Simp vs Comp

"It is always much simpler to focus on the next step than to focus on the entire task." (Edward de Bono, Simplicity (Penguin, 1999) p. 253)

De Bono renforce cette formule fort pertinente par celle-ci : "A journey of a thousand miles starts with one step" qui fait penser à ce bout de Dao De jing 道德經 : 千里之行始於足下 (qian li zhi xing shi yu zu xia) que Roger Darrobers a traduit par "Un voyage de mille li commence à vos pieds" (Proverbes chinois, Le seuil, 1996, p. 123).

Voici de quoi faire ruminer les plus impatients jusqu'à la lecture de The Laws of Simplicity (Simplicity: Design, Technology, Business, Life) (MIT Press) de John Maeda :

This title presents ten laws of simplicity for business, technology, and design that teach us how to need less but get more. Finally, we are learning that simplicity equals sanity. We're rebelling against technology that's too complicated, against DVD players with too many menus, and software accompanied by 75-megabyte "read me" manuals. The iPod's clean gadgetry has made simplicity hip. But sometimes we find ourselves caught up in the simplicity paradox: we want something that's simple and easy to use - but also does all the complex things we might ever want it to do. In "The Laws of Simplicity", John Maeda offers guidelines, ten laws for balancing simplicity and complexity in business, technology, and design - for needing less and actually getting more. Maeda - a professor in MIT's Media Lab and a world-renowned graphic designer - explores the question of how we can redefine the notion of "improved" so that it doesn't always mean something more, something added on. Maeda's first law of simplicity is "Reduce." It's not necessarily beneficial to add technology features just because we can. And the features that we do have must be organized (Law 2) in a sensible hierarchy so users aren't distracted by features and functions they don't need. But simplicity is not less just for the sake of less. Skip ahead to Law 9: "Failure: Accept the fact that some things can never be made simple." Maeda's concise guide to simplicity in the digital age shows us how this idea can be a cornerstone of organizations and their products - how it can drive both business and technology. We can learn to simplify without sacrificing comfort and meaning, and we can achieve the balance described in Law 10. This law, which Maeda calls "The One," tells us: "Simplicity is about subtracting the obvious, and adding the meaningful."

John Maeda a créé pour l'occasion un nouveau blog : The Laws of Simplicity. Le 'Simplicity/complexity trend meter' du MaedaStudio, y a fait l'objet d'une mise à jour.

Tous à vos brosses

Lin Yutang m’avait un peu détourné de petites habitudes que je retrouve avec beaucoup de plaisir. L’une d’entre elles est l’auscultation hebdomadaire du site d’Edward de Bono. Quelle joie de renouer avec elle et de découvrir une proposition aussi saugrenue que fort intéressante qui est de demander à tous ceux qui sont désireux de communiquer avec leurs congénères de signaler leur disponibilité par le port d’un signe distinctif, en l’occurrence, une brosse à dents !

Voici le texte en question intitulé “The Toothbrush Experiment”

This is a repeat of last week's message because I want as many people as possible to take part in the experiment.
You could also wear the toothbrush as a 'flower' in your lapel.
I have often felt that there is a need for more human signals that go beyond the expression on a person's face. So I am setting out 'The Toothbrush Experiment' below.
People do not talk to each other enough. How often have you spoken to a stranger? It may be in a queue or sitting beside someone in a plane. It may even be someone at a table next to you in a cafe. People are shy and they do not want to intrude. Suppose that person signalled to you: "I am ready to talk to you". At once the intrusion problem disappears. Because people cannot keep saying this there is a need for a visual signal that indicates: "I am willing to talk to new people". A visual sign is permanent whereas a voice message is not.
This is where the 'toothbrush' comes in. Toothbrushes are normally kept in the bathroom. It would be most unusual to wear a toothbrush.
So if you wear a toothbrush in a prominent and visible position this signals to all around: "I am willing to talk to strangers".
Men could wear the toothbrush in the outside pocket of their jacket or suit. Women might have to attach the toothbrush to a brooch or a necklace.
In time some enterprising person may decide to make small 'toothbrush badges' which anyone can wear. There is no need to pay me a royalty for the idea - unless you want to!
In certain situations such as a bar or cafe you might even hold your toothbrush in your hand and wave it around to signal your openness.
What if you are pestered by someone you do not wish to talk to? You very ostentatiously remove the toothbrush and say "Good day to you" or "Good night to you". You can do this at any point in the conversation. If you want to emphasise the point you can say: "You will notice that the toothbrush is no longer in place!"
Now the experiment is to spread this idea in any way you can. You can tell friends about it. You can use the internet and e-mail. You can write pieces about the idea. It is up to your creative image in communication.
Let me know of any interesting experiences you have with the idea.

Je trouve cela d’autant plus drôle qu’en faisant une rapide recherche sur l’origine de la brosse à dents, objet qui aspire donc à devenir un signe de reconnaissance de l’homo volubilis ou homo sociabilis, j’ai découvert qu’on en attribuait très fréquemment l’invention aux ..... Chinois.

Natural bristle brushes were invented by the ancient Chinese who made toothbrushes with bristles from the necks of cold climate pigs.

Et oui, encore eux ! Certains sont même très précis et proposent le 26 juin 1498 pour date de naissance de l’invention jugée "la plus importante jamais réalisée par l’homme" par les Américains en janvier 2003 ! Et l’on rapporte donc qu’on aurait proposé un objet similaire à la brosse à dents qui ne sera couramment utilisée en Europe qu’à partir du XVIIe siècle, à l’empereur de Chine lequel l’aurait adopté. Reste donc à vérifier que l’empereur Xiaozong 孝宗 qui règna pendant les 18 ans de l’ère Hongzhi 弘 治 (1488-1505) des Ming 明 (1368-1644), est bien le premier empereur de Chine à se brosser les dents comme nous aujourd’hui, et ce depuis la onzième année de son règne.

Il semblerait, en fait, que l’on puisse remonter encore plus haut, car le terme chinois, yashua 牙刷 apparaît déjà dans une poésie de la dynastie Yuan (1279-1368). L’équivalent anglais, toothbrush, n’intervient quant à lui qu’en 1651, selon l’Online Etymology Dictionary

Il faudra donc y revenir. C’est, à n’en pas douter, un excellent sujet de recherche qui pourrait être élargi à bien d’autres aspects de l’hygiène corporelle. Ah, si j’étais jeune !

Vitamines

Jamais le dernier à assurer sa promotion et celle de ses techniques de réflexion, Edward de Bono livre dans son message hebdomadaire du 23 mai dernier, "Olympic Games", des indiscrétions sur les J.O. de Pékin 2008 : London and Paris are full of notices promoting the 2012 Olympic Games. I wonder how many people seeing these notices know that the continuation of the Olympic Games is due in part to me. The 1976 Games were held in Montreal and lost a huge amount of money. After Montreal no city in the world wanted the Games. Fortunately, Moscow agreed to host the 1980 Games because they had a different accounting system. After Moscow there was again the problem of finding a city to host the Games. Finally, Los Angeles agreed to host the Games. For the first time in history the Games made a considerable profit. After Los Angeles, cities round the world compete strongly to get the Games. So much so that bribes are even alleged. When Peter Ueberroth, the organiser of the successful Los Angeles Games, was interviewed by the Washington Post he was asked how he had made such a success of the Games. He told how he had used 'Lateral Thinking' to generate the new ideas and concepts that were needed. Someone sent me this cutting. I wrote to Peter Ueberroth and asked him where he had learned his Lateral Thinking. He reminded me that he had been my host when I talked to the Young Presidents Organisation in Boca Raton Florida in 1975. From that ninety minute talk he took some of the principles and tools of lateral thinking and applied them nine years later to the design of the Los Angeles Games. That says much for his leadership and ability. For this reason when I was in Beijing two years ago, the Olympic Committee asked for a special meeting with me. We generated some interesting ideas which may be used in 2008. Il est encore trop tôt pour savoir quel sera l'impact du "lateral thinking" sur la tournure que prendront les jeux chinois. En attendant, on peut toujours s'amuser à penser latéralement avec la liste d'énigmes fournit par Paul Sloane ou en plongeant dans les archives mises à disposition par Arlet Ottens.

Ailleurs, dans un texte écrit après un séjour en Chine dans le cadre du World Economic Forum qui l'a amené à donné des conférences dans divers lieux, tels le Beijing Olympic Committee, le Beijing Institute of Technology, China Central TV et une conférence publique, texte que l'on trouve sur le site Thinking Managers, E. de Bono fournit son analyse du retard chinois : As a culture, the Chinese are highly intelligent, very disciplined and hard-working and show a high respect for each other (see the Beijing traffic problem). The economy is growing by about 7.3% p.a at the moment. Two thousand years ago the Chinese were far ahead of the West in science and technology. They had gunpowder and rockets. They had invented printing and paper long before the West. Had China continued at the same rate of progress, today China would easily be the dominant economic power in the world. So what happened? The Chinese had a formal and civilised society very early. This had two effects. The first is that you advanced by doing things the way they should be done. The incredibly stiff Civil Service exams meant that the brightest youngsters aspired to do things in exactly the right way. The second effect is that you use your intelligence to adjust to the world rather than to change the world. Bernard Shaw put it neatly: 'Progress is due to the unreasonable person. The reasonable person seeks to adjust to the world. The unreasonable person seeks to change it'. Then there were the scholars, the academics and the mandarin class in general. They sought certainty. They described things as they were. There was no room for ambiguity, possibility or 'maybe'. This traditional deadening effect of the scholar class (also present in the West) held back progress and was the basic reason behind the 'Cultural Revolution'. That is not to justify the way this revolution was carried out. It seems the Chinese never developed the 'hypothesis'. Without that key piece of 'mental software', progress came to an end. Where did the hypothesis come from? It came from ancient Greece and the pre-Socratic thinkers, who were much brighter than the Gang of Three but were suppressed by the Gang and, much later, by Christian thinkers.

In science the hypothesis provides a framework for collecting evidence and designing experiments. In Karl Popper's view you should set up the most 'reasonable' hypothesis and then seek to refute this. This approach is very seriously flawed. If you only have the most reasonable hypothesis, you can only see the evidence in one way. You need other hypotheses, even if they are unreasonable. After all, reason is only a framework of expectation set up by past experience. In technology the hypothesis is the 'vision'. We imagine a possibility and then look to see how we can make it happen. So it is possible that this very intelligent Chinese culture was brought to a standstill through the absence of this key piece of mental software.

Il ne s'arrête pas là et se pose en sauveur de la Chine. En effet, ses travaux constitueraient, selon lui, la vitamine dont la Chine a besoin pour devenir une puissante nation :

The human body needs food. It also needs vitamins. The vitamins work with key enzymes to carry out essential work. Without a key vitamin, life can stop. The 'possibility system' is a key vitamin in progress. That is why the Chinese have become so interested in my work. They see this as the key missing vitamin in their thinking. I agree. I believe that if this 'vitamin' is introduced in all schools and at all levels in society, China will become a very powerful nation indeed.

Pourquoi faire simple ?

Lu dans le dernier Edward de Bono reçu (Teach Your Child How To Think, 1992) le passage suivant :

The first rule of intellectualism is : 'If you do not have much to say, make it as complex as possible.' A true intellectual has as deep a fear of simplicity as a farmer has of droughts. If there is no complexity, what is there to work or write about ?

La rubrique ("How to be an intellectual") s'achève sur ces mots :

You can be a thinker without being an intellectual. Indeed many intellectuals are not particularly good thinkers.

Par chance, je tombe sur un passage de Simplicity dans lequel E. de Bono s'en prend à nouveau à ce mauvais penchant :

If you want to be taken very very seriously then write a very very complex book - in French, if possible. Several things then happen. 1. If you really have nothing to say, it is better to make it as complex as possible otherwise people will see that nothing is being said. 2. Critics will love the book because they will feel specifically privileged that only they can understand it. 3. Critics will find that there is a lot to write about the book - which is never the case with a simple book. 4. Academics will love the book because obviously the book reeds the special skill of the academic for its interpretation to ordinary people. 5. No one will dare criticize the book because they are never quite sure that they have understood it. 6. Any philosopher is free to read into the book anything he or she wants because the complexity encourages any interpretation. 7. People will buy the book to show their cultural superiority but will not actually read it. 8. A cult will develop around the mystique of the book. 9. It will naturally be assumed that the author is a very profound thinker struggling to express immensely complex thougths. 10. Any number of self-appointed intellectuals will have very good time enjoying the complexity. If you think these comments are unfair, just keep them in mind and keep your eyes open. You will find ample evidence to justify them. You wil find a mystique and adoration of the complex by those who cannot understand the simple.

La fin de cette rubrique est aussi très amusante. La voici :

The easiest way to be 'superior' is to understand what ordinary people cannot understand. If the matter is simple, how can you show your superiority ? The pseudo-understanding of what is really unintelligible is a great game - with many players.

Coïncidence

N'est-il pas piquant de recevoir, le même jour, le livre d'Edward de Bono que j'ai cité ailleurs ("Pourquoi faire simple ...") et ce petit ouvrage que Rainier Lanselle a publié aux Editions érès, collection "essaim" pour le compte de la Revue de Psychanalyse ?
Pour ceux qui ne trouveraient aucun rapport entre les deux, je reproduis ici la quatrième de couverture du Sujet derrière la muraille :
Pour rendre compte d'elle-même, la civilisation chinoise a fait usage d'une langue écrite fortement codifiée et située très à l'écart de la langue naturelle. Le sujet, pris dans un tel langage, ne se dit pas, mais se trouve restitué selon un processus qui le retransforme en fonction de l'idéal dont ce code est porteur. A côté de cette langue, " classique ", une deuxième langue, " vulgaire ", a fini par prendre naissance, qui a visé, elle, à reproduire le langage parlé.
La tension entre ces deux modes jette indirectement une lumière sur les visées inconscientes de ce retravail de la réalité du sujet dont est porteuse l'entreprise idéographique : et s'il apparaissait qu'une déhiscence, qu'une fissure dans le système fermé place le sujet à l'abri de la muraille de la perfection reconstituée dans laquelle le code écrit rend compte de lui, mais dans le même temps le rend mutique ? Pris entre deux langages, le sujet ne s'est jamais dit, en Chine, comme sujet. Et pour cause : le système de langage dont il s'est doté a visé à le pourvoir en inviolabilité.
Il n'y a rien qui soit " autre ", dans la civilisation chinoise, ou du moins il ne devrait rien y avoir de tel pour la psychanalyse. Tout au contraire, la Chine doit son système linguistique et scripturaire unique au monde un riche patrimoine de métaphores, qu'il faut regarder comme autant de pierres de touche des processus de l'inconscient.

Simple comme bonjour

Une pensée d'Edward de Bono tirée de son Simplicity (Penguin, (1998) 1999) qui m'accompagne depuis plusieurs semaines pour inaugurer cette rubrique sur l'art de simplifier :

"It may be better to simplify a process rather than train people to cope with the complexity" (p. 26)

Une foule d'idées stimulantes de cet acabit sur le site de l'homme : http://www.edwdebono.com/