Maslow’s hierarchy of chakras

chakras pic
Source: montereybayholistic

You are what your deep, driving desire is. As your desire is, so is your will. As your will is, so is your deed. As your deed is, so is your destiny. – Brihadaranyaka Upanishad

Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, which he proposed in 1943 is still a popular theory today for explaining human motivation, especially in management. At a first glance, it seems quite similar to the ancient Hindu Chakra system, especially when some of Maslow’s pyramid diagrams are colour coded using the rainbow, rather like the above picture. The chakras were first proposed in the sacred Hindu scriptures, the Vedas, which were orally transmitted since, what seems like, the beginning of time, and were first written down around 1900BC.

Maslow’s theory came from studying people he described as exemplary, or inspirational – people such as Albert Einstein or Eleanor Roosevelt. Psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi also studied exemplary people and found that these people regularly engage in activities in which they lose themselves to bring about a state of flow, or in meditation terms, they lose themselves in the gap which is where our unbounded consciousness – the space between our thoughts and ego – lie. The gap is the place where we find our pure potential and infinite possibility.

Connecting to Shakti

The chakras are seven energy centres which run from the base of our spines to the top of our heads in our bodies. They are gateways connecting us to the world we live in and beyond to the universal life force known as Shakti, the most magnificent expression of flow, a place of infinite possibility.

We awaken Shakti energy and activate our chakras through meditation. Indeed, the ancient texts have described masters of Shakti being able to meditate during a storm, control nature, and command supernatural powers.

If this sounds rather far fetched, research in neuroscience has shown that meditation can help rewire the neural networks in our brain which in turn reduces the amygdala or lizard brain – the prehistoric part of our brain – where we register emotions such as fear, anger and anxiety, thus the end result makes us feel more at peace and at one with ourselves and the world around us – powerful stuff. We can calm our inner storm and be still when all is not.

And even less esoterically speaking, the chakras are where our nerve endings collect and our blood vessels are concentrated, which affect our hormones, our immune functions, and our vital energy. Focusing in on the chakras and awakening Shakti through meditation can make us feel emotionally balanced or even enlightened. The word enlightenment has many meanings, but one lovely definition from the Buddhist tradition is we become enlightened by knowing ourselves.

Who am I?

When we feel more self-aware and less emotionally agitated, when we sit quietly with ourselves and breathe deeply, it is easier to answer the question: Who am I? A difficult question to answer, perhaps. But, once we tolerate, love, and have compassion for our owndear selves, it is easier to extend tolerance, love, and compassion to others.

Inversely, when we are intolerant of ourselves, we are intolerant of others. Jesus knew this when he said: Love your neighbour as yourself. You cannot love someone if you do not know how to love yourself. You cannot give someone something you do not have, whether this is food and shelter, or love and compassion.

Maslow’s pyramid echoes a similar journey. At the most basic level, our needs are physiological – we need food and shelter, for without them we cannot function and their lack makes us fearful and anxious. Maslow called all four of the bottom needs deficiency needs. Along with food and shelter, we need safety, love, recognition and esteem from others, otherwise we feel deficient, and this makes us strive to find our place in the world. It is only when we are satisfied, and feeling fulfilled can we self-actualise and share that by deed or word.

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs

No striving only surrender

The main difference between Maslow’s theory and the Chakra system is that Maslow looks outside of us to satisfy needs, to work for our food and shelter, to work for our community and love, to strive. In contrast, the chakras encourage us to look inside to connect to Shakti or flow to meet our needs. There is no striving, only surrender.

When we are at one with all things, we respond and interact. When we are separate, we tend to react and contract. Mahatma Gandhi was aware of this when he said, Be the change you want to see in the world. You can literally change the vibration of your life and what and who goes on around you when you behave differently.

Aligning Maslow’s chakras

Maslow and the chakras contain many similarities, but we need to look inside ourselves, not outside to others to make us feel or be different:

  • Physiological needs such as food, water, and shelter which make humans think of little else are found in the Chakra system at the Root chakra represented as ruby red and the earth,  it is our foundation, it’s mantra is I am;  and the Sacral chakra which is orange and water, it is nourishment, purity, and protection, it’s mantra is I create.
  • Safety needs either personal or job security are found at the Solar plexus chakras represented as yellow and fire. It is our power centre where our emotional and physical fires burn bright with transformation, intention and desire, it’s mantra is I do.
  • Social needs such as belonging to a club or a family, to give and receive love are found in the Heart chakra which is green and air,  it is innocence and pure, a  connection to the infinite, the divine, it’s mantra is  I love.
  • Esteem needs to respect ourselves and have others respect them are at the Throat chakra which is blue and space, it is connection and communication, it’s mantra is I express.
  • Self-actualisation needs are when humans want to do realise their potential, and feel fulfilled, this is seen in the Third eye, or Brow chakra, it is purple and light, it represents clarity and judgment, it’s mantra is I see.
  • Transcendance needs were added by Maslow later on, and aren’t shown in the pyramid above. However, they correspond to the Crown chakra at the top of head, otherwise known as the thousand petal lotus, it is ultraviolet or white,  it is about connecting to source, to feel unity with the great consciousness, it’s mantra is I understand.

The secret of eternal youth

People who have awakened or connected to Shakti tend to be constantly evolving and expanding. They are energetic and are often described as young or youthful. It is easy to lose this expansion and delight with life, as we grow older and, I think this is why we are culturally obsessed with youth. Our young constantly evolve and expand, they are full of potential and promise, unlike the older members of our society who have had responsibility and routine creep in, making their potential and promise options seem fewer.

However, it is not too late. It is possible to reclaim that promise if we surrender to the flow, to that divine Shakti energy, and remember our desires,  which we are told in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad can lead to our destiny.

 You’re never too old, never too bad, never too late and never too sick to start from scratch once again. – Bikram Choudhury

Let’s dive deep and reconnect to our driving desires.

Designing story (1): The intimacy of the written word

Source: www.la-screenwriter.com

It’s telling me what I’ve already done, accurately, and with a better vocabulary. – Harold Crick, Stranger than Fiction (2006)

E M Forster said that he wrote the last two chapters of a Passage to India whilst under the spell of T S Lawrence’s The Seven Pillars of Wisdom, which shows that whilst writing is a solitary process, and reading can be too, both are acts of intimacy, in the true sense of the word.

Intimacy is a lovely word. It means comfort and familiarity which is found in a shared space of connection.  It is much bigger than just a euphemism for sex. Intimacy (or connection) gives our lives meaning. We want to be seen and understood. Well told stories, fictitious or otherwise, can do this. They tell us we are not alone, that someone else understands the very experience that has bruised or filled up our hearts, and that someone know how we feel. Stories explore our hopes and fears. They teach and inspire us. And, they describes us, as Harold says above: accurately, and with a better vocabulary.

Sharing is caring

Imagined and real experiences are managed in the same way by the brain which means that stories create genuine emotions and a sense of being in a certain place or space, and we respond accordingly. Consequently, we fall in love with characters (even scary Heathcliff regularly makes it into the top 10 romantic heroes lists), or we feel bereft when a book ends. It has all felt so special, so intimate, we want to continue being there, in that space.

Fan fiction is one way of spending time in a shared space, though it receives a mixed press. Neil Gaiman is a fan fiction writer as is E L James.

For those who are readers rather than writers, then there is literary and film tourism. We have the studio versions like Harry Potter, or travel agents who take fans to the exact film locations for Lord of the Rings, the Sound of Music, or various places where Jane Austen lived in order to gain more understanding of her life and times, so we can feel closer.

The above examples are well known and extremely popular, but there are many books we put down because that connection hasn’t been made, and we don’t feel that we have anything in common with the writer or the space offered. What is it that entices readers into spending time in a fictional world that a writer has created?  What are the key ingredients?

Time for new stories?

Joseph Campbell said that archetypal story patterns are hard wired in our psyche, and I used to believe this. Nowadays, I am wondering if is it just that we have just heard the same stories (or patterns) over and over, that they are familiar and so we connect because we like the familiarity and comfort. But is this enough? For, as resonating as the hero’s quest is, it wasn’t designed for women even they make up 50% of the population. That said, James Patterson says that he writes for women because 70% of his readers are female and our favourite hero’s quest story Star Wars now has Rey.

Last week, I attended an agile management for women seminar where one of the presenters said that there are no archetypes for strong women in business which made me wonder if that is because there are not many in stories. The first question to ask is there should be? Should there be strong female archetypes specifically design to fit into a patriarchal norm? Or, is it time to write new stories and rewrite our business structures so we don’t have to adopt any persona/archetype – armour up – in order to fit in? Thankfully, we have lots of talented women working on the heroine’s quest, author of historical fiction Phillipa Gregory is rewriting history from a feminine perspective, and script writer Shonda Rimes is putting dazzlingly authentic dialogue into women’s mouths, on prime time TV, expressing exactly how society views and validates them only in relation to men. I literally cheer and clap all the way through Scandal.

Reflecting us

If a story is to have meaning for us, if a writer wants to connect to a reader, then it has to reflect the problems that the reader has, perhaps reflecting our day to day lives, or pondering the human condition and  the philosophical question: Why we are here, which is why I chose Stranger than Fiction (2006), at the top of this blog. It got mixed reviews but it is funny, clever and moving.

Harold Crick lives a lonely life until the day he starts hearing a female narrating his life and foreshadowing his imminent death. He enlists a professor of literature theory who gives Crick a quiz to figure out what his story is:

Has anyone recently left any gifts outside your home? Anything? Gum? Money? A large wooden horse?
Do you find yourself inclined to solve murder mysteries in large, luxurious homes to which you may or may not have been invited? …
Are you the king of anything? King of the lanes at the local bowling alley. King of the trolls?… A clandestine land found underneath your floorboards?
Now, was any part of you, at one time, part of something else? …

This (abridged here) quiz is hilarious, clever and recognisable, because we all do it, even though it can seem naive and silly to refer to literature as a guide, and that message is even enforced in literature: John the so called savage from Brave New World tragically struggles because he uses The Complete Works of Shakespeare as his guide to life. 

Affirming life

However, we do it subconsciously or otherwise because like Harold, we sometimes fret about whether we are living in a tragedy or in a comedy, which might cause us to ask how life should be lived and we might feel like we are living the wrong story.  In the end, Harold embraces his fate and the business of living, connecting and falling in love – all the lovely things we want in a story, and in life too.

It is the polarities of life and death which create action and tension, and, any story which explores death but embraces life, according to Christopher Vogler author of The Writer’s Journey, makes it one which is emotionally universal and intelligent.

But, that doesn’t answer the question of what makes a great story. Are polarities enough? Do we need a gestalt whole of time and place, plot and character? What about archetypes and blueprints for resonance? And shared emotions for that intimacy we crave? How do we go about designing story?

Let us tell some stories and see.

Game theory & social media marketing (4): Conclusions

The Royal Game of UR, Early Dynastic III, 2600BC, British Museum

[Part 4 of 4: Game theory & social media: Part 1Part 2, Part 3]

No, I’m no super lady, I don’t have no game whatsoever,
I put my high heels on and see how that goes, yeah
– Pauline, Sucker for love

Ask a mathematician why they like maths, and they will tell you that mathematics gives a definite yes or no. There is beauty in clarity. And, everyone likes to feel that they understand and have control over what is happening in their world. This feeling of certainty is reflected in the bottom two rows of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs: physiological and safety needs.

Tapping into fear and belonging

That said, we also love variety and surprise, which is the most popular information shared on social media. We crave new stimulus which is why we love games. We love the idea of chance or fortune transforming our lives for the better, and surely if we learn the rules, then we will succeed. And, that is why marketing has such a pull on us. Marketers tell us that we will have improved lives if we do/buy/or have what they are selling, and, marketers themselves will have improved lives too if we do/buy/or have what they are selling.

There are so many ways to market something, this link has 52 types of marketing strategies. The most effective, of course, aims at the bottom of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs – safety – which is why fear quite often drives news and coupled with specific instructions gives a compliant society.

Tapping into belonging is another way to market, which is why the connection economy and building friendship with your customers is gaining so much traction as a marketing strategy.

Modelling emotion and what-ifs

Modelling human emotion is impossible to do with game theory especially on social media, a fluid, still unknown, type of communication. We will never quite know who our audience is. We may target our demographic, but if they retweet or share something outside of that, then you never exactly know who is looking at your content, or how they will react to it. All game theory can do is offer interesting and potentially useful partial explanations to model a selection of what-ifs scenarios when employing different strategies.

In the last post (part 3), we looked at various game theory strategies from the aggressive to the altruistic, and saw that people generally behave like the people around them (hawk-dove) and that Kermit was in a bit of hurry to get together with his girl, which caused him to behave passive-aggressively, and probably not get what he wanted.

 Don’t be like Kermit

Game theory is a tool for social media marketing and the best application of it is recording trial and error attempts (with statistical significance) whilst using our emotional intelligence.

Be aware of your emotions and triggers (your personal competence) so you don’t get involved in a big wrangle either privately, which could damage a relationship, or publicly, which might be retweeted everywhere and could wreck your brand or reputation.  Even in the mathematics of game theory we need to understand other players moods and motives (social competence) and not assume anything. We need to ask for more clarification, so that when we do make a move, we do so with clarity and certainty that we are doing the right thing, and as any mathematician would tell you if you asked them, there is beauty in clarity for it gives us certainty and a sense of control, things which are harder to come by in our ever changing world.

Game theory in social media (1): Fate and power

Early dice made from knucklebone in Ancient Greece © British Museum

[Part 1 of 4: Game theory & social media: Part 2, Part 3, Part 4]

Humans love games. We just love playing them.

The earliest proof we have, so far, dates back to 3600BCE: Six-faced dice with coloured pebbles made from heel bones of sheep and deer have been found on archaeological digs in Assyria, Sumeria, and Egypt.

Today, a walk around the British Museum, one of my favourite places, (which you can now do on Google), shows us that places where guards sat, probably for hours, like the entrance to the palace of King Ashurnasirpal II (883-859 BC) at Nimrud, has a board and a tally scratched into the side of one of the enormous winged human-headed lions.

By the time of the birth of Christ, many types of random number generators, including dice, were common, and were used for betting on or with board games. They were often spoken of as the workers of the blind goddess of fate, fortune, or destiny. And, it says in the Bible, that they cast lots to decide how to divide up Jesus’s possessions (Matthew 27:35). Even nowadays we talk about the roll of the dice when we talk chance and the things which happen to us.

By 10th century Europe, cards were the most popular thing with which to play games. There might be some skill, but really, a lot of it is up to chance, and don’t we all know that cliche about playing the hand you were dealt?

Highs and lows on the roll of a dice

The first formal attempt at analysing games, especially of chance, was written in 1520 (but published in 1663) by Gerolamo Cardano and has been recognised as the first step in probability theory. Cardano was a compulsive gambler, so would have felt the highs and lows of the roll of the dice more than most. He was foremost in the minds of Pascal and Fermat who published a book in 1654, continuing his work. And, it was Fermat’s last theorem which remained a phenomenon until it was solved in 1994. Imagine, it took three hundred and fifty years to solve a puzzle.

Later,  writer Fyodor Dostoyevsky described our love of excitement and chance when playing games and how our fortunes can flip in an instant. He wrote about it in letters to his sister and his short novel, The Gambler. He was convinced that you needed to detach and keep a clear head, but had difficulty doing either, for it is much easier said than done. Consequently, gambling and games are ubiquitous, from church bingo to nationwide lotteries. Life can really change with a roll of the dice – or so it seems.

Game theory not gamification

It was in 1928 that the first theory of game theory was first written about by (rock star) John von Neumann who amongst many things designed the first computer architecture in 1945.

But, it has to be said, game theory isn’t the same as gamification, at all. Please don’t mix them up. Gamification is about turning things into games such as business objectives and anything else we want to make more engaging and more fun. When gamification is well designed, it works really well. But game theory is much bigger, and much more than just games.

In 1944, von Neumann and Oscar Morgenstern translated and expanded von Neumann’s theories in order to produce: The theory of games and economic behaviour. For his 1928 paper was mainly about two people playing a game together with only one winner (known as: two person game-zero sum) but game theory is much bigger than this, and it is not just about games and game playing.

It might be based in mathematics, but game theory has people in it, of course, which is why it can be used to think about everything: economics, political science and psychology. And, it has the crazy assumption that people behave rationally, which if there is one thing I know about life, people never behave rationally, nor should you expect them to. The other thing is that, we can only partially model any prescription because the world is huge and constantly changing, and we can never model everything in a computer. It really doesn’t matter how clever computers get. We have a long way to go yet when modelling humans and behaviour, but game theory is a start.

That said, power is the name of the game: group voting, economic theory and how to influence people, especially in areas like interpersonal cooperation, competition,  conflict, labour negotiations, and economic duopolies, can all be understood in terms of game theory.

Game theory for explaining social media

Social media is the big new tool of the Internet, for business, politics, etc, and as of yet, no one knows how it works. So, this series is going to take a look at some of the big hitters of game theory: the prisoners dilemma, the Nash equilibrium, and so on, to see if these strategies can help us understand better how social media works. Are people cooperating or conflicting in ways these models describe on social media? If yes, can we understand and anticipate behaviour?  If not, what other theories could we come up with?

Let’s take a look.

[Part 2]

Stories, Semantics and the Web of Data

My most used words on facebook in 2016
My most used words on Facebook in 2016

As a computer scientist I have spent hours talking to designers, architects and engineers to capture their domain knowledge to model in a computer, with the end goal of helping them do their jobs better. It isn’t always straight forward to perform knowledge elicitation with people who have been doing complex tasks, very well, for a long time. Often, they can no longer articulate why or how they do things. They behave intuitively, or so it seems. So, I listen to them as they tell me their stories. Everyone has a story. Everyone! It is how we communicate. We tell stories to make sense of ourselves and the world around us.

As Brené Brown says in her extraordinary TED talk on vulnerability:

…Stories are just data with a soul…

Up until now, stories have been the most effective way of transferring information but once we involve a computer,  we become very aware of how clever and complex we humans are. With semiotics, we study how humans construct meaning from stories;  with semantics, we are looking at what the meaning actually is. That is to say,  when we link words and phrases together, we are creating relationships between them. What do they stand for? What do they mean?

Semantics

English Professor Marshall McLuhan who termed the phrase the medium is the messagedescribed reading as rapid guessing. I see a lot of rapid guessing when my daughter reads aloud to me. Sometimes, she says sentences which are semantically correct and representative of what happens in the story, but they are not necessarily the sentences which are written down. She is basically giving me the gist. And, that is what our semantic memory does – it preserves the gist or the meaning of whatever it is we want to remember.

Understanding the gist, or constructing meaning, relies on the context of a given sentence, and causality – one thing leads to another – something humans, even young ones like my daughter, can infer easily. But this is incredibly difficult for a computer even a clever one steeped in artificial intelligence and linguistics. The classic example of ambiguity in a sentence is Fruit flies like a banana, which is quite funny until you extend this to a whole model such as our legal system, expressed as it is in natural language, and then it is easy to see how all types of misunderstandings are created, as our law courts, which debate loopholes and interpretations, demonstrate daily.

Added to the complexities of natural language, humans are reasoning in a constantly changing open world, in which new facts and rules are added all the time. The closed-world limited-memory capacity of the computer can’t really keep up. One of the reasons I moved out of the field of artificial intelligence and into human-computer interaction was because I was interested in opening up the computer to human input. The human is the expert not the computer. Ultimately, we don’t want our computers to behave like experts, we want them to behave like computers and calculate the things we cannot. We want to choose the outcome, and we want transparency to see how the computer arrived at that solution, so that we trust it to be correct. We want to be augmented by computers, not dictated to by them.

Modelling: Scripts and Frames

We can model context and causality,  as Marvin Minsky’s frames first suggested. We frame everything in terms of what we have done and our experiences as sociologist Lucy Suchman proposed with her plans and situated actions.

For example, when we go to the supermarket, we follow a script at the checkout with the checkout operator (or self-service machine):

a) the goods are scanned, b) the final price is calculated, c) we pay, d) our clubcard is scanned, and e) we might buy a carrier bag.

Unless we know the person on the cash desk, or we run into difficulties with the self-service checkout and need help in the form of human intervention, the script is unlikely to deviate from the a) to e) steps above.

This modelling approach recognises the cognitive processes needed to construct semantic models (or ontologies) to communicate, explain, and make predictions in a given situation which differs from a formal models which uses mathematical proofs. However, in these human centred situations a formal proof model can be inappropriate.

However, either approach was always done inside one computer until Tim Berners-Lee found a way of linking many computers together with the World Wide Web (WWW). Berners-Lee realised that having access to potentially endless amounts of information in a collaborative medium, a place where we all meet and read and write was much more empowering than us working alone each with a separate model.

And, then once online, it is interesting to have social models, like informal community tagging improves Flickr and del.icio.us. Popular tags get used and unpopular ones don’t, rather like evolution. In contrast formal models use proofs to make predictions so we lose human input and the interesting social dynamic.

Confabulation and conspiracy

But it is data we are interested in. Without enough data points in a data set on which we apply a model, we make links and jumps from point to point until we create a different story which might or might not be accurate. This is how a conspiracy theory gets started. And, then if we don’t have enough data at all, we speculate and may end up telling a lie as if it is a truth which is known as confabulation. Ultimately having lots of data and the correct links gives us knowledge and power and the WWW gives us that.

Freeing the data

Throughout history we often have confused the medium with the message. We have taken our most precious stories and built institutions to protect the containers – the scrolls and books – which hold stories whilst limiting who can access them, in order to preserve them for posterity.

Now, we have freed the data and it is potentially available to everyone. The WWW has changed publishing and journalism, and the music industry forever.  We have never lived in a more exciting time.

At first we weren’t too bothered how we were sharing data, pictures, pdfs, because humans could understand them. But, since computers are much better at dealing with large data sets, it makes sense for them to interpret data and help us find everything we need. And so, the idea of the semantic web was born.

Semantic Web

The term semantic web was suggested by Berners-Lee in 1999 to allow computers to interpret data and its relationships, and even create relationships between data on the WWW in a way in which only humans can do currently.

For example, if we are doing a search about a person, humans can easily make links between the data they find: Where the person lives, with whom, their job, their past work experience, ex-colleagues. A computer might have difficulty making the connections. However, by adding data descriptions and declaring relationships between the data to allow reasoning and inference capabilities, then the computer might be able to pull together all that data in a useful coherent manner for a human to read.

Originally the semantic web idea included software agents, like virtual personal assistants, which would help us with our searches, and link together to share data with other agents in order to perform functions for us such as organising our day, getting more milk in the fridge, and paying our taxes. But due to the limitations of intelligent agents, it just wasn’t as easy to do. So, the emphasis shifted from computers doing the work, to the semantic web becoming a dynamic system through which data flows, with human intervention, especially when the originator of the data could say: Here machine interpret this data this way by adding machine friendly markup.

Cooperation without coordination

It seems strange to contemplate now, but originally no one believed that people would voluntarily spend time putting data online, in the style of distributed authorship, but we have Wikipedia, DBPedia, GeoNames to name but a few places where data is trustworthy. And, we have W3C which recommends the best way to share online.

The BBC uses websites like the ones above and curates the information there to ensure the integrity of the data. That is to say, the BBC works with these sites, to fact check the data, rather than trying to collect the data by itself. So, it cooperates with other sites but does not coordinate the output. It just goes along and gets what it needs, and so the BBC now has a content management system which is potentially the whole of the WWW. This approach of cooperation without coordination is part of what has become known as linked data, and the WWW is becoming the Web of Data.

Linked Data and the Web of Data

Linked data is a set of techniques for the publication of data on the web using standard formats and interfaces so that we can gather any data we need in a single step on the fly and combine it to form new knowledge. This can be done online or behind enterprise firewalls on private networks, or both.

We can then link our data to other data that is relevant and related, whilst declaring meaningful relationships between otherwise arbitrary data elements (which as we have seen a computer couldn’t figure out by itself).

Google rich snippets and  Facebook likes use the same approach of declaring relationships between data in order to share more effectively.

Trust: Data in the wild, dirty data, data mashups

It all sounds brilliant. However, it is impossible to figure out how to get your data mashup right from different sources when they all have different formats. This conundrum is known as data in the wild. For example, there is lots of raw data on www.gov.uk, which is not yet in the recommended format.

Then, there is the problem of dirty data. How can we trust the data we are getting if anyone can put it online? We can go to the sites we trust, but what if they are not collecting the data we need? What if we don’t trust data? What if we use the data anyway? What will happen? These are things we will find out.

How can we ensure that we are all using the same vocabularies? What if they are not? Again, we will find a way.

Modelling practice: extendable, reusable, discoverable

The main thing to do when putting up your data and developing models is to name things as meaningfully as you can. And, whilst thinking about reuse, design for yourself, do not include everything and the kitchen sink. Like all good design, if it is well designed for you, even if you leave specific instructions, someone will find a new way to extend and use your model, this is guaranteed. It is the no function in structure principle. Someone will always discover something new in anything you design.

So what’s next?

Up until now search engines have worked on matching words and phrases, not what terms actually mean. But, with our ability to link data together, already Google is using the knowledge graph to help uncover the next generation search engine. Facebook is building on its open graph protocol  whilst harvesting and analysing its data to help advertisers find their target audience.

Potentially we have the whole world at our fingertips,  we have freed the data, and we are sharing our stories. It may be written in Ecclesiastes that there is nothing new under the sun, but it is also written in the same place: Everything is meaningless. I think it is wrong on both counts,  with this amount of data mashup and collaboration, I like to believe instead: Everything is new under the sun and nothing is meaningless. We live in the most interesting of times.