Framers: Human Advantage in an Age of Technology and Turmoil

A paean to the human ability to think creatively about the world we live in.<br /><br />In my day job I teach Strategy and one of the first lessons is understanding the difference between a tactical and a strategic mindset. Tactical mindsets are rule-bound, situated in space and time. From a board game to a battlefield, the environment is largely static and the best responses can be laid out and worked through. Hence why computers are increasingly powerful in these fields.<br /><br />Strategy is very different, because in a strategic mindset the rules are malleable and the space and time can be re-arranged. To be a strategist is to be a framer. Someone who can take what seems a static situation and re-imagine the context, guiding metaphors, underlying assumptions, question rules and re-situate in space and time to find a more advantageous situation. <br /><br />As the authors argue, framing is one of the central analytical skills, and one that is uniquely human. Machines are very good rule-followers, they can experiment and learn, but they cannot break the rules that are set for them or assumed within their code. Humans by contrast do this all the time. When we tell a joke, we're relying on the gap between your anticipated frame and what we then say for the surprise and humor. Many leading businesses also reflect significant frames. Howard Schultz realised that a coffee shop wasn't simply a place that made and sold coffee, but could be a place you'd want to visit and spend time in, hence Starbucks. Sam Walton realised that the 'store' didn't have to just be a location but could be a network, hence the success of Walmart. <br /><br />Framing is not a skill we teach very often outside strategy classrooms. And it does come with a few constraints some find uncomfortable. As the authors stress, the best conditions for framing require an environment of cognitive diversity. That means it's often a team effort. Then is the matter of who is involved. Diversity of physical and lived experience is important, though it's only a partial step towards the more important element of ensuring you get a range of people who think differently about problems. Then you shouldn't just force the team into a room to find a consensus, but encourage their diversity by working on the problem separately and identifying preferred outcomes. Finally, when they come together, there needs to be a willingness to disagree, and to value the development over time of ideas, rather than simply a rapid move to an outcome. <br /><br />There are limits to what framing can do. It can't overcome all material realities, and there's a risk of assuming that mere cleverness can provide a way out in every situation. That's not always true, and sometimes reflects an indulgent wish to avoid facing up to the obvious problem (see the trend for hiring endless expensive consultants). And as the authors' warn, changing frames too often is also harmful. Just because something is new or 'contrarian' thinking doesn't automatically make it superior. Finally, the gap between thought and action needs to be overcome and some frames, however analytically appealing are less helpful, even harmful, at implementation.<br /><br />Overall however, 'Framers' is a compelling read on the power of human thought, and a reason for optimism that we can and will find ways to muddle our way out of the mess we today find ourselves in.

This was a really interesting book. It's all about our mental models (aka how we view the world) and their impact. As a user experience professional, I love how it ties how the frames we use impact our ability to innovate. If you like cognitive psychology, I highly recommend this book!

Siapa di sini yg suka belajar?<br /><br />Waktu Najwa Shihab mewawancara Maudy Ayunda, ada momen di mana mereka malah senang kalau masuk musim ujian. Bagi keduanya, belajar mempersiapkan ujian itu menyenangkan.<br /><br />Mamaku juga pernah cerita bahwa dia suka belajar.<br /><br />...dan ternyata aku nggak jauh beda. Belakangan aku menyadari kalau aku suka belajar ?<br /><br />Belajar yg dimaksud bukan hapalan membosankan. Melainkan "making sense of information", menghubungkan titik satu dengan lainnya supaya menjadi pemahaman utuh yg nantinya membantu kita melihat dunia.<br /><br />Well, itu inti yang dibahas oleh Framers bagiku. (Iya, aku terkecoh dengan anak judulnya).<br /><br />Frame sendiri artinya bingkai. Yakni setelan yg kita gunakan untuk melihat sesuatu. Frame yg kita miliki saat lahir bisa berkembang dg kita sekolah. Lalu semakin berkembang &amp; bervariasi apabila kita mau mengekspos diri dg banyak hal di luar sana. Masalahnya ialah, terpapar dg banyak keragaman lantas nggak membuat kita mau/bersedia menggunakan frame. Dg kata lain, nggak bikin orang jadi punya empati &amp; simpati. Ini yg seringkali menjadi akar keributan di Internet ?<br /><br />For some of us, wearing multiple frames hanya buang-buang tenaga. Tapi untuk mereka yg berada pada jabatan sbg pemangku kebijakan, bisa melihat permsalahan menggunakan beragam frame malah membantu memecahkan masalah. Syukur-syukur kalau bisa dapat solusi yg inklusif.<br /><br />Bukunya singkat. Cuma 9 bab yang masing-masing hanya sekitar 20an halaman. Bahasanya enteng. Buatku malah erat kaitannya dengan Think Again-nya Adam Grants. Sebab, mengeksplorasi hingga menggunakan frame yg berbeda-beda mempersyaratkan proses "unlearn" di dalamnya.<br /><br />Framers barangkali merupakan salah satu buku yg kuharap sudah ada ketika aku kuliah. Beberapa bagiannya juga nggak lepas dari teori Information Behavior yg kupelajari dulu (terutama soal Making Sense Theory). Malah aku rasa, kalau sejak kuliah aku baca buku begini mungkin aku lebih punya gambaran jelas bakal bantuin patron seperti ini jika jadi pustakawan nanti.

A light book about mental models, with many examples from current news of the world. I expected more depth on the psychological issues, but the tone is more journalistic and less scientific.<br /><br />Análise em Português no blog Virtual Illusion:<br /><a target="_blank" rel="noopener nofollow" href="https://virtual-illusion.blogspot.com/2021/08/framers-2021-decisao-e-quadros-mentais.html">https://virtual-illusion.blogspot.com...</a>

The usual pop psych / cognition ideas reframed in a fancy new package called "drink every time we use the word "frame"". Some interesting but brief insights around the use of human nous to direct AI in the right direction, and a useful mental framework for decision making to improve decision making (akin to the "pre mortem" popularised by freakonomics), but has too much fluff and not enough substance to warrant an entire book.

Proposes a theory of human distinctiveness based on the capacity to build and apply "mental models" (or "frames"). Such models are "a cognitive muscle" we can use to increase our alternatives and achieve better outcomes. Lots of business examples as well as "social justice" ones. A plea for cognitive pluralism as a way to recast the foundations of classical political liberalism, but one that relies heavily on a human exceptionalism which may no longer be sustainable.

<br />"Humans think using mental models. These are representations of reality that make the world comprehensible. They allow us to see patterns, predict how things will unfold, and make sense of the circumstances we encounter."<br /><br />The author points out that the mental modes we choose to apply are called frames. Frames, "determine how we understand and act in the world. Frames enable us to generalize and make abstractions that apply to other situations".<br /><br /><br />Frames, enable us as humans, to choose a frame to provide new options or focus our mind and reduce options. <br /><br />Lastly, framing or cognitive analysis consists of causality, counterfactuals, and constraints.<br /><br /><br />In other words, framing is basically meant comprehending things by first discovering the cause...and then using counterfactuals (within a constrained boundary) to formulate a game plan or an idea. <br /><br /><br />The authors did a great job of presenting analogies that help bring out this concept in more depth throughout the book. In fact, this is what I would call a book with no flaws...as I read the book I can't say there was much to complain about in terms of mess-ups/ not good moments.<br /><br />The only problem with this book...is that it lacked a wow factor to it in my opinion. Now, for someone who doesn't read books like that, this book will amaze you. But if you've read at least 30 non-fictional informative books in your lifetime...this book will not change the way you think or well uh... "frame" things. The book organizes an idea that most critical thinkers/readers already know about and apply subconsciously. <br /><br />Moreover, like i said the book has no flaws...but it doesn't have anything that makes it stand out either. I'm not sure I'll remember this book within the next few months. It's a solid book that's worth the read...but nothing memorable.<br />

While the pitch is interesting ("what uniquely human traits can help us deal with the challenges of the future and harness technology to our advantage"), the execution is somewhat lacklustre. The concept of a frame is kept deliberately fuzzy by the authors, presumably in order to be able to subsume a number of different aspects under the keyword, but this causes a lack of clarity that is lamentable. Our human capacity for decision-making based on quick, intuitive reasoning within well-defined existing "frames" definitely distinguishes us from current machine learning systems, but the authors spend little time working out precisely what this capacity truly is and a lot of time on how to foster more effective collaboration and "co-thinking" among different people. The writing style was also hard to bear in certain places, with a breathless mix of miniature anecdotes mixed into generic and fairly repetitive boilerplate prose("how can communities live and breathe frame pluralism successfully?"). Overall, fairly light on details, though with a somewhat convincing argument for fostering cognitive diversity in collective decision-making.

There are times in the lifetime of a business and throughout the course of our personal careers where we have to reframe and dream, but with focus. I highly recommend this read for anyone who is struggling with a business plan or professional partnership that needs to be revitalized or even keep moving forward during a good patch.

I saw this book in the airport and snagged it. It looked good. I wanted to read about frames and how they provide human advantage over AI. Yeah they mentioned that in a paragraph or two.<br /><br />Mostly the book is about how great frames are, how the only bad frame is one that denies the existence of other frames. This is where I started to have so many problems with the book that I started taking notes on my phone as they came up in order to remember them.<br /><br />First off, according to these folks all frames are equal and wonderful and have their place. This is nonsense. There are horrible frames. What are they? Any frame that takes the harm of an individual or others as its core motivation or justification is a bad frame. Sure there may be a society where murder/anti-whatever-group-I-want-to-subjugate is acceptable but that assumes a society with no moral structures. That's not one I want to live in. <br /><br />They talk to us about using and manipulating mental frames as though this is straightforward, and in fact spend 218 pages on what they are and why they are all good, and 3 pages giving hints on how to actually work with them. Meanwhile in psychology we are working on our unacknowledged biases - and what is a bias other than a frame we are unaware we are using? There are so many assumptions that we live under that we are unaware of. Much psychological and spiritual work revolves around unpacking those and looking at how they actually play out in our lives and affect how we see the world. You cannot just up and change a frame. Sure for problem solving in business you might, but pluralism in society needs to have room for folks to understand their frame(s) and that is unaddressed. <br /><br />This book suffers from what so much of our cultural thinking suffers from - the notion of the supremacy of the individual. The entire book talks about the individual's frame - there is no acknowledgement of the cultural frames we stew in, the frames that are sold to us in marketing, the frames politicians use to get us to support them, the frames our countries use to convince us that what they are doing is right. To be able to change a frame suggests access to information. There is an even greater story in how difficult it is to get information outside of the context of our frame and then be able to adequately assess the validity of that information. Or how much we are limited by the frames we live within - even in being able to re-frame.<br /><br />Some of the ideas they have discovered are actually core notions of Buddhism, and likely in other philosophical and contemplative traditions that I am less familiar with. They give no acknowledgement that some of their ideas have been around for millennia and are practiced today with a much greater understanding of the pitfalls and challenges of working with "frames". The notion of reality for example has been discussed amply in both western and eastern philosophy. I'd like to see an expert in post-modernism or phenomenology or post-structuralism unpack this book. I'd make popcorn.<br /><br />They confuse discernment with suppression and repression. There's some unacknowledged pseudo-libertarian frames woven into this book.<br /><br />They also say there is no bad frame and then at least 3 times I counted, they mock the frame of someone who their culture tells them is inferior. And they are - surprise surprise - unaware that they are doing the very thing they are chiding us not to do, because as I stated above, they don't acknowledge the difficulty of being able to recognize or articulate our frames or the frames around us that affect us.<br /><br />Anyhow, it's interesting, but in the end terribly disappointing. I kept arguing with them and having to stop and read some more and then get more frustrated. In the end, they give this rah rah lesson about how we need to embrace all the people thinking all the things as all equal or debate them together as a group. Yeah, like any organization/family/group does that and thrives? There is room for new ideas, but there are some very good reasons why not all ideas are equal, whether you position them as frames or not. There are reasons why this is not a hypothetical universe where all frames start off good. Some frames are stillborn. Others survive because there is a lot of money behind them. Some thrive because they should. Many are shot down because they are horrible. Rigidity of frame is not the same as discernment of a bad frame. That's the difference between knowledge and wisdom.