Creating Space

I’ve just returned from Coppercon. That was one of my best science fiction conventions ever. I felt at home there, met a lot of good people, and contributed to a full slate of panels. I had a great time.

A panel is the usual form of education and entertainment at a science fiction convention. Three to six authors, scientists, artists, long-time fans, or other experts sit behind a table at the front of the room, and discuss a topic. When a panel works well, each panelist brings their own perspective to the topic, we share information, and the audience asks quality questions and contributes additional knowledge.

For example, in Privacy in the Age of Surveillance, I arrived with a social perspective. My copanelists brought knowledge of the state of the art in technology, and a discussion of self-protection and trust networks emerged between us. For the Fan Body Language panel, each panelist had noticed different things about how to spot an sf fan in a crowd. When we tried some demonstration conversations, the observers picked up patterns the conversers were not consciously aware of.

In both cases, having three panelists brought out more knowledge than having a single speaker. Different backgrounds bring different information to the table. More than that, simply having a different perspective allowed some panelists to see what others couldn’t. I am not conscious of my own body language and blindspots. The panelists watching me could see them.

When time allows, I have other eyes look over these newsletters before they go out. My editors see weaknesses I miss, and my writing becomes better. So, even though I am sometimes uncomfortable receiving criticism, I have trained myself over years of classes, workshops, and writing groups to look for quality feedback and to appreciate receiving it. It pays off just as well for me as it does for my clients who pay me to edit their manuscripts.

Does the advantage of smart collaboration apply to large groups as well as small ones? We have been gathering evidence that it does. Open societies — those that discuss policies and accept criticism — have won in economic and military conflict over closed societies. Businesses that discover ways for employees and customers to contribute become more agile and profitable than ones set in hierarchical bureaucracy. And the peer review process of science pushes advancement faster than any previous method of investigating the universe.

So, if we want to be smart - if we want to solve the large and small problems of our time - we need to learn to work together. We need to find ways to use differences as a strength rather than a cause for conflict. We need to accept and appreciate those who point out the weaknesses in our plans and projects. We need each other.

Think about how you can use another perspective to strengthen your work. Do you have a friend who sees what you don’t? Could the insight of a professional coach discover a new approach for you? If you are stuck, in your work, or in your life, who might see the way out?

Providing perspective is part of my work. I would be glad to serve you.

My new workbook for writers is here. It’s called From Wishing to Writing. Now you can download a free preview at annaparadox.com/from-wishing-to-writing

You can also order the plain vanilla version for $12. In October, I will have the beautiful version, and the price will go up to $17.

I love games — the same way I love science fiction. I’ve had so many good times with them. My family played lots of pinochle. We’d gather after dinner and bring out the deck. Many times, when we had visiting relatives, we would talk and play late into the night. At first, I could only watch. Later, I was allowed to join the game. I took it as a real privilege.

All the games I knew when I was young were win/lose games. We’d play Monopoly and Risk and chess. I played cribbage by the hour with my cousins, Rummy with my Grandma B., poker on winter evenings in my Dad’s den. Someone won, someone lost. We played hard to win, and for the most part, took more pleasure in playing than sting from losing.

Around junior high, I first heard of games that didn’t make winners and losers. I started playing Dungeons and Dragons with my best friend Jeff. I’d create a dungeon, he’d create a couple of characters to explore it. We’d roll the dice, and find out if his characters would survive the fights along the way and carry home the treasure. Mostly they did. The game went on, we worked together to make good stories, and his characters gained experience and grew every more powerful. It was hard to say if anyone really ‘won’ or ‘lost’. It takes an endpoint to define a winner.

Then, when I went to summer camp, the counselors introduced us to ‘ungames’ — activities specifically designed to play like games, yet create no winners or losers. They were fun for short periods. I haven’t heard of anyone playing one in quite a while. Without some sort of reward for play, they didn’t hold as much interest as traditional games.

Eventually, I took some classes in economics, and learned about win/win games. In a win/win game, everyone who plays gains a reward. The classic example (especially to economists) is the free market. If a buyer freely chooses to purchase my product, and I freely choose to sell it, then the buyer and the seller both win. The buyer wins because she values her purchase more than the money, and I win because I value the money more than my product. Everybody wins.

Now I enjoy win/win games more than any others. I still play games like Dungeons and Dragons, and I feel like everyone wins when we create a good story together. And I’m a life coach. When I have a good match with a player, I win by helping out and receiving my fee, and my player has a huge win by having my support to see the game, choose a goal, and take the actions to reach it.

Want to play? Just reply to this message. We’ll see if we can make a win/win together.