Ingredients for My Vision for Education

September 12th, 2010

I have since I was 16 been very interested in assisting the transformation of the education system. My fundamental beliefs for this need are:

  • Education should be brain-based – differentiated based on learning style.
  • Education is life-long and should address all aspects of living (balance between: mental, physical, emotional, spiritual).
  • Information is omnipresent and should be learned “just in time”; knowledge should be build based on a understanding the (underlaying) fundamentals.

There are some people that think in line with my thoughts or provide inspiring ideas, like: B.F.Skinner, Win Wenger or like Ken Robinson who talks about a revolution in this TED video:

Time for internet-tech to get political.

September 3rd, 2010

The (political) power went from local to central. Now we get the post-bureaucratic age = local people empowered by global data & technology.

What is the libertarian answer to non-rational actions?

June 30th, 2010

If something where to be of “general interest”, everyone would comply voluntarily, but that is in many situations not the case; it has to be enforced by “higher authority”. Since I have learnt there is a difference between “general consensus” and “general interest”, I was stimulated to think about the question if there is (in a political and/or human psychological perspective) such a thing as general interest. But I, for now, concluded the important question is if a non-rational & not fully informed decision can (with force) be overruled? The libertarian concept functions imho perfectly when all actions are based on fully-informed & rational decisions, but that is a utopia!

For further study: how does the Libertarian Party answer this concern – as imho this is the only valid objection one can have to the philosophical foundation of the Libertarian Party. As currently I am a minarchist I am supposed to object to anarcho-capitalism, but how to defend the point that there should be a nexus of power (a monopoly on force)? Philosophically I can not … the ancient Greek philosophers (Pittacus, Thales, Sextus the Pythagorean, Isocrates, Epictetus, Epicurus, Plato’s Socrates) already stated (and many religions have in their core): The Golden Rule or, maybe better, The Platinum Rule. I, as an individual and also in my political views, want to (and do) believe it possible I can “act wisely” and properly deal with the objections Immanuel Kant, Friedrich Nietzsche and Bertrand Russell have 1 to the Golden/Platinum Rule.

So for all practical concerns I will treat the Libertarian Party as yet one step closer (to a desired utopia) in the way we, as humans, organize ourselves to deal with the random, the non-rationale and the (for now) unexplainable. Thus I have to conclude that politics is necessary, but the ideal should be to limited that as much as possible … where the fine line can not be defined, but is up to those who do. I believe elections are thus needed to poll the general consensus in the respect as to where the line is to be drawn at that particular time (and preferably also on what specific topic).

Postscript: in ancient times people where able to vote “with their feet” and moved to or followed those that where agreeable to them. How ever much I would like to go back to those times, perhaps in this modern time we should invent new governmental systems, like bringing ever political decision to those it will impact? This would not be a reversal in power and not the full freedom of power, but a healthy mix … but than again, also a truly democratic system is a utopia!

1 = Perhaps best summarized in this question: How does one know how others want to be treated?

Henry Grady Weaver

June 28th, 2010

Most of the major ills of the world have been caused by well-meaning people who ignored the principle of individual freedom, except as applied to themselves, and who were obsessed with fanatical zeal to improve the lot of mankind-in-the-mass through some pet formula of their own.

~ Henry Grady Weaver, The Mainspring of Human Progress

PS: Henry also said something that should make Libertarianism appeal strongly to Christian believers: [Christ] spoke of the God who does not control any man, but who judges the acts of every man (individually).

Mind Mapping

May 5th, 2010

I use mind maps often to help clarify my thinking by bringing clarity to complicated and unclear situations. I specifically like mapping out complex problems without explicitly trying to map out their solution. Often the solution or future state becomes apparent simply by clearly mapping out (the context of) the problem.

I started in 1996 with MindJet’s MindMan software after reading about NLP, but moved to CmapTools and than quickly to FreeMind. Wanted to move online, but the options are not good enough yet, so I moved all my maps into my dropbox so I can access them everywhere.


June 15th, 2009

Hello, we might not have met yet, but I would like to ask you if you see a possible match with my CV and an organization in The Netherlands (or a flight away, if I can regularly work from home).

My keywords are: internet, innovation, (big & meta) data, privacy & security.

I have experience managing up to 20 people and I have broad hands-on tech experience. Areas I don’t want to be responsible for are: finance, HR and sales.

Possible job titles are: startup CTO, software architect, business analyst (e-commerce & e-tail), technical team lead.

Read the rest of this entry »

PKUniversity Step 1

June 10th, 2009

The concept of current education came from the industrial revolution … the system is behind the times as a significant part of the work world is now in the age of knowledge & services. What does one need to survive in that world? Not the typical order of importance (math, physics, chemistry, some geography, religion and language as a way to make sure we can do the first few subjects properly), but we need Process Thinking, Creativity, Psychology (computers can generate statistics, but we need to learn to interpret them to a useful meaning), Innovation, Physical Abilities (those things computers can not do yet, like: dance, cook, play musical instuments, etc). Fiftheen years ago I wanted to start my own univerisy … has proven itself now and is my first step towards PKU.

Our Tax Money in ICT

April 14th, 2009 published an article about the 25 biggest company internal IT departments. These are the governement run positions (and our tax money):

3) Defense (IVENT) with 3000
4) Tax Agency (B/CICT) with 2962
5) Police (vtsPN) with 1818
14) UWV (IV-functie) Social Security with 500
16) OM & De Rechtspraak (ICTRO) Public Prosecution & Justice with 480
17) Rotterdam (City-IT) with 427
20) Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality (DICTU) with 315
21) Sociale Verzekeringsbank (ICT-diensten) National Insurance Agency with 296
23) Kadaster (ICT Services) Land Administration with 265
25) RDW (ICT Bedrijf) Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency with 232

In the top 25 internal Dutch ICT organizations that is 10295 fulltime positions in government ICT departments alone!

At my company we operate with a simple open source wiki, task & customer management system, etc. How many of these 10 could do the same? How much tax payer money could be saved if the complete government was run as a company (or, dare I say, not at all)?

Karen Armstrong

December 10th, 2008

Ever since she was on the TED video podcast I have been following the recent work of Karen Armstrong – she has some good thoughts and can communicate them very well. I appriciate & applaud her efforts regarding the “Charter for Compassion” project.

What to do when the law prevents me from doing good?

October 30th, 2008

It is my belief that in our current society we are forced to “live life against the law”. We humans are tinkerers wanting to express ourselves; we are again in a phase where we “make our own”, but in contrast to a century ago when we made to use & consume, we now use technology to not only individualize our experiences & environments but also to share it nearly instantly with loosely-formed international (and often ad-hoc) communities of special interests.

No one human can know “all law” – nor is it knowable – as even the written law is a negotiation, a mere framework within which we are forced to operate. And since we don’t have “agent technology” yet that knows what we do and can negotiate (on our behalf) with our environment, it is practically impossible to comply at all times – since we simply don’t have the time to exchange the meta-data needed to ensure constant compliance.

I personally try to live my life as a Libertarian – but even with the best intentions & great effort it is impossible; this as any engagement will always include the government (and thus the law), which is too large and nearly never has a black & white answer (we all know that having better and/or more lawyers makes a difference in the outcome).

Why than do we limit ourselves to (still) have government? The answer is finally clear to me … because we can not know, let alone negotiate all possibilities in every engagement we enter into combined with the fact that we want to feel in control over our own time/space. And since we can not talk to everyone to make sure everyone will agree to let us have our “own” we feel we need a framework to trust upon to give us the illusion of control over our own time/space. However, by putting trust in a framework we limit ourselves – and at some point in time there will be too much friction between the framework and our capabilities & desires. At all times we balance the consequences between compliance and our capabilities & desires. In our current belief: the more advanced the framework is, the more each individual is “cared for” in the best possible way (according to our common/shared beliefs of what “good” is) – this makes the system inflexible (as everything needs to be accounted for and “balanced out” in advance). My point is that, as a consequence, the penalty for breaking compliance is roughly equal to the number of people who also do not comply (weighted for the “badness” we, as a society, on average place on the deed).

My personal predicament is that I am in a unique engagement where I know, and all those I have been able to share my ideas with agree with, that what I am doing is “good” and desired – but because it is (as legally defined) so close to something we as society currently disagree with (although that is slowly changing again), there is no method that allows me to operate within the current framework. Should I press forward (and risk loosing everything) or should I stop being the best me I can be and not have all those affected by it benefit?