The day before yesterday, I received a Ted Talk Dialogue from my old teacher. He bought my book linear and circular thinking a while ago and still likes to challenge me. My way of thinking is to be called core thinking. I think quickly, go through all kinds of parallel processes in my head that are complete and true, make connections and preferably communicate concisely one or more causes. In doing so, I prefer dialogue, so I can answer questions when others need more intermediate steps or do not understand things or do not see things as quickly as I do.
This TED talk dialogue is an example of a dialogue, in which I can hand over my book to the interviewer and guest with the words: “Ok, this is the core what you say, I give you the loose ends that make it unmistakable, in my book. You write on the same subject as I do, only you do not touch the core, so you can not offer solutions.
He did hear the sound of the bell, but doesn’t know where the clapper hangs.
Because the message and the concerns I have about the current developments are great, I will make the connection between the TED talk dialogue and my book Linear and circular thinking.
Yuval Noah Harari is a historian / philosopher who has written 2 books. Book 1 Sapiens about the history of humankind and book 2 Homo Deus about the history of the future.
He states that there is economic and technological globalization, but political nationalism. He also states that climate change requires a great deal of attention, but does not get enough attention due to the nationalistic nature of current politics. We all see these trends around us. And that indeed feels like a contradiction. He indicates that politicians continually revert to the past, for example: “Make America great again.” He asks the question when was America “great”? Either where do we want to or do we have to go back? As a historian, however, he himself has a linear vision of time, which I personally deviate from. In my vision, time and past are only “boxes” of a previous reality that everyone has experienced differently. We do not live linearly, we live circularly. A timeline is an illusion conceived as a handle.
He talks a lot about technological globalization and in particular about A.I. He states that China is leading the way and the US will have to follow, if it wants to stay important. I do understand that vision, but he ignores the fact that China, with its culture and government, has been developing its inhabitants linearly for years. From the imposition of the 1 child politics in the past (male is preferred) and 1 large ruler with followers. Linear thinking is, as I write in my book, equal to A.I. This means that China has the qualities to develop and implement it well. As I often say: “what’s not inside someone, will not come out” in other words, this innovation comes from the head of the linear thinker. With a man like Trump in power, the US takes a clear turn to the same policy. After which the Netherlands (EU) will take an example if we continue current development and following the US.
He expresses the importance of education and the disruption that is needed. Children now receive lessons in a way and learn a way of working that is not relevant to the future professions. He is right in this, but he is anxious and gives the basic income as a solution for those who fall between the shore and the ship (non-techies, executive core). This fear is unfounded. What he doesn’t literally mentions is that by A.I. and algorithms create a different kind of work. A.I. helps as the washing machine did when washing clothes. Why would you count yourself and remember as A.I. that can do for you. Focus work on the unique (current) power of humans. I call that part of circular thinking. He calls it emotion and feeling. As if that are intangible properties that can not be grasped. I write in my book that, among other things, emotions and feeling are a second form of intelligence. This intelligence is literally reflected in our brain. IQ (linear thinking) is largely replaced by A.I. and algorithms in software or hardware (robotics) and EQ / SQ can not (yet) be replaced. I explain in my book.
I like what he says several times in the last part of teh dialoque. We do have influence, because we make choices. When the nuclear threat grew, people started to move and made agreements and there was no nuclear disaster. We can make a choice between investing in extending lives to 120 years (linear choice) or entering the basic income (circular choice). This last choice could lead to a relatively slower growth of age in this example, but the quality of human lives, when we look at current developments, would improve.
Choices are therefore crusial and there is my fear, because the most appropriate person in our current system is also the one who makes the decisions. Successful linear people.
Which scientist does not opt for his own development path? I think old age is a disease and in theory there should be medication. That is more interesting and sexier for a scientist than a basic income I suspect.
We do not have a global government right now and he states that if there should be, it would be more like China than Denmark! He also states that politicians can do more bad than good. I.o.w. if they do something good it has very little inpact, but if they do something bad then that has major consequences. He thinks there is no balance. I also want to add to his theses that you do not have to be a resident of a country to think “nationally”. It is broader than that (think also of ISIS).
I state in my book that national thinking / nationalism occurs from linear thinking.
He poses questions about the concept of identity, diversity. You are never “x” alone, you are also “y” and “z”. You consist of various components that can also be subject to change. Identity would be based on fiction, is unstable and fluid. Identity has to do with believing in stories. I agree with him on this point. The identity is based on your truth at that moment, partly because of your context. People who now identify with nationalism or faith for example (the Bible is a very strong story, he says), believe in the story. I say for this reason that it is very important to correctly represent the story of technological innovation (robotics, A.I. and quantum). This can only be done by people who really understand it and I am one of them and this researcher is not.
Later on, he comes back to education and disruption with a view to the future, but also to people. People have essentially no use he says. I agree. That also shows me working determines peoples usefulness, but that has to change. We need to find other usefulness. Or we are unable to attach importance to the usefulness in the form of work.
In his second book he says more about the difference between A.I. and man. From this, specific characteristics / competences emerge, which I mentioned earlier (and in my book focus on it), namely the emotion, the feeling, sensitivity. You can call it EQ / SQ (HSP). What he doesn’t know, but I do, is that they are 2 big literally intelligence types present in our brain. Tangible and demonstrable. I state A.I. replaces IQ. Then he focuses on this second intelligence EQ / SQ (see my book for explanation) and sees only the negative effect, namely suffering/ pain. Probably because he has not really studied the kind of intelligence and has no knowledge of the brain. This is his major shortcoming, in addition to his non-technological knowledge. Because he has no relevant knowledge of technology and the brain, he also does not know that Quantum is comparable to the second intelligence (SQ / EQ). Again, I explained this in my book.
I wrote the book as linear as possible, because I know then most people will understand the book.
He originated from our increasingly developed linear education system and is therefore a product of it. As a result, his research and methods are also linear. And he lacks the knowledge of connections that I clearly mention in my book. He also states that “alt-right and nationalism” is afraid of global governments and that biologists say that people are social, but only social in the direct (small) context. I would like to add that technology has actually brought a change to this social context. Due to current technological developments, we as a person are socially or able to be social in a still limited context, but globally. He once again does not understand well what that technology really is and does. At the end of the Ted talk discussion he comes to the core of my book.
He states that reality is something unique to an individual and that we must try to understand that. We have to look in ourselves. You could say that we must be optimally aware of ourselves. And that is the best conclusion he could have drawn and also the core of my book. Look inside and see what the cause and consequences of our own are. I distinguish between linear and circular thinking. Literally reflected in our brain.
Conclusion: My book linear and circular thinking answers the questions posed in this TED Talk dialoque, it gives the core of the problem and presents different solutions. In addition, and that is not unimportant (!) My book makes connections between all the topics that Yuval Noah Harari does not make because he can not make them. His focus and talent lies elsewhere.