Harkins, the Singularity and The 4th Expectation of Leders, Competence
"The non-biological intelligence created in that year (2045) will be one billion times more powerful than all hman intelligence today." (Kurzweil, R. 2005 - The singularity is near, Penguin Group, New York P. 136)
Imagine having that level of DC (Distributed Competency) supporting your 24/7/365 innovative lifestyle. No doubt my grandchildren will be geniuses.
The 'Singularity is defined as "technological change so rapid and profound it represents a rupture in the fabric of human history. The implications include the merger of biological and nonbiological intelligence, immortal software-based humans, and ultra-high levels of intelligence that expand outward in the universe at the speed of light." and the year 2045 is Kurzweil's projected date for this event. For a more in depth explanation see:
http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html?printable=1
Before we arrive at this juncture and according to some theorists, become rendered irrelevent as thinking and innovating beings, Harkins argues that we should begin to cede the more mundane aspects of cognition to our current technology through the use of DC, (Distributed Competency). One example is the multiplication prompter that helps an overly challenged student keep up with his class by providing him answers to problems and coaching on how to arrive at those answers. If the student never catches up, the device can be clipped to his pocket, continuing to provide answers, giving the appearence of competency to the student and allow him to proceed to higher functions that he still doesn't really need to learn.
Anyone who uses a calculator for business or balancing their checkbook has some limited DC at their fingertips, but must still understand the concepts underlying the operations in order to know what buttons to push. The important difference between Harkin's egalitarian vision of universal excellence in multiplication through the miracle of DC, and the fundamental student competence in and understanding of underlying mathematical concepts required by our "Generalized mass education" system lies in the area of cognitive development.
Not properly achieving competence in the basics could "..lay the foundations for eventual failure for those who do not develop methods that will lead on to later developments.." says mathematics professor David Tall," and may limit those whose cognitive structure develops in a way which is suitable for more powerful thinking..
Democracy in education does not therefore mean giving every child the same sequences of learning, but at different paces." Seeking to level the playing field with DC may therefore inhibit the development of cognition and competence, at least in the area of mathematics. Certainly those who l lack the core competencies of any given subject cannot be expected to become part of the 80% of workers who Harkins states will be innovators.
Yet within fifteen years according to Kurzweil we will be able to purchase computing power equal to that of 1 human brain for one thousand dollars. Competency in many areas will probably become irrelevent. What does this mean for leadership? Can the intrinsic qualities of leadership be replaced by DC? Can we program one or two brain's worth of computing power to be honest, forward looking, inspring and competent? Please excuse the political reference, but I think our current president could use a little leadership DC.
It is possible that innovation will eventually come at the beck and call of humans who wield their machine intellilgences in service to their imaginations with no real understanding of the underlying processes the give rise to their capabilities. Will this give rise to a society that is focused on the common good, or a divergent race of individuals who dwell within their performance based learning simulations?
Comments
Thank you for posing a great question inviting us to imagine what the impact of Harkins' technologies would have upon the way people work. I took a break from reading historic documents to check out the blog, and have a speech from Teddy Roosevelt at my elbow. To set a context around the speech, delivered exactly 100 years ago, Roosevelt convened the nation's governor's for the first time ever to discuss conservation of national resources. The courts in Maine had acted to favor the interests of the common good over individual property rights, and Roosevelt jumped on the chance to preserve huge tracts of wilderness while there was still time.
One of his comments seems worth passing back:
"One distinguishing characteristic of really civilized men is foresight; we have to, as a nation, exercise foresight for this nation in the future; and if we do not exercise that foresight, dark will be the future." (Roosevelt, Opening Address to May 13, 1908 Conference of Governors)
What timeframe will futuristic technologies condition or reward people into? Will the workers of Harkins' future become conditioned to live in the timeframe of an interactive technology that occupies their daily attention, with little or no regard for the study of history that Crosby and Bryson champion in chapter two of "Leadership for the Common Good" or burden themselves with responsibilities for foresight?
If noted educator Parker Palmer lived in that time and grew up learning from a machine that providing answers for his developing mind, would his conscious mind ever generate a beautiful idea like, "The power of authentic leadership is not in external arrangements but in the human heart."? (Palmer, Let Your Life Speak)
Two nights ago I think I tasted a bit of the future your question forecasts. I learned grocery shopping habits from parents who knew everybody in my hometown, and viewed grocery shopping as a privilege because they had lived on farms during the Depression without any refrigeration. My two teenagers are third-generation dawdlers who know how to marvel at mangos in Minnesota in January and chat with perfect strangers while shucking corn or stealing a free look at People magazine. Yet the last trip was peculiar because of technologies. Quite a few people had iPods on, and others wore Bluetooths. I realize that these are a far cry from the DC of Harkins' future, but they are more than enough to preoccupy someone from eye contact and conversation. In fact, the impulse to use technology instantly and without regard for circumstance led one woman to answer the phone (without touching it, I might add), and engage a loud conversation with someone about a situation that did not belong in a grocery store. My daughter said later that she was in a "weird zone."
Unfortunately, so were we. Do we blame the Bluetooth and its potential for instantaneous conversation, or the user who has no apparent investment in the common good of the grocery store? Or do we blame me, who lacked any ideas about how I could emulate the characteristics of transformational leadership that "occurs when one or more persons engage with others in such a way that leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality" (Burns, Leadership, 1978).
Wendy
Posted by: Wendy Wustenberg | January 28, 2008 12:04 PM