The Automation Paradox is that the better our machines get, the more we struggle when they fail.

When heading out for a hike in the woods, it's tempting to skip the map and compass and rely on our phones and apps for navigation. Yet when we encounter no signal or lose power, we can find ourselves in a sticky situation. Or perhaps, like me, you've come to rely on popping your destination into the satnav or Google Maps whenever you get in the car and have nearly forgotten the ability to navigate without it.

These situations illustrate the paradox of automation, where the more sophisticated and automated our machines and technologies become, the more bewildered we find ourselves when they inevitably fail. Or: the smarter the machines get, the dumber we might get.

In his book Messy, Tim Harford suggests three strands to the paradox as our machines get more sophisticated:

Automation covers up our mistakes, hiding our incompetence, meaning we may not learn to correct ourselves—consider autocorrect cleaning up our typos as we go.

When we rely on automation, we get less practice for our skills, so even highly skilled individuals may find their expertise diminishing—perhaps you've found yourself using your phone calculator for a trivial calculation.

When the easy scenarios are taken care of, failures may occur in complex or unpredictable ways that we may find especially difficult to recover from—like a subtle but persistent failure in the steering of a passenger plane, recovering from a skid on an icy road, or when you're deeply lost in the wilderness.

More sophisticated technology can even make it useless or more dangerous when it fails. Older cars used to be reparable forever. Now, if your vehicle fails, it's likely to need plugging in at the dealership to figure out what's up. How many electronic devices are thrown away because somewhere inside, some tiny loose connection or component makes the whole thing worthless? Were pilots and flight crews better prepared and able to improvise before the autopilot became ubiquitous?

I often wish our devices would fail more like an escalator or an electric toothbrush. If an escalator fails, you can still walk up it. If your electric toothbrush dies, you can still use it to brush your teeth. These could be called Technology-Enhanced Products, perhaps. But when most of our devices die, they're often rendered worthless.

Automation and sophisticated machines help me so much. I did use Grammarly to help check this post. I use Google Maps nearly every time I put in my destination to home, and I often use a calculator to check my maths. But I do pay attention to grammar corrections, bring a paper map when I can, and keep trying to do the maths in my head.

But as Tim Harford explains it, we still face "the paradox of automation: the better the machines get, the more bewildered we are when the machines fail."

The Dunning-Kruger effect (send me proof of purchase of Big Ideas Little Pictures, and I'll send the sketch to you)

Tolkein-style landscape inspired by the excellent Lord of Maps.

The Automation Paradox

Rose, thorn, bud is a simple tool for reflection for yourself or your team. The basic idea is to look back at a recent project or how things are going and consider each aspect of a rose:

Rose: what are the successes? What's gone well?

Thorn: what are the challenges? What could we do better?

Bud: what are opportunities with potential? What could we explore or try?

If running as a team retro activity or retrospective, you might spend a few minutes individually adding thoughts for each prompt, then talk through each of the thoughts in Rose, Thorn and Bud.

A separate but no less important step is often to capture actions from the reflection—what you'll do as a result. If you're conducting retros regularly, consider revisiting actions from previous sessions.

I like "rose, thorn, bud" as it's beautiful to consider that a rose contains such different facets, like so many things.

I've come across many retro and reflection activities that are variations of these three prompts: "What went well?", "What didn't go well?" and "What else?" A few to mention:

The sailboat retro: Goal/vision, Rocks, Wind, Anchor — a nice feature for a team is that this activity places you all in the same boat

Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats (SWOT)

A reader suggested a fourth aspect of the rose analogy to reflect on as its leaves or roots: what are the unnoticed or behind-the-scenes things that contribute to the rose's success?

I've come to consider that it doesn't matter too much what activity you choose to get a discussion going. What matters most is regular reflection, hearing all the voices in a team, and making progress together. One teammate ran an excellent retro by us all finishing early and heading to the pub.

I didn't intend it, but some of the products and prints for rose, thorn, bud out to be some of the nicest I have.

Also see: Information radiator, MoSCoW prioritisation, RACI, How to peel a Post-it so it doesn't fall down, the upward spiral

Rose, Thorn, Bud

The upward spiral is Stephen R. Covey's simple model of personal growth and change, which repeats the three steps: Learn, Commit, and Do.

Of course, we are all doing all of the time. The difference is taking the time and effort to learn from our doing, and deciding to commit to how we want to grow, and deliberately putting it into action. Getting better is in our control.

Though it didn't seem like it would take any effort, I've found the commit step to be surprisingly important. For me, "Commit" means actively deciding to make a change and following through with it. It's the difference between finding something intriguing versus deciding that you're going to do something about it. Coupling the "Commit" with getting specific using, for example, implementation intentions can increase the chance of getting on that upward spiral. "Commit" is the mental shift of telling yourself you're going to make a change.

Repeating each of the three steps again and again is a simple and guaranteed path to improving at anything we try.

Stephen Covey discusses the upward spiral as part of sharpening the saw—renewing, refreshing and recharging ourselves to be the best we can be:

"Renewal is the principle—and the process—that empowers us to move on an upward spiral of growth and change, of continuous improvement."
— Dr Stephen R. Covey

Also see: sharpen the saw, the express-test cycle

The Upward Spiral

Richard Feynman was one of the great scientists of the 20th century, making significant contributions to physics and other related fields. Part of what made him stand out was his gift for teaching. He had a remarkable knack for explaining some of the most complex things in ways anyone could understand. He was also a model of the desire to deeply understand how things worked, often deriving a result in several ways to be more confident he was right.

The Feynman learning technique is typical of how he approached understanding something deeply and helps explain some of his teaching skills.

Spend time writing about a topic as if explaining it to someone.

Then practice explaining it, speaking and drawing as if you were a teacher at the front of the class. You may figure out some other aspect wasn't as clear as you thought and need to look into something.

Refine any gaps you reveal until you can share the topic fluently and clearly.

Then, simplify your language by replacing complex words and ideas with simpler ones and considering analogies to help people relate.

Now, you can explain it because you deeply understand it, too.

"You can know the name of that bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird."

— Feynman's father, from Surely You're Joking Mr Feynman?

I loved the Fun to Imagine interviews to experience some of Feynman's joy and skill for teaching.

The sketch was inspired by this excellent animated video of the Feynman Learning Technique.

Though he was primarily a theoretical physicist, Feynman also made lasting contributions to the field of computation. If you want to get into those, you might enjoy the Feynman Lectures on Computation from the last course he taught at Caltech, edited, no less, by my Dad.

The Feynman Learning Technique

At times we've probably all been confused or struggled to understand a talk or a class. When I'm lost or confused my rule of thumb is to ask, even when it's not easy.

The desire to understand what's being said fights with the urge not to interrupt the talk or ask what may be a dumb question — perhaps everyone else already knows? But in my experience, if I'm confused, others likely are too.

It helps to believe this because I know that asking will probably help others and not just myself — asking is a public service. It's very easy as a speaker to assume that others will know what you know and so jargon and TLAs (Three Letter Acronyms - really an initialism) so easily slip in. When someone asks it helps include everyone again.

And you're not just doing a favour for the audience by asking — it's a gift for the speaker too. If I'm giving a talk I want people to get what I'm sharing and not suffer in silence thinking they're stupid and I'm confusing. I want everyone to follow from start to end. It's one more good reason to thank people for the questions you receive.

Let's banish confusion and all get to the end together by asking the question.

This advice stands provided you've been paying attention along the way.

I was surprised to find there are a number of, mostly older, sketches on questions and asking:

Ask the question at talks

Bloom's taxonomy has 6 levels of increasingly sophisticated thinking skills. It was originally developed, in a slightly different form to here, for classifying educational objectives and with additional variations, dimensions and sub-levels in the full models, is still useful for teaching and learning. The hierarchy reflects, among other things, that a strong foundation for learning is knowledge.

The 6 levels in the revised Bloom's Taxonomy for learning are: Remember, Understand, Apply, Analyze, Evaluate, Create

Also see: the learning pit, the third teacher, zone of proximal development

Bloom's Taxonomy

When it comes to innovating, counterintuitively, I think the surest way to produce something new and noteworthy is to start by replicating the work you admire.

If you're making music, first play the music from your favourite artists, then make music like theirs. Only when you've mastered that do you need to go your own way.

If you admire Hemingway, practice writing like him, and your own voice will likely develop by itself.

Before helping develop cubism Picasso was first an accomplished artist.

It's easy to look at the best and think you have to be different. But standing up first makes it easier to stand on the shoulders of giants.

What's more, copying is much lower pressure.

I learned this idea while working at Jump Associates

Replicate then innovate

James Nottingham's metaphor of The Learning Pit illustrates the struggle before "getting it."

It's the learning journey of approaching a new concept, uncovering conflicts or contradictions with your knowledge, confusion, beginning to put new ideas together and finally the clarity of a new concept mastered.

There are natural parallels to other models like the stages of competence, Lev Vygotsky's zone of proximal development, or Carol Dweck's growth mindset.

Here's a nice animated video explaining the Learning Pit if you're curious.

The Learning Pit was created by James Nottingham (2007, 2010, 2017). More details at: learningpit.org

Nottingham, J.A. (2007). Exploring the Learning Pit. Teaching Thinking and Creativity, 8:2(23), 64–68. Birmingham, UK: Imaginative Minds
Nottingham, J.A. (2010). Challenging Learning (1st ed.). Alnwick, Northumberland, UK: JN Publishing.
Nottingham, J.A. (2017). The Learning Challenge: How to Guide Your Students Through the Learning Pit. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Thanks to Julia Silver of Qualified Tutor for educating me about it.

The Learning Pit

I like this simple idea that evidently illustrates that anything that is able to improve, learn, and grow at a faster rate than something else stands a decent chance of making up lost ground pretty quickly. Consider this when you’re hiring, or when you’re worried that some other person or company has got a headstart on knowledge. Position yourself always as the fastest and most persistent ‘improver’ and you’ll stand a chance whatever you’re doing.

Read the full story of Stanford Professor John Ousterhout’s thought for the weekend: a little bit of slope. 

A little bit of slope makes up for a lot of y-intercept.

I love this concept of the third teacher that applies just as well in a primary school as in an office. A well-designed environment can help us learn, encourage good habits, and improve our wellbeing.

I remember a previous mentor of mine saying he could tell how a project was doing just by taking in the project room.

Too often these days the environment is hidden away in software. A well-designed environment can really be a third teacher. Consider how you can make the most of yours.

Here's the third teacher illustration without the animation

The third teacher

This is military strategist John Boyd’s framework for combat operations that also turns out to apply quite well to businesses and learning in general. It’s really not that far from the ol’ test-learn cycle or a good design process.

There’s lots of nuance to his framework, but some of the application of it that I like includes:

The faster you can do this loop — at your startup or in a fight — the more stuff you will get to try and the faster you will learn

If you’re in competition with another entity then completing your OODA loop fast, and acting to change the environment for them, disrupts their loop and forces them back to observe before they can act. It slows them down and creates confusion

I learned about it from Reid Hoffman’s excellent Masters of Scale podcast.

OODA Loop

The sweet spot for flow and mastery where the task is not too easy, not too hard — it’s just right. 

Also, just the right spot for learning similar to Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development. In that model when you’re out of your comfort zone, and not in your anxiety zone you’re in the learning zone.

And yet another way of looking at it, still without as catchy a name as Goldilocks tasks, is getting the right match of challenge to your skills to avoid anxiety and boredom to be in flow.

 I learned the name from Dan Pink’s excellent book Drive.

Goldilocks tasks

A handy mental model to have in mind when you are learning, or teaching any skill. As I grow older I find that I realise the first step to conscious incompetence in pretty much every field I come across, and mark it as a happy achievement.

I was taught that a final step, for great teachers, takes you back to conscious competence. In other words, you are not just excellent at the skill, you are aware of what you do that makes you excellent, and are therefore able to teach it to others rather than just demonstrate.

Wikipedia does the source for the four stages of competence model better than I would do.

Stages of competence framework

Instead of ‘Anything else?’ ask 'What else?’. The slight shift in frame makes all the difference.

Get more participation

Beaches are amazing for play. Every time we go to a beach, I think, if you were to try and design the perfect toy, it would have many of the remarkable attributes of a beach - particularly the self-tidying feature. At some point, I should stop thinking that and just enjoy the beach.

If you like beaches too, you might enjoy the podcast episode fun at the beach where we talked about just what makes beaches amazing.

Beaches: amazing for play

What a child can do in cooperation today, he can do alone tomorrow.
— Lev Vygotsky

Based on visualizing Lev Vygotsky’s theory.

Zone of proximal development

A good teacher is a DJ for learning

Great practice for research. Good practice for life too.

Prefer open-ended questions

I learned this simple insight from The Baby Whisperer.

Get my new weekly sketch in your inbox

Category: learning