Predict the future by forgetting yourself

[A good summary](http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140612-the-best-way-to-see-the-future) of [Philip Tetlock](https://psychology.sas.upenn.edu/node/20543)’s research:

> As you might expect, these elite forecasters tended to score better on measures of intelligence than the other participants. But they all shared one other trait too: open-mindedness…Crucially, open-minded people tend to be able to see problems from all sides, which seems to help forecasters overcome their preconceptions in the light of new evidence. ‘You need to change your mind fast, and often,’ says Tetlock.

> Another trait of effective forecasting that Tetlock highlights is self-awareness – understanding your own foibles…he points out that too often forecasters begin by taking an “inside view” of a problem…Yet research suggests that you could come to more accurate predictions if you instead take a step back and simply look at past historical data.

> Other strategies were aimed at reducing known cognitive biases. For instance, research has shown people tend to make better decisions if they are reminded of common pitfalls, such as the tendency to exaggerate the risk of particularly frightening events, like a terrorist attack; they could also remember to consider both the best and worst case scenarios of a situation, since that opens the mind to the full range of possibilities and helps to question your basic assumptions about the event.

[Previously](http://bob.ryskamp.org/brain/?p=5219).

Future strangers

Couched [in an article about procrastination](http://nautil.us/issue/16/nothingness/why-we-procrastinate) is this fascinating study result:

> Using fMRI, Hershfield and colleagues studied brain activity changes when people imagine their future and consider their present…their neural activity when they described themselves in a decade was similar to that when they described Matt Damon or Natalie Portman.

If our future selves are truly strangers to us, that affects how we design behavior change and plan for the future. We need to build empathy with ourselves the same [ways we build it with others](http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/six_habits_of_highly_empathic_people1)–through trying new experiences, challenging our beliefs, and cultivating curiosity about the unknown. This points to an [experiential futures](http://futuryst.blogspot.com/2014/04/a-history-of-experiential-futures.html) approach to design, as well as a need for individual, interactive tools for people to explore their own possible futures. And it suggests that successful approaches will address the emotional side of decisions as much or more than rational thoughts.

It’s an important aspect to consider when designing the future. After all, the next stranger you encounter could be…you!

Science Fiction and Social Fiction

> We have science fiction, and science follows it. We imagine it, and it comes true. Yet we don’t have social fiction, so nothing changes. – [Muhammad Yunus](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-moore/science-fiction-and-social-fiction_b_3100989.html)

A nice quote, and a good motivator, though I do think we have [a couple types](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopian_and_dystopian_fiction) of [social fiction](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_science_fiction).

The problem with the future

[](http://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/2011/01/02/#.U9moAHZhtmQ)

Futurism vs fiction

> In science fiction, the imagined world supports the story; in futurism, the story supports the imagined world.

> It’s a simple but crucial difference, and one that too many casual followers of foresight work miss. If a futurist scenario reads like bad science fiction, it’s because it is bad science fiction, in the sense that it’s not offering the narrative arc that most good pieces of literature rely upon. And if the future presented in a science fiction story is weak futurism, that’s not a surprise either — as long as the future history helps to make the story compelling, it’s done its job.

> Futurists and science fiction writers often “talk shop” when they get together — but fundamentally, their jobs are very, very different. – [Jamais Cascio](http://www.openthefuture.com/2014/03/mirror_mirror_–_science_ficti.html)

The impossible and the improbable

Some good guidance on which technique to use depending on what you want to say:

> It’s been said that science fiction and fantasy are two different things. Science fiction the improbable made possible; fantasy the impossible made probable. – [Rod Serling](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fk3IB9uF7A&t=3m40s)

Russia’s sci-fi strategist

On the heels of thinking about [design as politics](http://bob.ryskamp.org/brain/?p=5262) comes an interesting [mention of Vladimir Putin’s close advisor Vladislav Surkov, who also happens to be a novelist](http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/05/05/how_putin_is_reinventing_warfare):

> The Kremlin’s approach might be called “non-linear war,” a term used in a short story written by one of Putin’s closest political advisors, Vladislav Surkov, which was published under his pseudonym, Nathan Dubovitsky, just a few days before the annexation of Crimea. Surkov is credited with inventing the system of “managed democracy” that has dominated Russia in the 21st century, and his new portfolio focuses on foreign policy. This time, he sets his new story in a dystopian future, after the “fifth world war.”

Surkov [studied theater direction at the Moscow Institute of Culture](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladislav_Surkov) before moving into advertising, PR, and finally politics. One of his [stated goals](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladislav_Surkov) is to establish a national ideology for modern Russia:

> If we in Russia do not create our own discourse, our own public philosophy, our national ideology that would be acceptable for the majority of our citizens (at least for the majority, and preferably for all), then they are simply not going to talk to us and reckon with us.

But he has still found the time to [write essays, rock lyrics, and even novels](http://www.lrb.co.uk/v33/n20/peter-pomerantsev/putins-rasputin):

> In his spare time Surkov writes essays on conceptual art and lyrics for rock groups. He’s an aficionado of gangsta rap: there’s a picture of Tupac on his desk, next to the picture of Putin. And he is the alleged author of a bestselling novel, Almost Zero.

And like any true artist, he also has a rival and sworn enemy, [the poet and novelist Eduard Limonov](http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/legacy/adamcurtis/2012/01/the_years_of_stagnation_and_th.html), who takes a different approach:

> Eduard Limonov and Vladislav Surkov hate each other. But in many ways they are very similar because both are convinced that western democracy is a complete sham – and both are trying to create political alternatives to what they see as the second wave of stagnation that took over Russia in the 1990s.

The most interesting thing about this to me is how Surkov’s “art” seems to influence his work and vice versa. [His writing has been scoured](http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/can-kremlins-bizarre-sci-fi-stories-tell-us-russia-really-wants-78908/) for clues about Russia’s plans with mixed success–but the fact that any such writing exists is statement enough. Can you imagine Valerie Jarrett or Karl Rove publishing political fiction while advising the president? The writing shapes cultural acceptance of the policies to come, and is simultaneously a way to prototype and imagine more future ideas. Another example of design–through fiction–changing culture.

Design as politics in a changing world

A well-written argument that [“politics”–built from mindfulness, personal commitment, and creative design–is as important to the climate crisis as science and technology](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/06/climate-change-needs-the-politics-of-the-impossible.html):

> [We have], basically, two ways out. One is extraordinary technology…[the other] is extraordinary politics: politics that goes beyond the usual interest-swapping and sets new commitments for the country and the world…

Does our culture still have the courage–and the harmony–to commit to real change based on moral beliefs?

> Consider the end of slavery—not in the US, but in the British Empire, which abolished the practice thirty years before the Emancipation Proclamation, by an act of Parliament, with compensation to slaveholders…the historians’ view these days is that British emancipation was, in fact, a wildly expensive and disruptive moral commitment, executed through extraordinary politics…

> [We need], in incremental and experimental ways, to keep building up a real politics of climate change. That politics will be both environmentalist and human-oriented, because there’s no separating the two in the age of climate change. It will have to ask how the peoples of the world are going to live together and share its benefits and dangers, and also how we are going to use, preserve, and transform the world itself.

That sounds like real design to me. See also Dan Hill’s [Dark Matter & Trojan Horses](http://www.cityofsound.com/blog/2012/08/dark-matter-trojan-horses-strategic-design-vocabulary.html).

What humans are for

“When robots and automation do our most basic work, making it relatively easy for us to be fed, clothed, and sheltered, then we are free to ask, ‘What are humans for?’” – Kevin Kelly

Technology that fades away

[Some fun insights in this writeup](http://www.fastcocreate.com/3023518/designing-a-future-of-comfort-color-and-gorgeous-gadgets-in-her) of the production design for [_Her_](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ne6p6MfLBxc):

> “We kept asking ourselves, ‘What is his new desktop going to look like when he puts the new (Samantha) software in? Finally, Spike came to this brilliant realization, saying, ‘There’s a reason we haven’t figured this out, because it shouldn’t be anything.'”

> “We had this concept: what if we could only see advertising that was all in gorgeous slow motion and there were these beautiful abstract images? Then it becomes kind of a viral game where everybody’s trying to decipher the notion of what these different ads were.”

> Barrett’s most radical re-invention for future Los Angeles: There’s not a car in sight. Steering clear of freeway traffic jams, inhabitants ride bullet trains, take subways and walk. “One of the first things I said in designing Her was, ‘I don’t want to show any cars.'” says Barrett. “It’s another gesture of going away from technology. When you look at any film from any time period and see a car, you can place it right to the year.”

> “The device wasn’t designed to stand out like a gleaming new phone, but to be something you’d lay on the night stand, like your wallet or your address book. We wanted to go right past the surface of the device and into Samantha’s voice.”