I’m so excited to join forces with charity Made By Dyslexia today to launch the free onlineUniversity of Dyslexic Thinking, hosted by Open University and available to access from all around the world.
We decided to launch the university to teach the skills most relevant to today’s world – Dyslexic Thinking skills.
The courses are for anyone, at any stage of life; you might be a dyslexic looking to learn more about your Dyslexic Thinking skills and apply them to different industries, or someone who isn’t dyslexic but is curious to understand how this kind of thinking works in action, and why these skills are more valuable than ever before.
This morning, Made By Dyslexia revealed its new Intelligence 5.0 report, which includes research from Randstad Enterprise that shows the skills inherent to dyslexics are the most sought-after in every job, in every sector, globally.
The report clearly demonstrates that today’s AI-driven world needs a new kind of intelligence focused on human skills such as complex problem solving, adaptability, resilience, communication and creative thinking.
These are skills dyslexics naturally possess but aren’t measured by traditional education and workplace tests, which instead focus on dyslexic challenges. Based on this, it concludes the outdated systems that are designed to teach and measure intelligence need a rethink – it’s time for a new school of thought.
And this is where DyslexicU comes in! We’re shaking things up and teaching the skills the world needs. We need more innovators, problem-solvers, storytellers and unconventional thinking. The online course features many of the world’s greatest dyslexics talking about how Dyslexic Thinking skills like this have fuelled innovation and success, and the lessons we can gain from their experiences. They’re the kind of lessons I wish I was taught in the classroom.
I’m delighted to be joined by some of the incredible (dyslexic) course contributors today to launch DyslexicU at Virgin Hotels New York City, including HRH Princess Beatrice, Dame Maggie Aderin-Pocock, and Jean Oelwang.
HRH Princess Beatrice
Courses in ‘Entrepreneurs & Start-Up Mentality’ (made in partnership with Virgin StartUp) and another on ‘Changemakers & Activism’ (made in partnership with Virgin Unite) are available on DyslexicU, hosted on Open University today, with lots more to come later this year (or next term, should I say?!) They cover subjects such as storytelling, sport, fashion, culinary arts, and music.
While ‘U’ might technically’ stand for ‘University’, I quite like the irony that it resembles the ‘U’ that myself and many dyslexics sometimes see scribbled on our report cards, because traditional education systems are not made for minds like ours. If you’re a dyslexic, I know how disheartening that can be. I hope the launch of DyslexicU today can be a reminder to you that thinking in a different way to everyone else is indispensable in this new world of work. It’s your superpower.
The rise of AI is truly remarkable. It is transforming the way we work, live, and interact with each other, and with so many other touchpoints of our lives. However, while AI aggregates, dyslexic thinking skills innovate. If used in the right way, AI could be the perfect co-pilot for dyslexics to really move the world forward. In light of this, Virgin and Made By Dyslexia have launched a brilliant campaign to show what is possible if AI and dyslexic thinking come together. The film below says it all.
As the film shows, AI can’t replace the soft skills that index high in dyslexics – such as innovating, lateral thinking, complex problem solving, and communicating.
If you ask AI for advice on how to scale a brand that has a record company – it offers valuable insights, but the solution lacks creative instinct and spontaneous decision making. If I hadn’t relied on my intuition, lateral thinking and willingness to take a risk, I would have never jumped from scaling a record company to launching an airline – which was a move that scaled Virgin into the brand it is today.
Together, dyslexic thinkers and AI are an unstoppable force, so it’s great to see that 72% of dyslexics see AI tools (like ChatGPT) as a vital starting point for their projects and ideas – according to new research by Made By Dyslexia and Randstad Enterprise. With help from AI, dyslexics have limitless power to change the world, but we need everyone to welcome our dyslexic minds. If businesses fail to do this, they risk being left behind. As the Value of Dyslexia report highlighted, dyslexic skillsets will mirror the World Economic Forum’s future skills needs by 2025. Given the speed at which technology and AI have progressed, this cross-over has arrived two years earlier than predicted.
With all of this in mind, it’s concerning to see a big difference between how HR departments think they understand and support dyslexia in the workplace, versus the experience of dyslexic people themselves.
The new research also shows that 66% of HR professionals believe they have support structures in place for dyslexia, yet only 16% of dyslexics feel supported in the workplace. It’s even sadder to see that only 14% of dyslexic employees believe their workplace understands the value of dyslexic thinking. There is clearly work to be done here.
To empower dyslexic thinking in the workplace (which has the two-fold benefit of bringing out the best in your people and in your business), you need to understand dyslexic thinking skills. To help with this, Made By Dyslexia is launching a workplace training course later this year on LinkedIn Learning – and you can sign up for it now. The course will be free to access, and I’m delighted that Virgin companies from all across the world have signed up for it – from Virgin Australia, to Virgin Active Singapore, to Virgin Plus Canada and Virgin Voyages. It’s such an insightful course, designed by experts at Made By Dyslexia to educate people on how to understand, support, and empower dyslexic thinking in the workplace, and make sure businesses are ready for the future.
It’s always inspiring to see how Made By Dyslexia empowers dyslexics, and shows the world the limitless power of dyslexic thinking. If businesses can harness this power, and if dyslexics can harness the power of AI – we can really drive the future forward. Richard Branson, Founder at Virgin Group.
Royalties Are Bullshit: A Musician’s Case For Basic Income….. “This song is Copyrighted in U.S., under Seal of Copyright #154085, for a period of 28 years, and anybody caught singin’ it without our permission, will be mighty good friends of ourn, cause we don’t give a dern. Publish it. Write it. Sing it. Swing to it. Yodel it. We wrote it, that’s all we wanted to do.”
-Woody Guthrie, copyright notice, This Land Is Your Land
Royalties are bullshit.
I say this as a musician, and as a songwriter. But let me go a step further: royalties have always been bullshit. The first problem? They’re not going to musicians, and they never have.
If money is being made, something is being sold. That something has to be a product, something that can be counted. Originally it would have been sheet music, before recorded music was widely available. Later on, it meant records, then tapes, CDs, downloads, streams, as well as licensing rights – use in a specific film, or for a particular commercial. There is a product. Someone is buying it. Some of that money goes towards the cost of producing, distributing, and marketing that product; some of it goes to the artist, as royalties.
Well, a little bit of it goes to the artist.
As Billboard notes, “An accurate map of royalty pathways would be a tangled mess.” It’s not easy to get paid.
Some royalties are set by the government, some are negotiated, some are paid through groups. For example, I license my music through TuneCore, which strikes deals with a series of digital music outlets, like iTunes and Spotify, each of which offers different terms of payment. Spotify pays artists, on average, $0.007 cents per stream.
Example of royalties earned for artist Jarrod Barker. Russian streamer Yandex awarded 8/100th of a penny for track streaming. Mr. Barker would need 99,992 additional streams to earn a dollar!
Beyond that, if you are “fortunate” enough to work with a major record label, there are restrictive terms and conditions. Techdirt quotes Tim Quirk of Too Much Joy explaining the Kafkaesque math [emphasis mine]:
A word here about that unrecouped balance, for those uninitiated in the complex mechanics of major label accounting. While our royalty statement shows Too Much Joy in the red with Warner Bros. (now by only $395,214.71 after that $62.47 digital windfall), this doesn’t mean Warner “lost” nearly $400,000 on the band. That’s how much they spent on us, and we don’t see any royalty checks until it’s paid back, but it doesn’t get paid back out of the full price of every album sold. It gets paid back out of the band’s share of every album sold, which is roughly 10% of the retail price. So, using round numbers to make the math as easy as possible to understand, let’s say Warner Bros. spent something like $450,000 total on TMJ. If Warner sold 15,000 copies of each of the three TMJ records they released at a wholesale price of $10 each, they would have earned back the $450,000. But if those records were retailing for $15, TMJ would have only paid back $67,500, and our statement would show an unrecouped balance of $382,500.
Of course, none of this is new, really. The history of artistsgettingscrewed by record labels is as long as the history of record labels, and includes everything from the creative math above to outright theft, failure to count sales, or inventive stunts like Fantasy Records accusing John Fogerty of plagiarizing himself. But bear with me, because it gets worse.
In the music industry today, there are a few people who are making money from royalties- and they’re making nearly all of it. More specifically, the top one percent of earners are taking in 77% of the recorded music revenue. Strikingly, these are many of the same artists who are now “at war” with YouTube. Artists such as Taylor Swift and Paul McCartney are convinced that YouTube is making money from their music by selling ads and subscriptions, and not paying adequate royalties. And they’re not wrong; YouTube is definitely making money by selling ads and subscriptions, and there’s no question that most of that is not going to the artists.
However, this is a stupid argument.
It’s a stupid argument because a tiny group of people that’s making the lion’s share of all recorded musical income is concerned that a new service doesn’t adequately compensate them; the major record labels feel the same way, of course. It’s a “war” that leaves out 99% of the musicians out there trying to make music and make a living, and it doesn’t really matter how they settle the conflict.
So let’s say, hypothetically, that we eliminate royalties. This raises a fundamental question.
How do we compensate and credit artists for their work?
I believe the answer is basic income, but first let’s take a closer look at that question. At a glance, it seems like it should be simple: pay them for their music. But what does that mean? It quickly gets complicated.
Part of the problem is that we as a culture equate value with ownership. If musicians have created a song, this thinking goes, and that song has value, they must own it, like any other form of property. But that’s ridiculous, and it’s pretty easy to see how quickly it becomes truly absurd.
For example, take a classic blues song, like Big Mama Thornton’s “Hound Dog.” Is that her tune? Yes! Does she deserve credit for it? Absolutely. Big Mama Thornton has a special place in blues history, and rightly so. But is it the first example of a 12-bar blues? No, of course not. Is it the first time someone used lyrics about a dog? Is it the first time someone used the call-and-response verse structure of a repeated first line and different last line? No, and no. And even though she made it a hit, the lyrics were by Leiber and Stoller. So which part of the song does she “own”? Is it just that specific recording? If so, how much does the bass player own, or the drummer? Do you pay royalties for playing it on the radio? What if it’s on the radio, and you tape it? What if you give that tape to a friend? I know, I know, nobody tapes anything off the radio anymore. What if you cover it in a bar? What if you sing it in your living room? What if you sing it in your living room and upload it to YouTube? What if you share the MP3? Where do we draw the lines?
Woody Guthrie, speaking from the folk music tradition, said “New words, new song.” Bob Dylan took that lesson to heart, both in early works like “Masters of War,” which took a melody from an English folk song called “Nottamun Town,” and in more recent releases. On Modern Times he lifted lines from a Civil War era Confederate poet named Henry Timrod, and used the arrangement of Muddy Waters’ “Rollin’ and Tumblin'” with re-written lyrics and the same title.
I don’t mean to discount Big Mama Thornton, or disparage Bob Dylan. I’m a big fan of both. What I want to illustrate is that “property” and “ownership” is a meaningless way to look at music, because it’s a living, inherited tradition. Everybody got something from somebody. Every electric guitar player owes something to T-Bone Walker, and T-Bone owes something to Blind Lemon Jefferson. Every folk singer owes something to Woody Guthrie and Pete Seeger. And more to the point, if you ask any great musician, they will tell you who they got it from. Eric Clapton tells people about Buddy Guy, but if you put a microphone in front of Buddy he’s going to tell you about Muddy Waters, BB King, Guitar Slim. The greats are always ready to turn around and credit the people who came before them, because that’s how a living musical tradition works.
So again: how do we compensate and credit artists for their work?
Splitting the question
One answer is to split up the question. When you think about it, it’s really two different questions. Let’s look at the second part first: how do we acknowledge and appreciate and credit the work that artists do? This is especially important because many important contributions to music, art, and human history generally, were made by people who get erased from popular culture- in particular women, LGBTQ folks, and people of color (Ma Rainey, for example, was all three). They are erased, in part, because there is money to be made by erasing them.
The uninformed still think “Hound Dog” and “That’s All Right” are Elvis Presley tunes. And while Presley himself was quick to credit his influences, most people have never heard of Arthur Crudup, and everyone’s heard of Elvis. Sometimes people were erased several times over; early blues music was driven by women like Bessie Smith, Ma Rainey, and Sister Rosetta Tharpe, who were largely displaced by black men, who then had their music co-opted by white guys playing rock’n’roll versions of the same songs. Some made serious efforts to show people where the music had its roots – The Rolling Stones, appearing on the show Shindig in 1965, insisted that Howlin’ Wolf also get to perform. On the other hand, Led Zeppelin took Willie Dixon’s song “You Need Love,” and recorded it as “Whole Lotta Love,” without ever mentioning where they got it. It’s ironic, since Dixon himself was notorious for taking credit and royalties for other people’s work, often by offering to “take care of the paperwork” on a new tune.
So how do we make sure we credit and acknowledge artists? One way, I believe, is to end a system of compensation based on owning something that cannot be owned. In a system like we have now, where the focus is on ownership of a particular sound, or song, or style, there is a real financial incentive to take credit. In the case of the record labels, you can even get the actual rights to an artist’s songs. If we disconnect the money from the “ownership” of the music, we are removing part of the incentive to pretend that new music doesn’t freely flow from old music.
Universal Basic Income
To be clear, I’m not suggesting artists should not be paid. There are different ways to support artists, and the internet has allowed for a lot of direct interaction between artists and fans. There are crowdfunding sites like Kickstarter and Patreon, there are independent music platforms like BandCamp and CDBaby. They’ve got their advantages and disadvantages, but what I’m advocating is something simpler, more widespread and direct: universal basic income.
Universal basic income, sometimes called emancipatory basic income or simply “basic income,” is an easy idea to understand: you give everybody money. Everybody. Rich people, poor people, working people, the unemployed, the young, the old, everybody. Everybody gets a salary. It’s not a lucrative salary, but enough to make sure you can provide for yourself.
First, let me clear something up: this is not a wild, crazy, utopian idea. It’s a serious proposal, that is increasinglybeingtreated as such. Even Forbes ran a piece called “Universal Basic Income Is Not Crazy.” Of course, it works better if you already have some of the social framework much of the world takes for granted: child care, family leave, health care. But let’s leave those aside for a moment to look at basic income from the musician’s perspective. What is the impact for working musicians?
Quit Your Day Job
Many, if not most, working musicians [and artists CP] support themselves with a day job. This includes long-time performers with steady gigs, people who have gone on world tours and recorded on dozens of albums. Buddy Guy drove a tow truck into his thirties. Composer Philip Glass worked as a plumber and taxi driver until he was 41. Wes Montgomery worked in a factory from 7am to 3pm and played gigs until 2am.
Let me tell you: it’s not easy. As a musician, you already have to balance many competing demands: playing gigs, traveling, booking and promoting shows, recording new material, rehearsing a band. Being a professional musician is, effectively, more than one job already. Now try to schedule all that around a conventional job structure that wants you working at 8 or 9 in the morning, 5 days a week, regardless of where you played last night or when you got home. It’s hard to fit all of it in, and that’s without stopping to consider that it might be nice to sleep occasionally or even see your family now and then.
One reason basic income is sometimes called “emancipatory” is because it frees you from this burden. You’re still going to be out there hustling for gigs, scheduling sessions, trying to record and promote and – let’s be real – get paid. Basic income doesn’t eliminate the desire or possibility for people to make money by working, it just means you don’t have to worry about starving or getting evicted while you do it. And let’s remember, most of the money musicians make doesn’t come from royalties anyway. People are getting paid for gigs, for shows, for studio sessions, for tours, sometimes for merchandise or direct sales (in particular if you’re producing your stuff independently).
Make The Music You Want To Make
Musicians make compromises all the time. Sometimes it’s about timing: you want to put something out, and you can’t afford to wait, so you settle- you keep a take that could have been better, you scratch a song that needs a few more sessions to come together. Sometimes it’s about the sound: a record label wants to market you a particular way, a track needs to be “radio friendly” to get airplay. Sometimes it’s just about resources: recording and producing music, even with all the advances in digital technology, is a laborious, expensive process. For some players, there’s also the trade-off between taking gigs that might pay better but be musically unfulfilling (think wedding band or corporate events) versus pursuing a musical vision that might not have a ready-made market. And, of course, there’s that most precious of all resources, time, which is often given over in huge amounts to the aforementioned day job.
Basic income removes the immediacy of financial pressures, and frees up a lot of time. Does that mean we won’t have choices to make? No, of course not. There are always choices, and there are always constraints, and even if we get basic income that won’t turn time itself into a limitless resource. But it changes the balance of the decision.
Creative Liberation: Supported By Research
Right now, across the country, there are brilliant artists whose music could change and enrich our culture in ways we can’t imagine, and we don’t get to hear them. They’re stuck working day jobs, playing the gigs that pay the bills, and trying to fit their creativity into commercial constraints. Pause for a moment, and imagine the explosion of new sounds and ideas we can liberate with basic income.
As a musician, that paragraph felt intuitively true to me. However, a number of people who were kind enough to review an early draft of this essay suggested that my point might be better served if I backed it up with “evidence” and “examples.” Of course, there’s not exactly a one-to-one comparison available, so I’m going to draw on some similar programs and related ideas.
First: the MacArthur “Genius” grants. These fellowships are awarded to people who are already recognized to be exceptional; they provide a no-strings-attached stipend of USD$625,000 over five years. Obviously that’s a lot more than “basic” income, but they underpin the idea that simply providing creative people with resources allows them greater freedom to explore, discover, and create. In a review of their program and its effectiveness, The MacArthur Foundation found that 93% of the fellows reported greater financial stability (no surprise) and 88% reported an increased opportunity to express creativity. Three quarters felt it lead them to make riskier, more ambitious choices in their work.
Some might argue that the fellowships exhibit a selection bias, since they go to people already known to be creative. However, there’s good reason to believe that supporting the poorest and most marginalized offers even greater benefits. Dissent magazine recounts the history of the Federal Writers Project, which offered “unemployed” writers guaranteed income by giving a fixed salary to produce travelogues or other commissioned writings:
…with regular paychecks, FWP writers could experiment with more creative projects at the same time. Over the course of eight years, the program employed over 6,600 writers, including Nelson Algren, Jack Conroy, Zora Neale Hurston, Richard Wright, and Ralph Ellison. The FWP enabled new classes of Americans to become “professional” writers.
While employed by the FWP, these writers—most notably writers of color—wrote fiction that challenged the political status quo, and they revolutionized literary form in order to do so. To be sure, many of these writers developed their politics in pre-FWP years, but stable employment facilitated their political and artistic ambitions—by providing them with steady income, connecting them to other writers, and offering literary inspiration. From 1936–37, between posts at the Federal Theatre Project and the FWP, Hurston wrote her beautiful and troubling novel Their Eyes Were Watching God, a book celebrated today for its inventive use of black vernacular. Wright spearheaded the “Chicago Renaissance,” a creative community strengthened and supported by FWP projects in the state of Illinois. Meanwhile, in New York City, Ellison was conducting FWP oral histories when, as he reported it, he stumbled across a man who described himself as “invisible.” This encounter would be the genesis for his Invisible Man, surely one of the strangest and most significant novels of the twentieth century.
I recognize that the subjective self-evaluation of MacArthur fellows and even the impressive work of FWP authors can be considered, to some extent, anecdotal evidence. But there is also controlled research, and what it shows is the flip side of the coin: that poverty impedes cognitive function. Lead by Harvard economist Sendhil Mullainathan, the team found that “experimentally induced thoughts about finances reduced cognitive performance among poor but not in well-off participants.” They also found that farmers showed diminished cognitive ability before harvest, when they were poor, compared to after harvest when they were relatively rich. That’s after controlling for free time, nutrition, work effort, and stress.
If you’ve ever been broke and had bills to pay, this is not news. It’s hard to focus when you have a huge bill hanging over your head and no immediate prospect for paying it off. When you’re in a position of financial hardship, a portion of your brain is effectively set aside to repeating over and over again, “AAAH THE RENT AAAH THE RENT AAAH THE RENT.” Or the hospital bill, or the car payment, etc. You know the classic sci-fi trope that imagines what you could do if you could harness the full power of your brain? Turns out it doesn’t require genetic engineering – you just need to be able to pay your bills.
I would argue that we are effectively paying a cultural opportunity cost in the form of lost creativity. Coming back to music, anthropologist David Graeber puts it this way:
“Back in the 20th century, every decade or so, England would create an incredible musical movement that would take over the world. Why is it not happening anymore? Well, all these bands were living on welfare! Take a bunch of working class kids, give them enough money for them to hang around and play together, and you get the Beatles. Where is the next John Lennon? Probably packing boxes in a supermarket somewhere.”
The Robot Imperative – It’s Not Just About Musicians
I realize we’re covering a lot of ground here, and we’re about to talk about robots. So first, a quick recap
Royalties don’t go to (most) musicians.
Royalties don’t make sense because they rely on ownership of something that cannot be meaningfully owned.
This system of ownership creates financial incentives to take credit for other people’s work.
Eliminating royalties forces us to confront the fundamental question of how we credit and compensate artists for their work.
Basic income answers part of that question – compensation – while eliminating royalties removes, at least in part, the financial incentive to take credit.
Basic income liberates musicians from the constraints of a day job and the pressures of commercial music.
Evidence supports the idea that this liberation leads to more, and more adventurous, creative work.
In short, basic income separates the idea that people have value from the idea that they must own something valuable.
All of that has been true for quite some time, and in fact arguments for basic income are as old as Thomas Paine. But there is a huge, disruptive change happening that makes this a much more urgent question, not just for musicians but for everyone. Namely, robots. Robots and computer automation are about to eliminate huge numbers of jobs (think tens of millions). Some are in the news right now: Uber is testing self-driving cars in Pittsburgh. Driverless trucking is not far behind, taking 3.5 million jobs with it. And it’s not just truckers: designers, fast food workers, accountants, financial analysts, doctors, hotel concierges. Thousands of news stories are being written by robots. An Oxford University study estimates that 47% of total employment may be at risk. Even jazz musicians have to be worried.
In short, the day job could be going away, and not just for musicians. The question is, what will we do with these millions of people, once they’re out of work? Will we insist that truckers can all get jobs doing social media? Will a few wealthy people retreat behind high walls and leave the rest of us to fight for the scraps of employment through a fog of financial worry and expensive, short term trade-offs?
Or will we embrace basic income, recognize that people have innate value, and unleash a wild torrent of creative exploration the likes of which we’ve never heard before? For the Silo, Anthony Moser.www.anthonymoser.com
@mosermusic
PS – My music is available on iTunes, Spotify, YouTube, Bandcamp, and a host of other digital music services. If you catch me at a gig, you can buy an album for name-your-price. And if anyone ever uploads it to The Pirate Bay, torrent with my blessing. As Woody Guthrie would say, “Publish it. Write it. Sing it. Swing to it. Yodel it. We wrote it, that’s all we wanted to do.”
[You may know him from the movies “What The Bleep Do We Know” and “Down The Rabbit Hole” – Two great introductory documentaries on Quantum Physics you really owe it to yourself to see. Let the Silo introduce you to a welcomed, new contributor- Dr. Amit Goswami – Author, Speaker and Scientist. Ed.]
“I am very excited about one of my recent books- Quantum Creativity. The main message of this book is this: If you are interested in creativity and in thinking quantum, you have the basics of what it takes to be creative, in fact, to be extraordinary in your creativity.
Quantum physics is the physics of possibilities. Quantum physics says reality is both possibility and actuality.
The objects of the universe are possibilities, quantum possibilities; they become objects of actuality in our experience when we observe because we have chosen actuality from the possibilities proffered. This two-level complementary reality is an important aspect of our consciousness. The unmanifest, (psychologists call it the unconscious, spiritual traditions call it the transcendent) is the realm where consciousness processes possibilities (unconscious processing) but without awareness, without subject-object separation.
The manifest (psychologists call it the conscious, spiritual traditions call it the immanent) is the domain of actualities that consciousness processes with awareness, with subject-object split.
Quantum thinking consists of this two-level processing—both unconscious and conscious. Quantum thinking understood in this way liberates you, anyone, from any assumed ordinariness. With its help, anyone can be creative.
Creativity was difficult for people of the olden days because they had to pursue it blindly, they did not know how human creativity works; they assumed it is all mystery, all arts. And today, lots of people shortchange their creativity because of their faulty mechanistic worldview.
The truth is, we cannot discuss the relevant issues of human creativity without a lot of make-belief within our current mechanistic worldview based on the metaphysics of scientific materialism—everything is matter moving in space-time and material interaction.
The science of creativity that the protagonists of a mechanistic worldview talk about, and which today you read about in the media, is about machine creativity. To a large extent it is sophistry, about how determined machines can somehow appear to be creative.
It is self-evident that human creativity requires consciousness as a causal entity with free will, freedom to choose.
It is self-evident that human creativity requires the capacity to process meaning, that human creativity involves affects (agony and ecstasy), and that human creativity begins with intuition.
Dealing with human creativity requires a worldview in which consciousness is causally potent, in which not only our physical experiences but also our experiences of thinking, feeling and intuition are validated. Quantum physics, properly interpreted, gives us that worldview. Engaging the two level complementary reality of quantum physics gives human creativity all its wonderful and mysterious attributes that material machines moving in a one-level space-time reality cannot possibly simulate.” For the Silo, Dr. Amit Goswami.
One of the most common lines that people love to use: “I wish I had more time.” Maybe it’s more time to spend with family or friends; more time to exercise and eat healthy; or more time to go back to school. Whatever it is, how do you make more time for those truly important things in your life?
Dr. Alok Trivedi, author of Chasing Success, says the reality is we all have the same 24 hours. The difference is some people know how to better manage it than others. When it comes to making time for the important things, Dr. Trivedi recommends:
1. Minimize, minimize and minimize some more. There was a reason Marie Kondo’s novel about tidying up your space to become happy was so successful. There is truth in her message of eliminating the unnecessary and finding what you love in the process. Get rid of what does not bring you joy. This can be old items or even toxic relationships that no longer serve you. Less is really more.
2. Being busy does not bring you value. In North American culture, it can be all too easy to be running around completing task after task. Many people view this form of productivity as determining their worth in society. It’s wise to assess what in your life is bringing you value and maximize that rather than trying to do things that just don’t feel right and make you feel unworthy on the inside. Business is an excuse and distraction to overlook the things in which you may be afraid to focus your energy on.
3. Differentiate between efficiency and effectiveness. Your time is precious and needs to be allocated to the most important things. Utilize your time to be both effective and efficient. Being only effective can be a time-consuming action. While complementary, being only efficient can lead to sloppy results. When you are doing any task, approach it within a concept of both maximum efficiency and total effectiveness to reap the best results. In your personal life, this is achieved through being present and genuine in your interactions.
4. Single task and hold your focus. Many people find themselves casually checking a single email, and before long they snap into full-fledged work mode. Develop a schedule and follow it religiously. It may be hard to find your groove initially, but if you stick to it, little by little it will become a habit.
gif by- cami5x5 deviantart.com
5. Know what you hold important. It is a challenge to know how to dedicate your free time if you haven’t discovered what you love. Find the activities where your creativity flows and your heart sings. Only in these states are you going to find yourself in the states of joy that make you feel life is worth living.
6. Address problems at the root. When you have the time to dedicate to the important things, you don’t want work problems to keep popping up. If there is a problem at work, address it from the start. Don’t keep putting it off, because it will fester at inopportune times. This goes both ways. If you have a personal dilemma with a family member, don’t run from it by adopting workaholic ways. Confront your problems head on to solve them with best results. Shying away will only allow the problem to become worse in the shadows.
7. Getting and staying organized. When it is time to be with friends and family the last thing you want to do is housework. Dedicate an initial cleaning and mass organization of your space. After this initial step, take a little time each day to clear your space and organize everything into its given area. The clarity of your physical space lends to clarity of mind. Then, there is mental space to focus on what matters, and not be distracted by the mess around you.
8. Block out time just for you. You must become your top priority. Declare certain times of the day and week that are just for you. This time can be for you to indulge in your favorite pastimes, meditate, or even to do nothing. This time is yours to center yourself and think about what you are presently encountering in life.
Live in every moment, and focus on the present. For the Silo, Alex Smith.
A recent OECD report finds that low and middle income earners have seen their wages stagnate and that the income share of middle-skilled jobs has fallen. Rising inequality has led to concerns that top earners are getting a disproportionate share of the gains from global “openness and interconnection”. During a Summer 2017 meeting of OECD, employment outlook revealed that job polarization has been “driven by pervasive and skill-biased technological changes.
Founded in 1945, the United States Council for International Business (USCIB) builds awareness among business executives, educators and policy makers around issues related to employment, workforce training and skills enhancement. CMRubinWorld spoke with USCIB President and CEO Peter M. Robinson, who serves as a co-chair of the B20 Employment and Education Task Force, through which he helped develop recommendations to the G20 leaders on training for the jobs of the future. Robinson also serves on the board of the International Organization of Employers, which represents the views of the business community in the International Labor Organization.
“I think the guiding principle for government should be to protect and enable/retrain the worker, not protect the job. Policy makers and educators should focus on making sure that workers are as equipped as possible to transition to new opportunities” Peter Robinson.
Peter, welcome. How severe do you believe jobsolescence will be over the next 20 years? How big will the challenge be to offset it and maintain a growing workforce?
I really don’t think the overall effect will be as dramatic as some people fear, at least for the medium-term as far as we can tell. There is an over-hype factor at play, but the consequences still deserve serious attention. For one thing, so many of the jobs in the United States, Canada and other advanced economies are in the service sector, and involve interacting with other people. Despite all the advances in AI, we are still a long way off from robotic nurses or home health aides. Overall, history tells us that at least as many new jobs are created as are displaced by technological innovation, even though transitions can be difficult in some sectors and localities, and as long as upskilling takes place.
“The biggest threat is that our educational institutions won’t be able to keep pace with new skills demands.” — Peter Robinson
What do you think are the biggest obstacles facing college grads today trying to enter the workforce?
I actually think the greatest obstacles are faced by those who don’t make it to university or some form of higher education beyond high school (a four-year degree is not the right path for everyone). A 2014 Pew survey found that among workers age 25 to 32, median annual earnings of those with a college degree were $17,500 greater than for those with high school diplomas only. Obviously, everyone at whatever educational level needs to keep their skills sharp, and governments should join with employers and educators to instill better life-long learning. But there are far fewer established paths toward long-term employment at a middle-class level of income for those who don’t graduate from college. A greater emphasis on vocational education and apprenticeships would help. We strongly support the work being done by United States Secretary of Labor Acosta to promote apprenticeships.
Given that machines are in the process of stripping white collar workers from their jobs, what kind of skills are key manufacturing and service industries going to need from new employees?
I think the premise of your question is overstated. We’re all being told that our jobs are doomed by robots and automation. But the OECD estimates that only nine percent of jobs across the 35 OECD nations are at high risk of being automated, although of course even 9% can be generative of social difficulties. But there is an established track record across history of new technologies creating at least as many new jobs as they displace. Usually these new jobs demand higher skills and provide higher pay. The biggest threat is that our educational institutions won’t be able to keep pace with new skills demands.
“It is becoming clear that Versatility matters, in a constantly changing world, so Jim Spohrer’s IBM model of a “T-shaped” person holds true: broad and deep individuals capable of adapting and going where the demand lies.” — Peter Robinson
In an economy with a significant on-demand labor force, what competencies will these workers need to compete?
There are two types of competencies that will be needed: “technical” – or in other words, related to deep knowledge of a specific domain, whether welding or optogenetics; and “transversal,” which applies to all occupations. Those are described by the Center for Curriculum Redesign as skills (creativity, critical thinking, communication, collaboration), character (mindfulness, curiosity, courage, resilience, ethics, leadership) and meta-learning (growth mindset, metacognition).
How will managerial skill requirements change as a result of major structural changes that are likely, including human replacement by machines and growth of the on-demand economy?
OECD’s BIAC surveys of 50 employer organizations worldwide has shown that employers value not just Skills as described above, but also Character qualities as well. Further, it is becoming clear that Versatility matters, in a constantly changing world, so Jim Spohrer’s IBM model of a “T-shaped” person holds true: broad and deep individuals capable of adapting and going where the demand lies.
“We often hear about the need for more STEM education. But I think there is an equal need for a greater emphasis on the humanities and the arts, for their intrinsic value as well as for developing skills and character qualities.” — Peter Robinson
What central changes in school curricula do you envision, both at the secondary school and college levels?
We often hear about the need for more STEM education. But I think there is an equal need for a greater emphasis on the humanities and the arts for their intrinsic value as well as for developing skills and character qualities as described above. As David Barnes of IBM wrote recently, these skills are more durable and are also a very good indicator of long-term success in employment.
How can the evolving changes in competencies required for employment be effectively translated into school curricula? Where are the main opportunities to enable this? e.g. Assessment systems? Business/Education collaboration? Curriculum change?
I’d go back to something else David Barnes said: We need much stronger connections between education and the job market, in the form of more partnerships among employers, governments and education institutions. Everyone needs to step up and create true partnerships. No one sector of society can address this alone. OECD’s BIAC has also documented employers’ wishes for deep curricular reforms to modernize content and embed competencies in order to meet today’s market needs.
What role should government play in ensuring citizens receive a quality and relevant education given the challenges that lie ahead?
I think the guiding principle for government should be to protect and enable/retrain the worker, not protect the job. Policy makers and educators should focus on making sure that workers are as equipped as possible to transition to new opportunities as these develop, and on ensuring that businesses have the freedom to pivot and adopt new technologies and business processes.
For the Silo, C.M. Rubin. C. M. Rubin is the author of two widely read online series for which she received a 2011 Upton Sinclair award, “The Global Search for Education” and “How Will We Read?” She is also the author of three bestselling books, including The Real Alice in Wonderland, is the publisher of CMRubinWorld and is a Disruptor Foundation Fellow.
Study after study has shown that arts education nurtures students’ creativity and problem-solving skills, competencies that are critical for success in a 21st Century world, but how does dance and movement facilitate healing and transform at-risk youth?
14 year old DTC dancing participants Richard Rutherford Danny Guerrero
New York’s Battery Dance launched its Dancing to Connect programs in 2006. Since that time, the program has spread to 6 continents, 50 countries, 100 cities, and 1,000 schools. A powerful new documentary by Wilderness Films follows six dancers from the dance company from India to Eastern Europe to the Korean Peninsula to the Middle East as they support vulnerable youth helping them to express themselves through movement. The film focuses on the struggles, frustrations, resilience and ultimate transformation of the students and their dance teachers.
Producer Cornelia Ravenal says that as a trauma survivor she understood the power of art to “heal and transform.” Ravenal along with husband partner Mikael Södersten collaborated with Battery Dance Founder Jonathan Hollander to create the documentary because she believed this was a story that had to be told. As global populations continue to grow, migration and increasing social and cultural diversity are reshaping classrooms worldwide. Solutions for integrating and uniting peoples from diverse cultural backgrounds are now sought by schools and communities all over the globe. Hollander believes that “no divide has been too great for the art of dance, the primacy of movement, the common humanity, and expression, to span.”
Battery Dance performs on the world’s stages, teaches, presents, and advocates for the field of dance. The Company is dedicated to the pursuit of artistic excellence and the availability of the Arts to everyone. Battery Dance has produced over 100 original dance works choreographed by its founder and artistic director Jonathan Hollander, in collaboration with a diverse array of composers and designers, and its cast of outstanding dancers.
CMRubinWorld launched in 2010 to explore what kind of education would prepare students to succeed in a rapidly changing globalized world. Its award-winning series, The Global Search for Education, is a celebrated trailblazer in the renaissance of the 21st century, and occupies a special place in the pulse of key issues facing every nation and the collective future of all children. It connects today’s top thought leaders with a diverse global audience of parents, students and educators. Its highly readable platform allows for discourse concerning our highest ideals and the sustainable solutions we must engineer to achieve them. C. M. Rubin has produced over 700 interviews and articles discussing an expansive array of topics under a singular vision: when it comes to the world of children, there is always more work to be done. For the Silo, David Wine.
Just for a moment, think about all of the many career fields in the world. Now think about those that require a personal emotional investment as a matter of course.
How many bankers make a regular practice of exposing their deepest insecurities to the world through their work? How many veterinarians routinely put on display the most precious and personal aspects of their hearts and minds? Probably not that many. As an artist, you are literally doing this all the time. Whether the emotional investment is major or minor, and whether you are exposing personal joys or defeats, the fact remains that careers in the arts by their very nature involve a whole lot of very personal investment. Unfortunately, some artists view this as a liability and allow the idea that they don’t possess the right self-esteem to affect their ability to work. It is important to find ways to lay these insecurities to rest and accept that by its very nature, art puts us in a vulnerable space. Embrace this rather than allowing it to overwhelm you, consider it an asset going forward.
Across the arts fields, vulnerability prevails. It is what often informs some of the most beautiful work. Whether we are talking about a performer or a visual artist, human nature dictates that when we put ourselves out into the world in the way that an artist does, there is a certain measure of vulnerability built in to the equation. It is a rare thing indeed to find a performer who doesn’t experience the butterflies of stage fright however subtly, no matter how seasoned he or she may be. And it is equally unlikely to find an artist who operates from a place of pure confidence free of the weight of uncertainty.
Jarrod Barker After the Rain 2016
The world of art, not to mention the world at large, would be a very different place if insecurity did not exist. If everyone walked around with stiff confidence all the time there would be no room for tenderness, bravery, courage, and the bonding commonality of vulnerability that we all experience which is often the key to connecting an audience to a work of art. Every human alive understands what it is like to feel overwhelmed and uncertain and it is often this understanding that leads people to seek out art as a means of connecting to others through this shared human emotion.
Self-esteem has become a buzz word without a strong definition to back it up. We allow it to inform us as though it is some sentient entity that can make or break our resolve as artists. The fact is, self-esteem is merely a label for the way we view ourselves. It is us, and us alone, who decide how we approach the world. Allowing a vague concept like self-esteem to stand in the way of creating something that speaks to the very soul of who you are makes as much sense as allowing a phobia of flying stop you from seeing the world. You must conquer these self-made fears and come out on the other side.
Jackson Pollock Number 1 1950 Lavender Mist
The fact is, there is no way around baring your very soul as an artist. Whether it is only a glimpse or whether you let it all hang out for the world to see, in every work you create there is, inherently, a very personal piece of you. Without this, your work would lack meaning and depth. People view art expecting the spectacle of human emotion. To deny this because of some feeling of low self-esteem is to deny an opportunity to yourself and your audience.
There are no guarantees in life, everything we do carries a risk. Every career has its risks and benefits, though these vary wildly across the spectrum depending on what field we look at. Art is no different. There are no guarantees. Sometimes you will expose your most private self and receive less than gentle feedback. Under no circumstances should this give you anything more than a moment’s pause. Brush off, stand up, and get back to it. Use these experiences to further inform your work. Explore the feeling of exposure and the insecurities of this concept of self-esteem. Look fear in the eye and let it look right back.
Ultimately it is up to you how you choose to face the very real challenges of so-called self-esteem in your work as an artist. Only you can know your own limits, and only you can be brave enough to step beyond them. No one ever achieved very much who didn’t expose their inner selves to total annihilation. While this may sound like a terrifying prospect, consider why you are sitting here reading this blog in the first place. If you’re an artist, by simply declaring to the world that you are an artist, you have already chosen the path of courage. You have willingly stepped into the ring with your heart on your sleeve. There’s no turning back now. For the Silo, Brainard Carey.
I learned about the Hamilton Audio Visual Node (HAVN) a few years ago by doing the rounds during Art Crawl. Since then it’s become obvious they’re hosting some of the most innovative music and visual art in Hamilton. I sat down with Connor Bennett and Chris Ferguson at the beginning of July to learn more about the collective and discover yet another reason to move to Hamilton. Connor and Chris made it pretty clear you don’t need an invitation to join the party. Featured Title Image, The HAVN Storefront on Barton Street Credit: Ariel Bader-Shamai
Timothy: How did HAVN get started?
Connor: Um, a few of us started a band, and we were practising in the basement of a student house and when it came time to leave that house, we wanted a space where we could continue to play, and show art, and we just lucked out, our collaborator and co-founder Amy McIntosh was living above a storefront and…
Chris: …had a good relationship with the landlord and managed to get the downstairs space at a price we could afford.
Connor: That was May, 2012, we opened up just as most of us were graduating from McMaster University.
Timothy: What does it mean to be a node for the arts? Is the storefront a critical component?
Connor: It’s probably not critical, although it’s nice, it’s really nice. I wouldn’t say it’s critical because we don’t do regular gallery hours, where people can just pop in. It is nice to have the storefront space for things like art crawl. We’re off of James Street but it’s still easier to get people out as compared to a studio space.
Aubrey Wilson Quartet in February 2015, Photo Credit: Amy McIntosh
Chris: Back to your question, as to what it means to be a node. Nodes are intersection points, which denotes the collaborative nature, the interdisciplinary nature of what we’re trying to do. And it was chosen for the sake of the acronym [Laughter].
Timothy: So what are your activities?
Chris: You could put it into four categories. We do art shows every art crawl, and occasionally outside of art crawl. We do music shows two to five times a month. And then there’s HAVN Records, our cassette tape little label. There’s also some miscellaneous things that are harder to categorize. We’ve done craft nights where people come out. Or if people in the collective supply an idea and make it happen. For a little while we had a darkroom in the backroom where people could develop photos.
Timothy: What are some of the highlights from the past couple of years?
Chris: It wasn’t something that I was involved with personally but I thought the darkroom was a really cool idea. It’s not something that’s widely available and it was a DIY thing where they obtained all the equipment and brought it all together. Some of it was donated by a like-minded friend from Guelph.
Connor: One of the best concerts I’ve seen recently was hosted by Cem Zafir and his partner Donna Akrey at HAVN, and they had a percussionist by the name of Tatsuya Nakatani come in and everyone in the room was transported to a different world, it was a magical moment. Those happen a lot. We’ve been really lucky with a lot of good music.
Hagface and Zena in August 2015, Photo Credit: Tony Hoang
Chris: What was the name of the show, I think Ariel and Petra did it, with the yarn, it was kind of, performance stuff; would you consider it a successor to the Quanta_1 show, where you and Kearon…
Connor: Yeah, yeah, it’s kind of like that…
Chris: An extension of that idea. Petra and Ariel did it, how would you describe it?
Connor: It was kind of a poetic yarn installation, with figures…
Chris: …and quotations.
Connor: It was great.
Chris: Really well executed. Not something you see a lot of.
Connor: Yeah, there’s lots of highlights.
Chris: We could keep going.
Connor: Once you start thinking about it.
Chris: I really liked our show for Supercrawl last year, which ended up being themed around Cootes Paradise, the Cootes to Escarpment EcoPark System, which is a conservation effort beginning with Cootes Paradise all the way into Burlington to connect some critical natural lands. The show really nailed the peaceful nature of it. Supercrawl is very busy, there’s tonnes of people and then you come to HAVN and it’s peaceful, relaxed.
Connor: Serene.
Chris: Yeah, Judy Major-Girardin, a professor at McMaster that taught a lot of the HAVN crew, was very generous with her time and she’s a big supporter of that initiative, so she put up a gorgeous installation with sound recordings from Georgian Bay. Frogs. Printed cheesecloth. It was stunning.
Corridors, in Support of the Cootes to Escarpment EcoPark System, September 2015, Photo Credit: Ariel Bader-Shamai
Timothy: What are your objectives? What is the need or desire that you are addressing?
Connor: I’d say from the music side of things, it’s a space for outsider music, for music that doesn’t really fit in a club or a bar. It’s a small space, really intimate, so even if ten people come out it feels like a nice crowd.
Chris: Yeah, It could just be a touring band who might have trouble booking a show at a bigger venue, because they wouldn’t attract a bigger crowd.
Connor: We know a lot of people who are booking shows in Hamilton and we’re filling a bit of a void since they’re not booking these types of shows. Like free jazz, for example, there’s no venues that are booking free jazz but we will gladly and enthusiastically book a free-jazz show.
Boyhood and Holzkopf in July 2015, Photo Credit: Tony Hoang
Timothy: How did you determine the scope of your practice?
Connor: Time determined that. When I started out with HAVN I was working a lot more with Kearon on the visual arts and installation projects and with time my interests and time investments moved more towards the music. It’s a natural evolution within the group, that we’ve settled into our roles based on our interests.
Timothy: Were those interests present from the beginning, or have they been nurtured over time?
Connor: One of the reasons why this has worked out for so long is that everyone has been really passionate about creativity, and art in general, and open to all art forms. That’s been the crux of why we’ve been around for so long, and putting on shows that are successful.
Timothy: What is your current relationship with institutional structures like the university and the gallery?
Connor: Well, quite a few professors from McMaster have shown art in our space. Judy and Dr. McQueen had a show recently. Other galleries? We have good relationships with other galleries, in particular, the Factory Media Centre, because we’ve done a lot of media art, not only that, we’ve shown a lot of art there, and both Amy McIntosh and Aaron Hutchinson have been on the board there. Amy’s been involved since the beginning.
Timothy: You position yourself as an alternative, though.
Chris: It’s not an adversarial relationship, like ‘that stuff is no good.’
Connor: We just don’t want to replicate things that are being done elsewhere. I’m sure we do it all the time. But the intention is to fill a void, take a risk.
Timothy: What are the benefits and limitations associated with your present configuration?
Connor: We’ve had trouble finding grants that apply to us. That’s one challenge because we operate with no inflow of money, so it’s just tough to make it work sometimes. That’s one of the limitations.
Chris: Sometimes I wonder if we put more time into the grants whether we would begin to take a different path. Like, having gallery hours wouldn’t be a bad thing, but it would be different than what we do now, and it would mean that we would be travelling down a more traditional path.
Timothy: Can you speak of the benefits and effects of HAVN, for yourselves and the broader community?
Connor: It’s such a useful space for us as artists and musicians, that’s kind of priceless.
Chris: It’s great to have a spot that you’re part of.
The Celestial Offerings Show in December 2015, Photo Credit: Petra Matar
Connor: Ideally we’re providing a space that’s inclusive, and open, where people feel comfortable. But if I was new to Hamilton and I went to HAVN I could understand feeling intimidated because there’s all these people who know each other already.
Chris: I think it’s always hard, because you establish your audience, and your friends, and you want people to have a stake in the space, that they’re part of it, that they’re not just attending shows, but that they’re part of the community too. But you have to balance that with being open and having new people feel that they can be part of it.
Timothy: So do you have any words of advice to people who might want to start a collective?
Chris: If I had any advice it would be pretty cheesy.
Connor: I don’t know. [Laughter]
Chris: The real trick is having the right group of people.
Connor: Get lucky.
Chris: Yeah, we couldn’t have made this happen in a bigger city where the rents are more expensive.
For the Silo, 
