ago (2010) twice a year each for two days of peace, building relationships, sharing strategic visions and directions, and looking for points of alignment. The I* consist of 11 CEOs that have responsibility for managing the key pieces of the Internet infrastructures." The 11 CEOs are those from ICANN, ISOC, IANA, IEB, W3C, IETF and the 5 RIR. "The meetings were not secret at all, but neither do we actually publicize them. We didn't publicize them because we didn't want them to become a standing venue, or a standing event. We came together to coordinate but not as a standing venue." For many participating to the IG debate who are not part of the Asymmetrics, the announcement of the existing I* meetings was a bit of a surprise. So, next time you do a meeting behind close doors, you have now the perfect argument to defend its secrecy setting.

Another source of possible quotation for the Little Red iBook is certainly Rod Beckstrom, another US compatriot to Saint Amour, and himself a former ICANN CEO -- he was succeeded by Chehadé. Here is what Beckstrom had to say few weeks ago during a preparatory meeting of today's Davos summit where ICANN has presented a survey it commissioned to the Boston Consulting Group to figure out the cost of a fragmented Internet -- a new element of the Asymmetric narrative is being tailored to frighten the business lords.

Beckstrom was happy to speak along panelists such as Pr. Joseph Nye and other WEF guests: "The Internet is coordinated by 4 primary Internet coordination bodies (ICANN, ISOC, IETF, W3C), leaders of those groups are in the room today... Clearly the feedback from the discussions here is that a lot of people around the world are not happy with the unilateral aspect with ICANN which is by the way simply one contract called IANA, and that agreement helped to create a global multistakeholder body and was always meant to expire, but it hasn't yet. And I know it well, because I am the signatory of the agreement and negotiated the last version with the US government last year and certainly felt at the time we wanted to go much further in internationalizing that agreement. That simply means not that the multistakeholder model be thrown away, rather it needs to be further strengthened by becoming international and so the Forum (WEF) has an important part in that discussion. The WEF is a critical place to talk about the future of the Internet Governance, the WEF which is the cutting edge of governance in the world." Good to realize this, isn't it? And Beckstrom has a big concern. "Trust in Internet has been shattered because of the news on surveillance that is coming out of multiples countries." Amusingly Beckstrom put the fault onto the news about surveillance out of multiples countries but not onto the surveillance out of the US.

Rod Beckstrom considers himself a thinker of the MS IG model. He eventually gave to his views a theoretical design in a book The Starfish And The Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations he co-signed with Ori Brafman. The latter also wrote The Chaos Imperative and proudly claims to have introduce the US army (through General Martin Dempsey the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and highest ranked military in the US) to his concept of disruption. Beckstrom himself explained how by using "his" book the US government could take a different approach in theirs dealings with Al Qaeda. Such ultra-liberal libertarian thinking had put Beckstrom in the eyes of the previous Bush administration, and his Homeland Security secretary Janet Napolitano. In March 7, 2008, Beckstrom was appointed director of the National Cyber-Security Initiative, a key component of a secretive government effort to secure vulnerable government and private computer networks. President Bush created this new entity by a classified presidential order in January 2008. It seems like Beckstrom ability to take a position with a 'leaderless attitude' proved to be poorly efficient as he had to quit his "security czar" position amid power struggle with then Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff after a battle for control and power ensued. Beckstrom also blamed the NSA for a lack of cooperation, and insufficient funding. Beckstrom and his team also formed the NCSC Coordination Council, supported the Department of Defense in forming its Web 2.0 cyber platform, and created the National Cyber Center to bring together local and state governments. Ultimately, the US government got him a job at ICANN as its new CEO, until Fadi Chehadé took the position. Now an employee at Samsung, Beckstrom is keen to explain the advantages of the MS IG model.

Chehadé is a much more appropriate CEO to conduct the internationalization or globalization of ICANN -- under USG coordination and overview. He has no Bush administration cyber warfare and surveillance records. He thinks business and value. And Chehadé deserves certainly to have a few chapters in the Little Red iBook for his remarkable well-packaged thoughts.

During the same MIT meeting he had to switch hats to answer quite an odd question: "Do you believe the outcome of a more balanced system will result in a more rebalanced Internet Power Structure in terms of the companies that participate?" His answer went like this:

I would wear for a moment my hat as an entrepreneur and as someone who made great strides in the world of business in building value and jobs on the Internet. I think the real danger we have is in fact in letting the world down on this issue of making ICANN truly a global organization. Because, if we let the world down, there is a danger that the Internet will become fragmented. At the policy level, at the economic level, and potentially at the physical level. And if that happens, there will be so much friction between countries and entities to do commerce and to exchange information that the cost of doing business on Internet, the cost of propagating services on the Net will go up significantly. So it is actually in our advantage right now to find a governance model that is acceptable to the world to keep the Internet as one. If it breaks down, the friction cost is going to be high.

Many will wonder about who is the "we," but no one will doubt the fact that Asymmetrics will do their utmost to protect their ability to wedge cyber war, cyber surveillance and the profits that are of unseen magnitude today in the hands of the iTyrants. Google has probably lost track of its own model and doesn't know what to do with its billions. Mark Zuckerberg is having some problems with his neighbors as he can't find them on Facebook -- did he notice that he bought the houses surrounding his compound for more privacy. And many others Asymmetrics do have problems to face the insanity of today's Internet power and policymaking system, when denying the already fragmented state of the Internet around the world. To citizens of the planet, the cost of the current state of a unified but asymmetric Internet is as large as the profits we see in this other corner of the planet.

Gender Differences in Coding Courses? Looking at the Numbers

Editor's Note: This post is part of a series produced by HuffPost's Girls In STEM Mentorship Program. Join the community as we discuss issues affecting women in science, technology, engineering and math.

Our study of women learning to code at Thinkful concludes there's simply no difference in the performance of men versus women among adult learners. We do, however, find enormous differences in the ratio of women versus men who enroll in coding classes. With all the qualitative debate around the issue of gender in software education we thought we’d be transparent about our own numbers.

Graduation & Engagement

So, how do women perform in online coding classes versus their male peers? Thinkful’s data (when normalized for a gender gap at enrollment, more on that later) indicates that graduation rates are almost identical for both women and men:

There is a small difference giving women the slight edge, but it’s within the margin of error given our sample size of just under 1,000 enrolled students.

“Graduation” can be a very coarse way of gauging success, mostly because we set the bar for achieving it much closer to the way most traditional schools define their “honors” programs. In fact, around 20-30% of students (i.e. those that want to build their own projects) don’t care about “graduation” at all. To gauge their success throughout their time with us we currently look at the rate at which students disengage, or withdraw, from our program.

Again, no significant difference. The key takeaway here is that while there are small differences in how much women and men are engaging in our courses the two groups are actually very similar. If anything, across the first two months men and women have the same withdrawal rates with the data showing that women seem to stick it out longer in the first month than men.

Student Outreach

Unfortunately, gender equality in student performance does not mean we’re seeing gender equality everywhere. The major disappointing statistic is enrollment: only twenty percent of Thinkful’s students are female, which is in line with female engineers in the workforce. It also seems that the gender ratio of our students is roughly in line with other software schools, most prominently Fred Wilson, Evan Korth and Seung Yu’s Academy For Software Engineering (according to Fred’s blog). There’s enormous room for improvement (and we’d love the help!), especially given that only 30 years ago the ratio was significantly better.

This past summer we tried to see what else we could do. We wondered whether the percentage of women who enrolled were the result of the percentage of women who found us in the first place (“ratio in, ratio out”, so to speak). To find out we tested Facebook ad campaigns targeted only at people who identify on Facebook as women. We purchased 12,000 clicks from this group and measured the percentage that chose to give us their email address after clicking the ad (a “conversion”). For “banner” ads (those little ones on the right side of your feed) women converted at 1.3% versus 3.9% for their male counterparts. For “newsfeed” ads (those that appear in your feed) females converted at 6.5% versus 10.5% for males. Here’s the landing page used for these experiments:

During that period we tested four primary styles of ads, and while we’ve found minor differences in each of their performance, none of them were at all correlated with performance by gender:

This performance difference was enormous. When translated into enrolled students the difference between the genders was the difference between a sustainable strategy and an unsustainable one.

Learning Goals

The first question we ask new students is to identify their learning goals. When it comes to gender, the goals of our female students are mostly indistinguishable from those of their male peers. Thinkful appeals to junior and career-aspirational learners, and when we dig into what motivates this group there’s not much that’s male or female about it:

The most notable difference, and it’s relatively small, is that 16% of males want to “Found a Startup” versus only 5% for females. The question is all about the motivation of the student, not the education, but it does lead to an interesting question about whether we’re doing anything to attract or dissuade each gender differently.

2014

Despite complete gender parity in motivations and success rates across Thinkful courses we’re still left with the initial observation that our student body is only 20% women. In 2014 we’ll be taking on a number of projects to improve this.

First and foremost, our mentor team: We now have over 100 mentors working one-on-one with students. Most of them are in the US, but sadly only 8 of them are female. We’re hiring as fast as we can, but as best as we can tell (we don’t know applicants’ gender) we accept female mentors at an equal or better rate than they are represented in our applicant pool. In fact, for iOS Development, our newest course, not a single woman applied to be a mentor.

Second, we’ve barely spent any time on partnerships or sponsorships this past year. But the success in this area from great organizations like Girls Who Code, Women Who Code, Black Girls Code and Girl Develop It indicate that maybe we should start. We did have the opportunity this year to help Barnard’s Athena Center launch Barnard Codes, which is just getting going in January, 2014. We look forward to doing more in the coming year.

Third, our team here in New York City. As we grow to 40 or 50 this year hiring a team that continues to be balanced, diverse and extraordinary will be critical to our success.

Fourth, data. We’re doing a lot of work to better measure the efficacy of our different courses for different types of learners. Today we’re using withdrawal rates as a proxy for engagement, but this approach may introduce its own biases (i.e. maybe men don’t withdraw because they don’t want to admit failure). Internally, we’re moving toward measuring so-called “skills deltas.” It’ll be great when this data is clean enough to make public.

Fifth, our community. When it comes to any of the above we’re hoping to have more voices giving us advice. Please get involved!

Want to Know What Verizon and AT&T Really Tell Their Investors?

Hint: It's not what they tell the regulators or the public.

We've said this before, and we say it again: Verizon's and AT&T's current state and federal plan, called the "IP transition," is nothing more than another way to game the system by telling the regulators what they want to hear.

The truth is that the real reason that we are having a "transition" is to add more to the corporate bank accounts (read: more ways to charge you more) without those pesky regulators watching. In fact, we shouldn't be we sitting here talking about a "transition"; we should be talking about the market takeover and calling for investigations.

Let's see what Verizon's and AT&T's executives told investors at various events about the companies' future plans.

(Note: I'm all for capitalism, but that assumes a free market with competition. Verizon controls the wires and can simply raise rates or "kill the copper" or force customers onto other products that they own and control. That's not a competitive market.)

'Kill the Copper' and Force Customers Onto FIOS -- Because It Makes More Money

It started in earnest in New York and New Jersey after the Sandy storm in October 2012. Verizon refused to fix the utility customers' copper-based services after the storm, leaving tens of thousands hanging for months or forcing them onto inferior wireless services, as they did to customers in Fire Island, N.Y. It now appears that this failure to restore customers' original service after an emergency was nothing more than Verizon's corporate plan to make more money.

Lowell McAdam, Chairman and CEO of Verizon Communications, speaking at the Citi Global Internet Media and Telecommunications Conference in January 2013, said that Verizon's new "mantra" is "Don't fix the copper wires":

When we had the impact of Sandy, our mantra was you will not fix copper. So if copper got into any kind of a damaged situation and FiOS was in the vicinity, or we could run FiOS down an adjacent street and get into there, we would cut the copper out of service.

And why do it? Well, upselling -- that is, having the customers buy more products from the companies' own affiliates.

Now what is the reason we want to do that? Well, when a customer goes, even to FiOS digital voice, they very quickly see the difference on copper, and we have seen the ability to sell up.

We note that in April 2013 we met with a room full of not-happy people from the E. 9th Street Block Association in Manhattan, who had been out of service for six months since Sandy and couldn't get FiOS. And Verizon had lied to each one a number of times, claiming that they would repair their service. (Here's one flyer that was handed out about this situation.)

While the natural disaster gave Verizon the opportunity to implement this master plan, McAdam had been talking about this throughout 2012. In June 2012 he stated that killing the copper was a "pot of gold":

But the vision that I have is we are going into the copper plant areas, and every place we have FiOS, we are going to kill the copper. We are going to just take it out of service, and we are going to move those services onto FiOS. We have got parallel networks in way too many places now, so that is a pot of gold in my view.

And at the September 2012 J.P. Morgan analyst conference, McAdam said that moving the customers to FiOS makes the company more profits:

And we're going to move them off of copper and onto the FIOS, which helps the FIOS profitability as well as removes all the expense associated with that copper plant. So we're going to move forward with that.

And in October 2012, right before Sandy, McAdam claimed that this plan was designed because "there is nice upside there." The company would make more money because it would be "upselling" the customers on other Verizon services, and because converting them saved the company money on maintenance. In fact, this all helped deliver the "best shareholder value contribution." Here's McAdam on Sept. 7, 2012:

So we certainly start where we've got parallel networks. And we have a lot of those in place. And we're attacking them from the top down based on maintenance activity or based on the ability to sell into that customer. We see after a customer moves over to FIOS, we may sell them the regular digital voice service and then move them over on the Internet side. And then you move them over on the TV side. So there is nice upside there. So we look at it from maintenance-cost perspective as well as a revenue-potential perspective. And then you do get to a point where, in a geography, if you've got nine out of 10, let's say, customers on a street that are on FIOS, you're just going to cut the 10th one over and then decommission all of the copper. So we factor all of that into the analysis and come up with the best shareholder value contribution.

Verizon also admitted that it stopped selling DSL and was forcing customers onto FiOS -- and again to make money and upsell customers:

On Wireline margins, just a couple things here to talk to. Number one, we did have the FiOS-to-copper migration, which impacted our short-term results. But we've talked that this is a strategy that we are deploying. It is better for us long-term to get most of these customers off of our copper network to our FiOS network, as you saw that we are -- stopped selling our naked DSL in FiOS-covered area. And we started to convert a number of customers in this quarter over to our FiOS network from a voice perspective.



Now, a couple things here that this will launch. Number one, we will see a long-term benefit in our repairs and maintenance decrease over time. We will also get the upsell capability to start selling these voice customers on better speeds of FiOS and better experience, and also then into the linear TV product that we have to offer. And what we are seeing is the minimal number that we converted last year during our trials, we are starting to see a 30-percent sale upgrade on those customers. But it does take us three to six months to convince those customers to upgrade. So this is a longer-term type strategy.

And in April 2012 McAdam pointed out that when the company wanted more money, they simply printed it by increasing the prices:

In addition, going into the future, you are going to see -- you may have already saw -- that we are starting to do some price-ups in strategic areas. We've already started that in April, but over the next two quarters, we're going to have several price-ups in our FiOS packages. In addition, we are going to rebundle certain of our packages to better bundle our content in order to make it more profitable, based on the tier that you pick for us. The other thing is that there are other revenue streams coming down the pike, like home monitoring control, that will contribute to the overall ARPU of our FiOS platform.

Isn't it nice when a company simply prints more money via raising rates? It clearly shows that there's little, if any, serious competition.

On a May 30, 2013, Nomura analyst conference call, Francis Shammo, Executive Vice President and CFO of Verizon, said pretty much the same thing -- that once you convert customers to FiOS, you can sell them more. However, he noted that this shouldn't be done too quickly, as the customer will think they are have been "gamed":

The side benefit of doing it, though, is what we are seeing is once we put that OMT on the side of the house and give you voice and give you the basic speed of FiOS, after a couple of months, they are choosing to buy up in the speeds, because now they are realizing this unbelievable fiber product that they have on the side of their home. So they are buying up into those tiers, and we see that most people are buying up to the 50-megabit plan.



Then what happens is, six to eight months after that, you then market it to them, because what we found is you can't do it too soon, because then they think they are being gamed somehow. So six to eight months later, you start to approach them on, "Hey, by the way, we think we can save you money on your cable bill by taking FiOS TV." And what we are seeing is about a 35-percent to 36-percent take rate now on those copper customers who just had voice and DSL. Once they come over within a year, they become a triple play on FiOS.

The Plan: Don't Fix the Copper; Push Them Onto Wireless

Verizon also decided that instead of fixing the copper, it would force customers in "more rural areas" to be put onto wireless services. McAdam stated in June 2012:

And then in other areas that are more rural and more sparsely populated, we have got LTE built that will handle all of those services, and so we are going to cut the copper off there.

At the September 2012 J.P. Morgan analyst conference, McAdam said moving the customers to wireless makes the company more profits:

And in many areas we're also taking customers that aren't performing well on copper and we're moving them over to the wireless technology. So that improves our cost structure significantly and streamlines all those ongoing maintenance costs.

Wireless LTE Is Not a Substitute for FiOS for Video

Verizon knows that wireless, even their LTE product, doesn't replace wireline broadband networks for video. McAdam stated in June 2012:

I mean we want to shift as much onto FiOS or onto the fixed network where we can and then provide -- use that capacity to provide those higher-demand services like video. I don't expect anybody to sit in their home watching video over LTE. I want them to be able to watch it on their tablet anywhere in the house using the WiFi network.

And this admission means that Verizon's plan to halt their FiOS deployment will harm every customer outside the "footprint," which could be as much as 50 percent of their territories.

Shammo also made this same point in May 2013 and also noted that Verizon was making "headway" with regulators:

[T]here is a different solution rather than building infrastructure to some of these what I would call more rural areas, and it's really with using the LTE technology, the Fusion technology from a broadband perspective. And we still have some work to do with regulators, but we are making headway here, and I think that's the route that we will take.

And Verizon has no interest in having the wireless company compete with the wireline company. In September 2012 McAdam said:

[Y]ou won't see Verizon trying to compete against FIOS with LTE. That's not in the cards here until you have an unlimited supply of spectrum. And I don't think that's coming anytime in my career.

And, again, Verizon admitted that wireless simply will never get to the high speeds that FiOS offers. Mike Rollins, a Citigroup analyst, asked at the January 2013 event:

The question that comes off of the ability to watch video in a quality way on a wireless device then gets to: What is the ability for LTE to displace the DSL or the low-end high-speed Internet offerings and your ability to have a true replacement product with LTE? How pervasive could that be?

McAdam responded that wireless won't be as fast as wired:

Well, the low-end stuff I think will always fall away, but I say this to our management team: I think as we leapfrog, wireless sort of nibbles away at the lower end of the wireline side. But if you take a look at FiOS, this year we went from -- well, two years ago we were at about 50 megabits of throughput into the home. We are at 100 broadly now, and we have just introduced 300. So if you looked at that progression, will wireless do 300 megabits? Probably not in my career. At some point it surely will, but not in my career, and so I think this sort of leapfrogging is what we should expect going forward.

AT&T Is, of Course, Doing the Same Thing -- Driving Profits Is the Goal

As I pointed out, AT&T's IP transition is about more profits, not technology changes. According to AT&T's press release on Nov. 7, 2012:

Driven by Project VIP and assuming a stable economy, AT&T expects that during the investment period:

• Earnings per share will grow in the mid-single-digit or better range, with an opportunity for stronger growth going forward.
• Consolidated margins will expand.

In fact, this is really about multiple new billion-dollar business opportunities. AT&T states:

Project VIP Supports New Growth Initiatives -- With business customers, AT&T expects Project VIP will strengthen its ability to pursue multiple new billion-dollar business opportunities in four key growth areas: strategic network services, cloud, security and mobility solutions.

The takeaway point about all the companies' actions, it would appear, is that it's not a technology "transition" but just another way to force customers to pay more, or to get regulatory favors. If they said, "Well, we want to upsell the customer, raise their rates, and shut down the copper services they use and replace them with wireless, which can't compete with wired upgrades in terms of high speed, all to make us more money," would we be sitting here discussing a "transition," or would we be calling for investigations?

What a sham.

Thanks to Jim Rosenthal, Fire Island resident, who assisted in the research used in this blog post.

I Quit Social Media (And I Don't Miss It Yet)

A few weeks ago, I wrote about my decision to quit social media for 30 days. Now, more than halfway through my detox, I can truthfully say I don't miss the apps and bookmarks banished from my browsers and devices.

The first day was admittedly a bit of a struggle -- or, more specifically, the first several minutes. I'd just returned to New York after a long trip back to the Midwest for the holidays, and I was missing my friends and family. I'd also been tossing and turning for a good half hour, unable to fall asleep. If this had been a normal evening, I'd reach for my phone and start scrolling through my Facebook or Instagram feeds to see what folks back home were up to (because there's always at least one person posting a random musing at any given time). I didn't want to inadvertently wake my loved ones, so calling and texting were both out of the question.

Really, I probably could have gotten away with checking my feeds that night. My detox started the next day -- and fine, since it was 12:45 a.m., it was technically 45 minutes into "the next day." But I hadn't slept yet. And since I hadn't slept, it wasn't really "tomorrow," yet. Right?

The disappointment I felt at the thought of surrendering before I'd even started my resolution was, thankfully, more powerful than the need to check my Facebook feed. Instead, I read a magazine.

That was the toughest things ever got. Since then, it's been surprisingly easy to abandon my social media accounts. It's actually been, dare I say it, enjoyable. My stress levels have dropped. I have time for other things (so much time that I nearly forgot to write this update -- whoops). Plus, I'm sleeping better, and we all know how important sleep is for mental health and overall wellness. Instead of keeping touch via social media (which now feels like such a passive way of communicating), I've been calling, texting, and video chatting my friends and family.

Though there's no way to know for sure, I'm convinced quitting social media is responsible for these changes. I've sequestered myself from the content that moves me to compare my haves/have nots to others' and overanalyze my life and my choices.

I've also taken up crocheting. But that's another story.

Since the publication of my initial post, we've received dozens of inspiring notes from readers who are either currently evaluating their own social media use or who have already conquered their FOUL (the fear of an unfulfilled life).

Thinking of going on your own social media hiatus but need additional encouragement? Read on for advice straight from the mouths (keyboards?) of HuffPost readers.

Responses have been edited and condensed. Names used with permission.

---

Right before I read your article -- literally, 15 minutes -- I deactivated my Facebook account. I have been afraid to do it for a long time, although I've wanted to. It sounds so silly to say that, but I have a similar story, having moved to San Diego from New Jersey eight years ago and using Facebook as a tool to "stay in touch" with family and friends.

I too, however, found myself being a constant lurker, wondering what I was missing out on and suddenly feeling dissatisfied with my own life. Having a 14-month-old makes it easier to use Facebook as my socialization and friendships, since getting out of the house can be rather difficult, but it always made me feel bad about my life and myself ... There has GOT to be something more productive to be doing with my time ... So here's to 2014. To new hobbies and projects instead of constant snooping!

-- Lana Schoen


---

I too suffer from your condition. Since waking up I check my Facebook and begin an endless cycle of scrolling and refreshing. I'd even read all the comments on pictures of people that aren't even friends of mine outside of Facebook. Comparing what they had to what I lacked, how they looked to how much I want to lose 10 pounds, and how much fun they were having at the moment compared to me... It only occurred to me this year to stop comparing and focus on my life.

So, this year I made a permanent decision. I deleted my Facebook app from my phone and only have the messaging app. That way, anybody who wants to stay in contact is free to, while I keep myself away from scrolling when I'm bored! The only time I get on Facebook now is to upload my pictures for family members and friends to see, while also giving me the ability to look back without worrying about memory use. But those comparing days are over for me.

-- Diana Vazquez


---

For months and months I've been depressed... my hubby and I have targeted the problem... Facebook. Although I was smart enough to get those braggers off my wall, I too have been feeling somehow unfulfilled, missing out. Even this New Year's. Before Facebook, I NEVER cared if I was in bed before midnight. This year, I was like, "OMG, I should have stayed up. Look at what I missed!"

What? If I didn't see stupid drink posts and ridiculous New Year's Eve party hat wearing, I would have never felt like I missed anything ... Instead, I should have been happy to have chosen reading in bed and hitting the sack earlier than the fireworks. My life is wonderful with my amazing husband. Why do I need more? I've never wanted what others have ... I'm a big believer that technology has changed this world into a "keeping up with the Joneses" mentality, even more than it used to be. Not good.

-- Lauren Shepard, Mantra Creative, Tampa, Fla.


---

Rather than having a New Year's resolution, I thought that I would have a personal challenge. I deleted Instagram, Snapchat, and Twitter from my phone in addition to deactivating Facebook. I planned to reactivate after a month, but I am enjoying the benefits of unplugging so much that I may go longer.

For years, I have been interested in the effects of social media and read articles about it for fun. Although I acknowledge that there are benefits of social media, I think that there are a lot more negative effects. In particular, the social comparison you wrote about, the lack of fully being present, and the lack of real-life interaction. I worried about not staying connected but realize that I can reach out to friends in other ways. Missing someone becomes more real when you can't see them in the virtual world.

I have noticed I have a lot more time to do productive things that benefit me such as reorganizing my room, working out, and cooking. The biggest thing I have noticed is how clear my mind feels and how present I am when I am with family and friends.

-- Leah Dornbusch


---

When the new year came around and I was at a church service, my gut, instinct, [or] perhaps God himself told me that it would be a good idea to do a social media fast. I didn't give myself a clear timetable, only a "just do it" mentality.

I have to admit that it's been quite difficult. It feels as if I'm fighting compulsive behavior to need to know what's going on in the lives of hundreds of people I'm not all that close to. And I know that shouldn't be the case.

What I'm realizing is that while it's difficult, I'm also doing other things to compensate, like actually using my time to be productive and get something done for work or reading a book. Additionally, I'm calling and texting people a lot more to directly find out how they are doing and engage in conversation as opposed to relying on social media. And more than anything, I find myself actually being "present" during good, happy and unexpected moments, taking them in, instead of snapping a picture and posting it on Instagram waiting for "likes" to start popping up.

-- Jimmy A. Hernandez


---

I feel exactly the same way. I have already deleted my Facebook and Instragam accounts when I found that my obsessive checking was ruining my day. I'd see posts and pictures of couples, babies, homes, travel, and fitness accomplishments, which made me feel really disenchanted with my own life. I have a great job, great friends, a small but fabulous apartment and work out every day, but somehow the comparisons stung. I am a pretty private person and don't feel the need to share major accomplishments via social media but would rather share with a few close friends and family.

I definitely agree where the chronic checking or need to see others' updates was keeping me from enjoying the present moment and making me doubt just how fabulous my life really is. Many of my close girlfriends feel the same way. We also agree that a lot of the posts on Facebook or Instagram are staged. Staged in order to project a certain image of what their life is like. Perhaps all these posts are really smoke n' mirrors and we are all just trying to keep up with Jones via social media? How much is really true? ... Living a simple, minimal life where you can focus on the present moment, relish in your own accomplishments (big and small) and share things with a [close-knit] group of friends rather than projecting to strangers feels amazing.

-- Leah Simeon


---

I made one attempt to quit Facebook in January of 2013. I failed after a couple months. A few weeks ago I decided to quit all social media (except Pinterest, of course!). This time it stuck (so far) and I feel more secure about myself than ever. It is such a self-esteem killer and I see one friend in particular suffering -- using social media mostly to make her life seem more "fun" and "exciting." I, on the other hand, finally realized it was making me miserable and cut it out!

-- Anonymous


---

I'm at day four right now. I was mostly a Facebook addict, only glancing at Twitter occasionally, and I don't have an Instagram [account] at all, but I can identify. I decided to commit to a two-week break as a New Year's resolution, so I deactivated my account on Jan. 1. It hasn't been difficult. Surprisingly easy, in fact, and while I feel I'll be back (after my two-week goal), I think even this short break has taught me to utilize the site differently.

Like I said, it's only been four days, but it has been so easy that I know the effort is worthwhile. I've reached out to friends via text and made a few phone calls to try and get back to more "real life" friendships.

-- Kelly Gallagher


---

I read your post and I couldn't agree more. Young adults, like myself, are in a precarious place in life. Completing our educations, looking for our dream jobs, dealing with relationships and friendships, and all the other things young people deal with. Throw in social media updates into the Crock-Pot, and how easy it is to access our Facebook and Instagram accounts from our phones, and we create a situation of unnecessary anxiety.

I'm currently working on my second degree, and I know I have a bright future. But you see posts of your friends/acquaintances in Dubai or at weddings, and you start to wonder if you're doing things right ... it's important to take a break when one feels that way. Social media wasn't created to make you feel inadequate. Take a step back and regroup.

-- Kika Anazia