<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Thrivable</title>
	<atom:link href="http://thrivable.net/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://thrivable.net</link>
	<description>Catalyzing a World that Thrives</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Apr 2013 20:20:22 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Friction is Your Friend: Why Sharing Values isn&#8217;t always Valuable by Clay Forsberg</title>
		<link>http://thrivable.net/2013/04/friction-is-your-friend/#comment-741</link>
		<dc:creator>Clay Forsberg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Apr 2013 20:20:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thrivable.net/?p=1722#comment-741</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Nice post Jean. Friction, diversity or whatever you want to call it, is paramount to truly changing things ... for the better. This reminds of of the advent of the Renaissance in the 1400&#039;s. Some say it started with the frequent visitors the Medici family invited to their villa in Italy. They came from all walks of life and excelled in a variety of disciplines - from sculpture, to painting, to mathematics to astronomy, etc. From these gatherings, came the synergy to create some of the great ideas in the history of mankind. 

Really, it&#039;s all about getting outside your comfort zone and &quot;going&quot; places, physically, mentally and emotionally you&#039;re not accustomed to. Only then can we grow. We too often see just the opposite in government and business. It&#039;s easier to surround yourself with people &quot;the same as you.&quot; For then, there&#039;s no fiction ... and no growth. Check out a post I wrote on what I see as the the fallacy of diversity in Obama&#039;s inner circle: &quot;Diversity ... Obama are you listening?&quot; ~ http://bit.ly/X7SUoE

Again, excellent post Jean!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice post Jean. Friction, diversity or whatever you want to call it, is paramount to truly changing things &#8230; for the better. This reminds of of the advent of the Renaissance in the 1400&#8242;s. Some say it started with the frequent visitors the Medici family invited to their villa in Italy. They came from all walks of life and excelled in a variety of disciplines &#8211; from sculpture, to painting, to mathematics to astronomy, etc. From these gatherings, came the synergy to create some of the great ideas in the history of mankind. </p>
<p>Really, it&#8217;s all about getting outside your comfort zone and &#8220;going&#8221; places, physically, mentally and emotionally you&#8217;re not accustomed to. Only then can we grow. We too often see just the opposite in government and business. It&#8217;s easier to surround yourself with people &#8220;the same as you.&#8221; For then, there&#8217;s no fiction &#8230; and no growth. Check out a post I wrote on what I see as the the fallacy of diversity in Obama&#8217;s inner circle: &#8220;Diversity &#8230; Obama are you listening?&#8221; ~ <a href="http://bit.ly/X7SUoE" rel="nofollow">http://bit.ly/X7SUoE</a></p>
<p>Again, excellent post Jean!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Friction is Your Friend: Why Sharing Values isn&#8217;t always Valuable by Liz McLellan</title>
		<link>http://thrivable.net/2013/04/friction-is-your-friend/#comment-739</link>
		<dc:creator>Liz McLellan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Apr 2013 17:28:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thrivable.net/?p=1722#comment-739</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Dead on Jean! Really marvelous post!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dead on Jean! Really marvelous post!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Friction is Your Friend: Why Sharing Values isn&#8217;t always Valuable by Shared Value - Value driven communities &#124; Pearltrees</title>
		<link>http://thrivable.net/2013/04/friction-is-your-friend/#comment-738</link>
		<dc:creator>Shared Value - Value driven communities &#124; Pearltrees</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Apr 2013 15:35:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thrivable.net/?p=1722#comment-738</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] Friction is Your Friend: Why Sharing Values isn’t always Valuable [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Friction is Your Friend: Why Sharing Values isn’t always Valuable [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Friction is Your Friend: Why Sharing Values isn&#8217;t always Valuable by Friction is Your Friend: Why Sharing Values isn...</title>
		<link>http://thrivable.net/2013/04/friction-is-your-friend/#comment-737</link>
		<dc:creator>Friction is Your Friend: Why Sharing Values isn...</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Apr 2013 15:26:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thrivable.net/?p=1722#comment-737</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] Collaborate with people who share your values. Really? You know why they say this? Because it is pleasant and easy. When you are around people who share your values you can agree all the time, because you are using the same basis for your judgements. There isn&#8217;t much friction. Maybe people who like writing about collaboration find it easier to achieve flow states when they are not experiencing friction. Maybe.&#160; [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Collaborate with people who share your values. Really? You know why they say this? Because it is pleasant and easy. When you are around people who share your values you can agree all the time, because you are using the same basis for your judgements. There isn&rsquo;t much friction. Maybe people who like writing about collaboration find it easier to achieve flow states when they are not experiencing friction. Maybe.&nbsp; [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Friction is Your Friend: Why Sharing Values isn&#8217;t always Valuable by Rebecca</title>
		<link>http://thrivable.net/2013/04/friction-is-your-friend/#comment-732</link>
		<dc:creator>Rebecca</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Apr 2013 00:21:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thrivable.net/?p=1722#comment-732</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Wow, I&#039;m shocked to hear folks state it&#039;s important to collaborate across shared values. I know we all prefer io, of course it&#039;s easier with no differences. But diversity is what makes the world go round, or at least survive. Thanks for sharing Jean, and keep spreading the good word!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wow, I&#8217;m shocked to hear folks state it&#8217;s important to collaborate across shared values. I know we all prefer io, of course it&#8217;s easier with no differences. But diversity is what makes the world go round, or at least survive. Thanks for sharing Jean, and keep spreading the good word!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Friction is Your Friend: Why Sharing Values isn&#8217;t always Valuable by Friction is Your Friend: Why Sharing Values isn...</title>
		<link>http://thrivable.net/2013/04/friction-is-your-friend/#comment-730</link>
		<dc:creator>Friction is Your Friend: Why Sharing Values isn...</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Apr 2013 17:11:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thrivable.net/?p=1722#comment-730</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] &#160; [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] &nbsp; [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Lifespan of Social Metrics by Kevin Carson</title>
		<link>http://thrivable.net/2013/02/lifespan-of-social-metrics/#comment-729</link>
		<dc:creator>Kevin Carson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 24 Feb 2013 05:16:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thrivable.net/?p=1699#comment-729</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ah! Now I get what you mean by &quot;social metrics.&quot; Thanks!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ah! Now I get what you mean by &#8220;social metrics.&#8221; Thanks!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Resilience Ain&#8217;t Enough by Christina</title>
		<link>http://thrivable.net/2013/02/resilience-aint-enough/#comment-632</link>
		<dc:creator>Christina</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Feb 2013 16:59:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thrivable.net/?p=1659#comment-632</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I love this Jean. Great job. Thank you. As I read I find myself thinking about how it can also apply at the family level. I think a friend of mine who works with Third Culture Kids and international families in transition would find this an interesting framework.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I love this Jean. Great job. Thank you. As I read I find myself thinking about how it can also apply at the family level. I think a friend of mine who works with Third Culture Kids and international families in transition would find this an interesting framework.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Organizational Heartbeat by Bonnie Koenig</title>
		<link>http://thrivable.net/2013/02/organizational-heartbeat/#comment-623</link>
		<dc:creator>Bonnie Koenig</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2013 22:49:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thrivable.net/?p=1687#comment-623</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Many years ago I had someone describe change in organizations of varying ages as trying to change a person based on their age. It doesn&#039;t mean that older organizations won&#039;t or can&#039;t change, but just like an older person trying to change, it may just be more unusual or more complicated or take more time. And that&#039;s been my experience.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Many years ago I had someone describe change in organizations of varying ages as trying to change a person based on their age. It doesn&#8217;t mean that older organizations won&#8217;t or can&#8217;t change, but just like an older person trying to change, it may just be more unusual or more complicated or take more time. And that&#8217;s been my experience.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Organizational Heartbeat by Dorian Taylor</title>
		<link>http://thrivable.net/2013/02/organizational-heartbeat/#comment-619</link>
		<dc:creator>Dorian Taylor</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2013 15:10:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thrivable.net/?p=1687#comment-619</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Every discrete, discernible entity will senesce and die. I suspect it has to do with their contiguity as discrete entities. By contiguous I mean you don&#039;t exist in multiple parts with an air gap between them, and if you &lt;em&gt;are&lt;/em&gt; disconnected that way, the part (or the rest of you) tends to stop working.

Federations are different, because they&#039;re redundant systems of individuals that communicate with language, such that if an individual is lost, the system reconfigures to adapt. The result is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ship of Theseus&lt;/a&gt; effect, wherein the components of a system are replaced incrementally, such that the system as a whole retains its identity.

Of course, corporations are comprised of people, and people are comprised of cells. Both can be understood as federations—people join and leave companies just as cells divide and self-destruct. But something is different. People and companies have discrete identities. They have body plans. Organs. And organ failure is almost always fatal.

The contrast of the federation (city, beehive, coral reef) is that it has no concept of gross anatomy. Likewise, the boundary between it and not-it is not so clearly defined. (Of course, people try to impose boundaries on them, but they tend to be tenuous fictions.) The federation&#039;s exponential growth is also &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-filling_curve&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;space-filling&lt;/a&gt;, rather than expansive. It grows &lt;em&gt;richer&lt;/em&gt; and more complex, far faster than it gets physically &lt;em&gt;bigger&lt;/em&gt;. My hypothesis as to what makes federations immortal is that they take the time dimension into account, existing more as stochastic processes than platonic forms. Rather, the identity of the federation drifts along as time progresses.

What West demonstrated (in spite of his own words at TED) was that &lt;strong&gt;what we mean when we say &lt;em&gt;growth&lt;/em&gt; is broken&lt;/strong&gt;. At least in the mainstream. Because we are unequivocally talking about naïve, Cartesian, expansive growth. Growth that can be measured in employee headcounts, income statements and GDP. That is &lt;em&gt;precisely&lt;/em&gt; the kind of growth that falls along the sigmoid curve—the kind which will eventually taper off and cease.

Furthermore there are some who suggest that contraction is the antidote, because contraction is the opposite of expansion. &lt;a href=&quot;http://video.reboot.dk/video/486788/bruce-sterling-reboot-11&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hair-Shirt Green&lt;/a&gt;, as Bruce Sterling calls it. To paraphrase: our dead great-grandparents are doing a better job at conserving energy, carbon sequestration and recycling than we are—they&#039;re made of carbon, buried underground in a box, literally &lt;em&gt;being&lt;/em&gt; recycled. I agree with him completely. While I believe it important to be conscientious of our consumption, I&#039;m more inclined to save the dead-person behaviour for when I&#039;m dead.

Instead, I prescribe a slight course correction in the concept of &lt;em&gt;growth&lt;/em&gt;, from expansive to space-filling, from Descartes to Mandelbrot. &lt;em&gt;Grow indeed&lt;/em&gt;—grow wiser, subtler, more elegant. Don&#039;t just grow &lt;em&gt;bigger&lt;/em&gt;.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Every discrete, discernible entity will senesce and die. I suspect it has to do with their contiguity as discrete entities. By contiguous I mean you don&#8217;t exist in multiple parts with an air gap between them, and if you <em>are</em> disconnected that way, the part (or the rest of you) tends to stop working.</p>
<p>Federations are different, because they&#8217;re redundant systems of individuals that communicate with language, such that if an individual is lost, the system reconfigures to adapt. The result is the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus" rel="nofollow">Ship of Theseus</a> effect, wherein the components of a system are replaced incrementally, such that the system as a whole retains its identity.</p>
<p>Of course, corporations are comprised of people, and people are comprised of cells. Both can be understood as federations—people join and leave companies just as cells divide and self-destruct. But something is different. People and companies have discrete identities. They have body plans. Organs. And organ failure is almost always fatal.</p>
<p>The contrast of the federation (city, beehive, coral reef) is that it has no concept of gross anatomy. Likewise, the boundary between it and not-it is not so clearly defined. (Of course, people try to impose boundaries on them, but they tend to be tenuous fictions.) The federation&#8217;s exponential growth is also <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-filling_curve" rel="nofollow">space-filling</a>, rather than expansive. It grows <em>richer</em> and more complex, far faster than it gets physically <em>bigger</em>. My hypothesis as to what makes federations immortal is that they take the time dimension into account, existing more as stochastic processes than platonic forms. Rather, the identity of the federation drifts along as time progresses.</p>
<p>What West demonstrated (in spite of his own words at TED) was that <strong>what we mean when we say <em>growth</em> is broken</strong>. At least in the mainstream. Because we are unequivocally talking about naïve, Cartesian, expansive growth. Growth that can be measured in employee headcounts, income statements and GDP. That is <em>precisely</em> the kind of growth that falls along the sigmoid curve—the kind which will eventually taper off and cease.</p>
<p>Furthermore there are some who suggest that contraction is the antidote, because contraction is the opposite of expansion. <a href="http://video.reboot.dk/video/486788/bruce-sterling-reboot-11" rel="nofollow">Hair-Shirt Green</a>, as Bruce Sterling calls it. To paraphrase: our dead great-grandparents are doing a better job at conserving energy, carbon sequestration and recycling than we are—they&#8217;re made of carbon, buried underground in a box, literally <em>being</em> recycled. I agree with him completely. While I believe it important to be conscientious of our consumption, I&#8217;m more inclined to save the dead-person behaviour for when I&#8217;m dead.</p>
<p>Instead, I prescribe a slight course correction in the concept of <em>growth</em>, from expansive to space-filling, from Descartes to Mandelbrot. <em>Grow indeed</em>—grow wiser, subtler, more elegant. Don&#8217;t just grow <em>bigger</em>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
