Hacking

How would you get security for your organisation?

“Perhaps hire a security company/cybersecurity company”

How would you break in to your organisation?

I could crawl through a window, I could send a fake letter to the IRS, I could impersonate somebody, I could…

Suddenly, the mind is filled with possibilities, whereas before, there was only one possibility.

~~~~~

A similar question might be:

How can I make money in crypto?

“by finding trustworthy, smart youtubers with low viewerships who can give me the knowledge”

How can I rearchitect the financial system in crypto?

I would need liquidity pools, on-ramps for fiat coming in, regulation, I would need people to trust crypto as forms of currency, I would need other engaged developers working alongside me, I would need connectivity between liquidity pools, I would need ways of tokenising assets, I would need ways of facilitating peer-to-peer lending, I would need ways of ensuring liquidity was locked, I would need ways of ensuring a stable currency through which people could trade, or hold,

The possibilities open up. Framing what you’re looking at in the right way, as a predator, rather than as prey, makes a big difference to the answers that you’re finding, and the possibilities that you’re coming up with.

Finding these sorts of questions to ask is intrinsic to supporting good education across the board. It is a creative approach towards framing questions, which makes us at the centre of a myriad of possibilities, rather than being always looking to the proverbial answer.

This takes creativity from question-askers also. This is something which Oxford and Cambridge do for entrance interviews, to analyse the creativity of the person coming in. However, apart from that, it’s just not used at all.

With these questions, you’re essentially going outside how the structure of something relative to you has been designed for you. So much of our information has been designed for us, from the point of view of somebody else, deciding what we need to know, and deciding what perspective we need to look from. But often this perspective isn’t the perspective they are looking from, and it’s often certainly not the most informative one to consider, and not the most empowering one to consider.

A simple example of this is learning a language. In school, things are fleshed out in convoluted steps, or levels, with a structure set out for learning which completely diverges from the human way of learning languages, where things are intuitive, whereafter, we might justify how we learnt the language, saying it was in a series of logical steps, or building blocks, when in fact it wasn’t.

How would I ensure everyone coordinated with each other?

I would impose a system of time, with clocks, so that each person was meeting with each other at pre-arranged points. Here, punctuality, or sticking to certain times that I had ordained, this might be accepted, and tardiness might be punished.

By extension in my reasoning, punishment for tardiness might be said to be punishment for lack of conformity to coordination with others in the course of my existence.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez does something akin to this approach when putting somebody on the stand.

Government is being hacked. And not enough people are running this line of questioning.

Delivery matters [saved for later]

Humour does it

The bouncing off the box thing to keep people ticking over, it’s humour. In order to get the joke, you have to be clued in, and stay clued in. And there’s a reward for staying clued in [you laugh]. And there’s cues for keeping clued in [other audience reaction]. But it doesn’t cost anything if you don’t get the joke [you can still laugh anyway].