Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Balanced Society

Let me preclude this post with first off stating I am not an economist in any regard and thus cannot put my ideas through stringent analysis by the Institute of Fiscal Studies, but that said neither is George Osborne and he successfully staked a claim to be the new Chancellor of the Exchequer, so what’s good for George is good for me.

I’ve listened to the debates and read the manifestoes ad nauseam and agree there is need for radical reform in the way we run the country financially, I also agree that the idea of Big Society is a compelling one. However, unless we have a time machine that can take us back to a golden age where we thought and acted as a society or community I can not see how we can pull the Big Society out of the hat with our current cultural system. Thatcher changed that with the entrepreneurial individual spirit set out in the eighties, the what’s in it for me culture that we still have the echoes of today. Labour compounded this with the let’s legislate and run everything for society so they are controlled to act fairly, rather than taking responsibility for our actions, this was based on a notion of game theory that people will work like markets. Both strategies have failed, so how do we get back to a way where we act for the advancement of society, rather than individually?

We cannot rely on some idea of altruistic sensibility, which seems to be the underpinning of the Big Society idea, anybody that has ever been on a PTA or governing body can tell you it never really works that way, most altruism is inevitably self-serving and therefore one has to query the effectiveness for the bigger picture. So with this in mind I’ve been giving it some thought, how do you incentivise and reward people to be a better society, to contribute more without having to re-educate the culture?
Tricky one, until I watched this great presentation on the economics of Facebook gaming from Jesse Schell. He latches on to something that is either deeply cynical or a different way of looking at things, a framework for incentivising good actions or what he calls "intrinsic motivation".
Now most of Jesse’s ideas rely upon a technological framework that isn’t there yet, but that doesn’t prevent us from trying out the ideas in other ways. Why not create tax credits that are like reward points for contributing and bettering society. The more you do, the more tax credits you accumulate.
If the tax credits amounts are aligned to a notional amount that the government saves in expenditure, then we’re gradually re-educating society through gaming/ incentivisation.
So, first thoughts are:
Devise annual health MOT, the fitter you are, the decrease in BMI etc, the less you use the NHS – the more tax credit you get.
If your children perform well at school, behave, conform etc, the points you accumulate and thus the more tax credit you receive.
Fuel consumption/ carbon footprint – the smaller the footprint/ less fuel consumption etc – more tax credits.
The volunteer work you do, ie charity, governance, PTA, youth work – tax credits.
If you have fair employment practices, show diversity, have sustainable energy policies and practices etc – tax credits.
You get the idea. There obviously has to be a framework to prove these things are happening and there has to be a balance so that there is a measure of fairness, but maybe if the haves were incentivised more to help the have nots rather than purely relying on altruistic ethics, maybe we could get the balance back.
I know that there is a naivete to these ideas, but I am sure with a bit more rigour there’s some mileage in it. I want to live in the big society (essentially christianity without the hocus pocus?), it’s how I live my life now – but I know there’s not enough of us to go round and we always inevitably get drawn back into the “what’s in it for me” rather than the long term benefits of “what’s in it for us”. I’m just looking for a middle ground that could get us moving in the right direction. Thoughts?

Here is the Jesse Schell talk that explains wider:

and here is a nice example of gaming for better behaviour:

Networking Tourettes

I hate networking, shakes me to the core at the very thought of it because of all the insincerity, bland chit chat, watching over the shoulder looking for the next person to talk to or the fact that so many conversations are more the other person waiting for their chance to talk again rather than any actual engagement or active listening. This rational fear comes from early years working in TV and Film and the incessant need to network and BS/KA everybody. If you’ve ever spent 5 mins in Soho House or The Groucho you will know what I mean, imagine the terror I had spending time at the Cannes Film Festival, you’ll never find a place as sycophantic as the Soho House yacht during the festival. After a number of years doing this “darling” stuff I developed networking tourettes, an involuntary response mechanism to luvviness that made me blurt out mildly amusing and often offensive retorts to actors, agents, producers et al, for instance when Harvey Weinstein’s “right hand man” introduced himself to me with that moniker, I asked how much he had to spend on lube per annum to keep himself busy. You can see why I quickly retreated from such a scene and why they were happy for me to do so.
So for someone that despises networking so much, why would I attend the “legal networking event of the year”? I did ask myself this question numerous times before RSVPing, and I think the reason is because it would be so different, how could it be insincere or shallow when you feel that you know so many of the attendees through prior social networking communication. I had been conversing with some of these people for a couple of years, though we had never met. This was going to be a reunion of sorts, not first time networking. The ability to jump into non surface level conversation was the appeal, to already know things about the people rather than spending chit chat getting a bio and rundown of their job. Social Networking had made Real Life Networking effective and efficient, like some six sigma process – hurray, how do we get more of this! All the fallacies of SN making people disconnected from real life were not in evidence last Wednesday night. Also made me reflect on all the courses that are out there on networking for lawyers, teaching people how to smile, have open body language etc...It’s not the people, it’s the events that are the problem – they don’t really foster connection or engagement (I exclude Netlaw Media from that criticism as I know this is something they put a lot of effort into to great success).
I don’t have photos and others have written better about the events of the night than I will attempt here, I will say that it was a pleasure to meet those I had conversed with for some time and those who were newer to me. Big thanks to @brianinkster and @lindacheunguk for organising and already looking forward to the next one.