Institutions + Innovation + Detroit

A Backdoor Antidote to Money In (Local) Politics

I’m currently reading Lessig’s “Republic, Lost” at the recommendation of my friend Dominik (thanks buddy).  Because the book is about the influence and implications of money in politics, I’ve been thinking lately about how to combat this pervasive force. 

Per usual, let’s start at the beginning – why do people want to give money to political campaigns? This is what I was able to come up with (Lessig does have discourse about this, but, I’ve taken my own liberties):

Candidate Support: They want to raise their “voice” to support the candidate and do not expect personal favors in return
Intrinsic Motivation: They value political engagement and want to participate in the process beyond voting
Reciprocity and Access: They want to curry favor with the candidate and want the candidate to prioritize their interests when elected

If a citizen is donating to a political campaign in the first two instances they probably aren’t donating a lot of money. Why? Because they don’t expect anything in return, and I suspect most people wouldn’t dogmatically support a political candidate enough to drain their savings without expecting something in return.

This assumption needs a bit of defense, but let’s continue and assume the corollary as well – that when people donate huge sums to political candidates it’s because they expect something in return. In return for donating money, they want access to power.

If that’s the case, and we want to mitigate the effects of money in politics, why don’t we just give people access to power for free? Isn’t that how it ought to be anyway? I’m envisioning a campaign where a candidate and his/her staff talk to thousands of constituents personally over the course of a campaign and when in office. My hypothesis is that if you actually listen to people’s problems on a personal level, and talk to them, you can get them to vote or even campaign for you. 

Sure, that still takes money, but potentially much less because people have a real connection to a candidate and their interests are presumably more likely to be addressed as a result.

Of course, this is much harder in non-local elections and I’d have to make many more assumptions about voter efficacy to extrapolate this idea beyond local elections. But why not adhere to this policy in a local election? Even in a city of a million or so people, you could meet with 10s of thousands of people in a few months.

It’s a lot of work for candidates, but isn’t political leaders working directly with the people exactly how we want our republic to function? Who actually wants to continue to have money ridiculously influence politics?

Detroiters, what do you make?

I make ideas, connections between communities, slam poems, and pancakes. Detroit, what do you make?

BERLIN, GERMANY - In the short time I’ve been here, I’ve come to realize that Berlin was Detroit before Detroit was Detroit. We have many lessons to learn from Berlin, but it comes down to this: Make Something.

Berlin has a distinct culture, for the same reason that any city has a culture, people have agency and create things – whether it’s art, food, businesses, or ideas. As people here have gone out and just created, it’s turned Berlin into a vibrant, international, hard-working, party-all-night, entrepreneurial city. It’s really an amazing place.

I’m not suggesting we try to make Detroit to look and feel like Berlin. What I am suggesting though is that we focus on making and creating, because that’s the only way cultures form – when passionate people go out, do what their heart desires, share their experiences, and learn from other people.

Right now, in my opinion, the culture of Detroit is more consuming than it is creating. There are a small group of people creating valuable products and experiences and many more people free-riding and consuming them. That’s fine for a time, but the city will never grow if we consume more awesome things than we create.

We have no other choice by to make things. Working a 9-5 job and calling it a day doesn’t count because those profits and value gets extracted by a private entity…there’s ever any spillover to the community.

So my fellow Detroiters, I think it’s time we stopped trying to do the next big thing and just started created something by following our hearts and sticking with it. Who cares if it’ll get press or get big accolades. Let’s just make something that represents who we are and what we care about.

So, I ask again, what do you make?

Time vs. Money

PRAGUE, CZECH REPUBLIC - Around this time last year, I was returning from Europe to begin my first year of Business School. I’ve learned many things in the past year, but this strikes me as the most important learning, by far:

The essential trade-off in life is between time and money. Time, as it turns out, is more valuable.

There are really only two simple reasons which illustrate why time is more valuable:

-Time is fixed. We cannot trade for more. To make matters worse, we can’t definitively predict how much time we have.
-Most of the things that (truly) make life worth living require time, but only modest amounts of money.

There are many more reasons – in addition to these two – why time is more valuable than money, but these two are pretty compelling on their own, no?

In the past year, I’ve had to make big decisions about my life. These big decisions, really come down to one thing: what do I value more, time or money? In my own life, I’ve chosen time over money and I think that is the better choice.

In the US, our culture (I think) values money too highly relative to time. Money is necessary in human society, so I don’t think its wise for most people to forget about it…but we could stand to forget about it a little. If we did so, we would be better off individually and collectively.

Why? Because valuing money over time makes people do crazy things and it causes them to be unhappy. Marriages, families, communities, and nations fail when people value time over money (over the long-term). It’s a sustainable proposition to value time over money in the long-term. Valuing money over time, in the long-term, is not a sustainable proposition.

Here’s the question I’m grappling with now: how can we start to alter societal narratives about time and money to make it a healthier balance?

Any ideas?

As a shoutout to my Business School friends, here’s another question. When making business decisions (about our careers or when making decisions in our official duties) why don’t we value time?

Observations as a Municipal Ethnographer

Mikulov, Czech Republic – Over the past week, I’ve been in several geographic contexts. Let me tell you where first, and then I’ll share an observation.

This is where I’ve been:

-Detroit, MI (Both the downtown areas, and the neighborhoods)
-The suburbs of Detroit, MI (Rochester, MI to be exactly)
-Long Island, New York
-The inner suburbs of New York City in upstate New York
-Vienna, Austria
-Mikulov, Czech Republic
-A series of towns between Vienna and Mikulov

Even beyond the places I’ve been in the past few weeks, I’ve been to many other cities and towns in my lifetime. Moreover, I’ve been to different pockets of communities within each of these geographies. The key observation I’ve made is based on this curation of cities and towns I’ve done throughout my life.

Upon first glance, I would’ve expected places to be similar based on geographic proximity (e.g., Detroit would be most similar to Rochester, Long Island would be most similar to upstate, Vienna would be most similar to Mikulov, etc.)

Geographic proximity was probably something that really mattered 50 or 100 years ago. But the funny thing is, I think that’s changing. The places most similar to each other are precisely not the places which are geographically closest.

Rochester, for example, felt most similar to suburban Vienna. Vienna felt similar to London, DC, or another Capital cities. The small Austrian towns I’ve rode through felt more similar to Western Kentucky than they did to Vienna or Mikulov.

A theory: economic similarities trump geography and culture
To cut to the chase, here’s what I realized: nowadays, places have more in common with places across the world that have similar economies (industries, education, etc.) and levels of wealth to them. That is to say, they have surprisingly little in common with places that are near them but have dissimilar economies.

Of course, language and culture matter. But, I think those things are starting to matter less because language barriers are falling due to the internet and cheap global transportation give many people the opportunity to experience other cultures.

As time goes on and the world gets “flatter”, those language and cultural barriers will matter less and less – economic similarities will matter more and more.

My roommate on the trek I’m on in the Czech Republic and i were just talking about it. He agreed that my theory is possible and put it this way (note that he’s Korean-American, but spent the last 5 years working in Korea before coming to Ross). If he was on the subway in Korea he’d be more likely to strike up a conversation with a westerner who looked like a businessman, rathern than talking to someone who was Korean but didn’t seem like a business person.

Moreover, he believes that if he were to talk to a non-businessy Korean not only he would be uncomfortble, the person he was talking to would be uncomfortable (assuming his conversation partner had a different socio-economic prfile). In his subway example, wealth and profession (i.e., economic similarity) trumps geographic and cultural commonality.

On first glance, that seems normal. But when you stop and think about it, it’s terribly interesting, no?

Here’s the takeaway (I’m using some of the phrasing from my very smart friend and classmate Adam): now places may have more in common with other places with similar economies and levels of wealth, whereas they used to have more in common with places which were geographically proximate to them.

Implications

If this hypothesis is true – that places in today’s age share greater commonalities based on economy and wealth (note: “wealth” could just as easily mean inequality levels) – it would have far reaching effects on civil society. I don’t know what would actually happen, but I think some of the following scenarios are plausible (these are scary enough, even if they’re only plausible and not probable:

-Nothing will happen. Perhaps, economic affinities will trump geographic and cultural affinities enough for conflict to occur (I don’t believe this, but it’s a reasonable conclusion)

-Economic similarities are self-reinforcing and become more pronounced

-As economic similarities become more pronounced, now, people who are increasingly dissimilar are still living near each other. This leads to conflict and “class wars”

-Institutions (i.e., governments and large corporations) try to manipulate public opinion to distract the poor from economic dissimilarities and growing levels of inequality. For example, political parties could increase attention on issues which distract the poor’s anger from issues of inequality, or, realign the poor’s primary affiliation to nationalistic identities.

Here’s how what I just said could look in practice: a political party fanning the flames on a volatile social issue to captivate poorer audiences (e.g., gay rights) – this is an example of diverting attention from inequality to a volatile issue. National governments pursue military action against another country to unite a country against an external threat instead of internal institutions – this is an example of institutions realigning citizens to nationalistic identities.

Both of these examples sound familiar, no?

I’m not saying this is happening, just that it’s a plausible course of action for any institution if my hypothesis about geograhy and economic similarities are correct.

-Conflict across nations (inter-state conflict) could reduce, but intra-state conflict could rise. The influence of large municipalities and regional governments will rise because of their new importance in managing inequality, economic growth, and societal conflict.

I leave you with this: when you choose who you talk to on the subway, how would you choose? If it was 50 years ago, would you choose someone else?

I think that answer would be different today than it was 50 years ago. If so, there could be far reaching implications.

Remembering the Airplane Landed

VIENNA, AUSTRIA - I arrived in Vienna yesterday, and had the worst travel day I’ve ever had, starting with finding my luggage to be lost upon landing in Austria. Over the course of the day, though, I did learn a very important about placing value on the things that really matter.

As a bit of context, here’s why my day was so difficult:

- My luggage was lost
- It took me almost 1.5 hours to find my hostel after getting off the subway
- I couldn’t check into my hostel until 2pm (I landed at around 10am)
- I don’t speak a lick of German, so It was very hard to talk with people
- I found out late in the day that the following day was a holiday, so I had to make my limited amount of Euros last until I could go to the bank. (I’m trying to avoid ATMs because of the fees)
- The internet connection in the hostel was crummy so it was hard to communicate back home and wrap-up the school-related things I needed to do. Beyond that, it was difficult to communicate with the airline about my lost luggage
- The lobby of my hostel was smokey
- I lost my map, and had to scrape it together with a poorly drawn map in a tourist magazine and maps at bus stops to get back to my hostel
- Like a buffoon, I didn’t pack my toiletries in my carry-on bag, so all I had was a travel toothbrush
- It wasn’t worth it to take a shower, because I didn’t have clean clothes or a towel
- After all this, for dinner I ordered a pizza with anchovies on it, without realizing it. This would’ve been fine, except as it turns out, I can’t stand the taste of anchovies

But I learned a lesson while talking to one of my bunk-mates, an 18 year old Russian girl taking a trip before starting college. She was surprised that I was in fairly good spirits, even though I was in a less-than-ideal situation.

Losing my luggage was out of my control, I told her, so why worry? But as she asked me more questions, I realized the real reason why I wasn’t too stressed:

Despite every frustration I had yesterday, my plane still landed safely, and that was the only outcome of the day that truly mattered.

It was an important lesson in life and leadership. You always have to remember to focus on what matters and put your effort toward that. It’s easy to get caught up in the small stuff, but you can’t let it distract you from what truly matters.

In the case of an airline, it doesn’t matter if you’re luggage is never lost if you’re planes aren’t safe. As a husband, it doesn’t matter if you can provide your family the money to live lavishly if what they truly need is your love and your time.

Focusing on the outcomes that truly matter and seeing beyond the outcomes that don’t is an important lesson. It’s also a valuable skill that the greatest leaders I’ve ever met all possess.

Business and Society’s Deeper Challenge

It is plain to see that the complex problems faced by business and society this century will be incredibly difficult to solve. Business, for example, is contending with the pressures of hypercompetitive markets, increasingly demanding consumers, and an accelerating pace of technological disruption. Society as a whole has even harder problems – climate change, infectious disease, terrorism, traffic, food security, and economic inequality, just to name a few – that are systemic and global in nature.

These problems are too big for any institution – whether it’s a business, a government, or a non-profit – to solve alone. Take the fight against child hunger as an example. All three sectors must work in concert for the system to change: business must develop new, nutritious foods, government must set policies which bolster food access, and non-profits must work on the ground to ensure aid reaches hungry children.

Of course, child hunger is just one example of the many issues that are solvable only if the public, private, and social sectors collaborate.

Because the world’s most challenging business and social problems are too interconnected and complex to be solved by one institution alone, I believe that we are left with two choices. We can either work in siloes and struggle, or, we can learn to work collaboratively across industries and across sectors to solve the biggest problems humanity has ever seen.

Unfortunately, co-creating solutions across sectors – beyond traditional public-private partnerships that are merely funded or operated jointly – is incredibly difficult to achieve for many reasons. Legal structures for collaboration are nascent and governance structures are hard to create. It’s hard to develop effective incentives for all sectors, especially because the shareholder value model is so pervasive in global markets. To add insult to injury, many business leaders and citizens do not even see the value of cross-sector collaboration or believe it is a viable option.

Moreover, even though learning to collaborate across sectors is not a social issue or business issue on its own, it is a critically important challenge because solutions for so many difficult problems require cross-sector collaboration. For these reasons and many more, learning how to work across sectors to solve complex problems, I contend, will be the greatest challenge for the next generation of business leaders.

The Fading Corporate Dream

Over the past year, I’ve noticed high-talent folks I know start to rebuff the corporate dream they thought they wanted. These folks are the top performers at their firms leaving after a few years or the rockstars that avoid the corporate route altogether. “Why oh why?” sing the corporates, “why are are these talented people leaving?”

Here are all the reasons that I’ve heard and observed:

  • Co-workers / management aren’t competent
  • Co-workers / management don’t actually care about creating value for customers, they care about their own careers
  • Employees aren’t recognized or given opportunities based on merit – it’s about your tenure or ability to network
  • They company isn’t interested in being bold, innovative leaders in their markets
  • The company’s work-life flexibility terrible
  • The organization moves too slow and/or doesn’t take risks
  • Employees can’t chart their own path / you feel like a cog in a machine that does the same thing over and over
  • Employees don’t learn and grow either in formal settings or on-the-job
  • Employees can’t be themselves, they have to act a certain way
  • Employees aren’t value or recognized and/or they don’t see how their work actually has an impact on customers’ lives or the world

The list goes on.

The dissonance now exposed
Most people in this country want to be free. We don’t live in a country with an autocratic system of government, so most people have at least some glimpse of what it means to be free. Think about what being free feels like for a second. It means you’re able to pursue your own dreams and assemble peacefully. It means you’re able to speak freely and have your day be relatively unintruded by the influence of institutions. You are able to be yourself and express yourself. It means you have due process of law if you break the rules or are accused of wrongdoing.

Now think of what life is like in a large corporation. It’s not at all free. Instead of pursuing what you want, you do exactly what your boss tells you to do for fear that you’ll lose your job. You don’t really have the ability to express yourself unless you have a lot of power or authority in the organization. You are constantly bombarded by doing the stuff your boss doesn’t want to do. Depending on who you are or what your connections are you get preferential treatment by authority holders in the organization (you don’t get due process). No, corporate life today is anything but being about freedom. On the contrary, corporate life is all about control.

This is why employees are leaving corporates in droves: they don’t want to be controlled, they want to be free.

Running corporations with a controlling mindset used to fly because employees had no viable alternatives elsewhere in the job market. Small firms didn’t really have as much impact on the world as they are able to now. Small firms weren’t stable and they didn’t provide opportunities to learn and have that learning be viewed as legitimate by other companies. It was difficult to access networks of people, resources, or customers unless you were a big firm. As you can see, even just a few decades ago, smaller firms provided much less value to employees than they now can.

That dissonance – that corporations often operate like autocracies in a society motivated by the pursuit freedom – is now exposed. Not working for a corporation is now a legitimate choice. It’s easier to find smaller firms or start your own business. People now have the capability to tap into global networks of ideas and support which gives them a safety net to lean on if things go badly. People can now move (literally) across the world more freely. Potential employees are no longer stuck. That’s why people with a lot of talent (and even people that aren’t blessed with a lot of pedigree) are doing something different – they don’t really have to work for corporations anymore.

The punch line
The fact of the matter is that corporations that want to recruit talented people won’t be able to operate as autocracies for much longer. Many corporations are already starting to change. But it’s not just about tech sector or startup perks, that won’t be an antidote for long because it’s a superficial change. Corporations instead have to fundamentally change their assumptions about their employees – they’re not robots you program, they are assets that you have to garden and groom to unleash their full potential. Corporations have to stop being autocracies.

If corporations don’t shed their autocratic roots, the corporate dream will continue to fade. And then, things will really get interesting.

Millennials Matter Because Of Their Time, Not Their Money

There’s lots of talk about bringing young people to Detroit. To be honest, I agree with that. But there’s not a lot of talk about why it’s important to bring young people to Detroit.

The story I usually hear is one of income. Young people can pay rents, go to local restaurants, patronize local businesses, and pay taxes to local governments. After all, the story goes, young people make good incomes and have few financial strings attached. Young people also have talent to work in local companies and the smarts to help them grow. In more ways than one, young people breathe life into cities and the ecosystems tied to cities.

All this is true, but I think it’s missing the point. The real value young people give to cities is their time, not their money.

As young people, we don’t really realize this, I think. I, as someone who wants to use his energy for public good for example, often become frustrated that I don’t have the money or influence to affect change in Detroit or elsewhere. What I forget about is how much time I really have compared to other people – especially compared to older people with lots of money and lots of influence.

Young People And Innovation
The resource of time is not trivial, it’s absolutely core to growth in a city. Here’s what time allows young people to do:

Build Networks – developing relationships takes lots of time and energy if done right. There’s really no way around it. Young people have lots of time to cultivate relationships and they do. These networks do not only benefit the young people building them, it makes the city more efficient because thick networks move information and resources across the city more efficiently and with greater results. Young people break silos in ways that older adults cannot and don’t have an incentive to do. (Power players in a network have an incentive to keep silos because it preserves their power. Young people have an incentive to break silos for the opposite reason – it allows them to break up concentrations of power.)

Try New Things – Young people have a lot of time to experiment, which is why it’s common to see innovative startups created by young people – they can blaze new trails easier because they can put in the time to figure out new, complex problems. In any company or city, young people always lead new experimental things because those young people have the time to mess around and learn. Because those learnings add up rapidly, young people can do amazingly creative things faster than people who are older.

Explore Ideas – Young people also have lots more time to “stop and smell the roses.” If they choose to, they can learn and explore and be inspired by new experiences. They can noodle on things and imagine the future because they’re closer to the mindset of children. Young people can be foolish because they don’t have families to feed. They can follow dreams because they have little to lose compared to people who are older.

You’ll notice that these three things: networks, experimentation, and inspiration are three fundamental components of innovation. I don’t think that’s a coincidence.

Intergenerational Collaboration Is The Key
The way I see it is this. Older people have experience, resources, and influence. Young people have the time to build networks, try new things, and explore new ideas. To me this is the perfect match for creating innovation.

I firmly believe that intergenerational collaboration is absolutely essential if we want to innovate successfully, in Detroit. But to be honest, I don’t really see that happening today. I think both sides want to lead the other. Of course, this is my opinion, but I don’t think I’m alone in believing this.

This is also my opinion, but, I think we can do a lot more if we have intergenerational collaboration. The real kind. It’ll just take both sides stepping out of the spotlight and focusing on working together.

Disclosure: I am part of the “young people” so that’s where my biases are.

How the Internet Complicates Democracy

Let me start by first reiterating that the Internet is a wonderful tool. If you are reading this, you no doubt know of its trappings and utilities. I do not mean to discredit that notion in this reflection. There are many reasons that the internet has been a force for good in the world.

However, there are at least a few ways I see that the Internet appears to make democratic societies more difficult to maintain. These four categories are interconnected, but I believe their underpinnings are unique.  I’ve written all of this very casually.

Complications in Decision Making

In a democracy, groups of people have to get together to make decisions on matters affecting the polity. This group of problems outlines how the Internet makes it more difficult to make decisions.

  • The problem of real-time information: Often in the public sphere, governments make plans which take years to implement, maybe even decades. The Internet, however, surfaces new information all the time. Because of the Internet, we are much more able to get a continuous flow of information. That is great when you are managing a problem, but difficult when trying to make decision because it can cause priorities to shift quickly. Pivoting priorities isn’t ideal when trying to do something that requires a long lead time. By extension, the Internet may make it more difficult for long-term projects to make it across the finish line.
  • The problem of crowd validation: Sometimes “the crowd” is very good at making a decision and sometime it isn’t. The Internet makes it much easier to tap the knowledge of the crowd. What’s problematic is that because the influence of the crowd is so strong on the Internet, it could make it much easier to blindly ignore ideas that don’t immediately get traction with the crowd. Many good ideas, more than prior eras, could be left to rot in the annals of the internet instead of being incorporated into a process for making decisions…just because the crowd immaturely rejects them.
  • The problem of convenience: Decisions and ideas don’t get better without tender love and care. Improving ideas takes a special kind of ardor and time, I’d say. The difficulty with the Internet is that it can make it too easy to participate in decision-making activities, which allows people to participate in a cursory way. At some parts of the political process, this is probably fine, but isn’t there some value in having an intellectual cost to participate in a discussion, because it ensures that the people participating are serious about their responsibilities?

Complications of Power

In a democracy, different people can affect the democratic process in different ways, depending on the amount of power they have. This group of problems outlines how the Internet can concentrate power (in a way that’s not desirable) more than in previous eras.

  • The problem of centralized access: Currently, the internet is a centrally organized infrastructure…users connect to centralized websites and centrally managed information technology services. The problem with centralized infrastructure, of course, is that bottlenecked resources have a lot of power. Companies who control access to centralized resources (like the Internet) can charge people a lot of money, and, manipulate people by threatening to withhold access to the centralized resource. That could happen to the Internet…it could be a resource that’s used as a bargaining chip.
  • The problem of signal and noise: There is lots and lots of information on the internet. And, if you’re trying to influence others it’s hard to get your message to “stick”, especially if only a few companies account for the majority of traffic on the Internet. That sort of setup is advantageous for well-resourced interests…they can buy clicks to their websites. By spending generously, they can flood their opponents out of the market for information. On the Internet today, it’s more and more important to be a well-known and influential voice; it’s hard to court a national audience otherwise. It’s easy to speak freely on the Internet, but it’s hard to get people to listen on the Internet, unless you have a lot of cachet or a lot of cash.
  • The problem of anonymity and feedback: On the Internet you can say a lot and not be accountable for the costs. You can spread rumors and lies and do it anonymously. This allows for manipulation, because you could easily slander your opponents without cost (or hire someone to do it for you). In the public sphere you used to take a hit to your reputation if you acted like a bozo or were deliberately misleading. Now, you can very easily devolve conversations by trolling people or blatantly lying, without ever getting caught. This is problematic to democracy, because we may never get over our squabbling long enough to discuss complex or emotionally charged issues.

Complications of Association

In a democracy, groups of people have to associate and find common ground to make decisions. If they don’t, they spend a lot of time arguing. This group of problems outlines how the Internet makes it more difficult for people to “come together.”

  • The problem of shared values: Even though the infrastructure of the Internet is centralized, how information proliferates is not centralized, especially as compared to mass media channels like TV or radio. Because there are so many media outlets, there’s no uniform message that everyone in the country really hears. This, I suspect, makes it more difficult to have shared values across a nation. The logic goes, if you’re receiving different information than the people around you, it’s more difficult to be similar to them. This isn’t wholly a bad thing, but if shared values are a boon to collective action and democracy, the Internet will make democracy more difficult.
  • The problem of trust and empathy: The Internet makes it possible to isolate yourself physically from communities you don’t want to interact with. Lots of micro interactions no longer have to exist. Take getting somewhere you’ve never been before as an example. You used to have to stop and get directions (thereby interacting with a stranger you wouldn’t have otherwise interacted with). Now, on the other hand, you can just use Google Maps and never have to talk to that direction-giving person again. Because of this ability to physically isolate, I suspect it negatively affects building empathy toward people you can now choose not to interact with. In societies empathy is important so we don’t tear each other apart.
  • The problem of self-selecting tribes: This is the intellectual version of the problem of trust and empathy. Basically, you never ever have to read anything you don’t agree with because of the Internet. Researchers are studying this and are finding that folks who consume news in this way tend to be more polarized. Check out this study.

There are also a whole slew of studies about the Internet’s effect on political discourse. (Note, these are really interesting, and a lot of my intuitions are confirmed by these studies).

Complications of Information

In a democracy, political actors and citizens depend on information to make their decisions. This group of problems outlines how the nature of information is changing, and making it harder to execute democratic processes.

  • The problem of transparency: Now, it’s possible to access lots of political information because governments are moving toward transparency. By many accounts this is great. What’s difficult about this is that there’s now more information than any individuals can reasonably process, because the data available is overwhelming. We’re starting to have some tools to make sense of this data, but we still have far fewer tools than we need to de-complicate the volume of data that transparency creates.
  • The problem of quality and veracity: This is simple; you can’t trust everything you read on the Internet. This makes it easy to pass of lies as the truth. It’s hard to trust new information because so much of it can be crap. As a result, a lot of “crap” information influences our judgment.

How can we show our commitment to Detroit’s future?

Detroiters always talk about Detroit – whether that’s in the city limits or an another state, like Robyn and I just did with an expat Detroiter living in New Orleans. I actually love talking about Detroit, but why don’t we talk about deeper things? In fact, what makes anyone want to talk about deeper things like ideas and beliefs?

Our friend Laxmi – also an expat Detroiter –  had an interesting insight into this question because of her experience living in NOLA for the past year. Her logic goes like this, roughly:

An ability to talk about deeper things <— Trust <—- Time to get to know people <—- Demonstrated commitment to the place in which you are living

I’m paraphrasing the lovely conversation the three of us had, but the gist is that an ability to talk about deeper things with folks in your community you have to demonstrate commitment to the place you are living; deep dialogue implies demonstrated commitment. So, how do you do that? Really…what are your ideas?

—-

Here’s the reason why I present the question. I don’t really know of many ways we demonstrate commitment as Detroiters. What are little (or big) ways we can or already do that? How does one show commitment to a place and an intent to make it better for the long haul?

If we can start to create opportunities for that, I think we’ll eventually be able to have much more deeply connected community in Detroit, because we’ll have more “real talk”. If it’ll take a village to make Detroit into a great, 21st century city, it’ll take deep conversations in the public sphere. Based on the logic above, that starts with demonstrating commitment.

%d bloggers like this: