# 129: Digital Thinking
Story behind the Passage
Some insights change your thinking irreversibly. For me, this was the case when I finally discovered the full magnitude of what digital technology can do (I wrote about this before). Since then, everything I had previously thought of as smart or important or somehow valuable looks different now. This sounds dramatic and it is, but in a helpful way — I guess. Right now, it just feels weird and I do not think I can describe it properly. The only thing I can say is that such an epiphany makes you think a lot less about problems because you can solve them more or less immediately with digital solutions. I would say, the simple answer is always: networks.
Well, in the end, when you start building these solutions, it is probably not that easy. At least, digital thinking allows you to immediately have a clear image of what the solution could look like. I am not saying I am like the super problem solver now. But somehow this thinking in networks feels very natural to me. It is just that you have to know about the solutions that already exist in order to connect the dots between a problem and a digital solution that usually involves some kind of bringing people together with other people to exchange information and possibly knowledge.
Still, it is also quite frustrating and weird to get into this mode of thinking because everything else really feels like it does not make sense anymore.
This confused state of mind made me follow some links today and this is how I found Alan Dix. I do not know Alan (yet) and neither does my Scottish colleague. But he seems to be a fascinating man, as far as I can see. And the most fascinating thing for me to discover today was the concept of “digital thinking” (next to “deep digitality”). I do not know if this is what I am describing above based on my personal experience. I still want to share some thoughts I found in his short introduction to the concept which immediately resonate with what is going on in my brain these days.
My Learnings
“…changing role of money” This sounds so simple but, again, I am just starting to really feel the magnitude of this. Take this example:
My colleague and I discussed a problem today that many women entrepreneurs and academics share. I suggested a solution how these two groups can help each other based on their expertise. Now we can apply for funding to implement the solution. At least, this is the plan — the logic of the old academic world. You have an idea, even a solution to a problem, and then you apply for funding to refine and implement it.
But you know what?
We do not need any money!
All we need is: One communication platform — Open Source.
The only money we can apply for is for labor, of course, the money I would get for setting up the platform.
But if the platform works, after the initial setup, nothing really needs to be done anymore (except for some admin and community management).
Is it stupid to share these thoughts here? Will this lead to the fact that we do not get any money — that I do not get paid for offering a solution?
Would it be smarter to play by the old rules, i.e., to write a fancy proposal and declare how complicated the problem is and how desperately it takes a lot of money to solve it?
I do not know. I just know that we live in the age of open science and open innovation today and all that counts, everything that creates value, is what you are able to create with the tools you get — for free. Now, do you see why I am particularly focusing on the “changing role of money” aspect? My example is just one out of a million that shows you exactly how money plays a different role nowadays and how this will especially be the case in the future — in academia and in the global society. It will just be a matter of months or so for people to realize the full scope of this. The education sector, including higher education, will also start noticing it quite quickly. I mean, some already have. Just think of all the money being saved because conferences, symposia, etc. are being held online because of Covid.
There is no way back.
“Together, these represent a distinct change in the potential for social and physical systems.” I want to go one step further because the money aspect is something that will be changing the economy and existing structures in several ways. Again, digital networks are already doing it. It has just taken people like me a bit longer to fully realize what exactly this means. What really fascinates me even more now is the impact this has on our thinking. And that takes me back to my example above. Again, I do not know if this is exactly what Dix means when talking about digital thinking. But the way I feel now about my own thinking mirrors what he says: It is a kind of thinking that I simply did not have before learning more about technology and the power it has to really change societies on any level (I do believe that this is a kind of disruption that actually deserves the name).
The only thing that worries me so much is what the world looks like for people who do not have any of this digital thinking. I am not even talking about the access and hardware gap. I am talking about the thinking part again. If you do not think in networks yet, especially if you are a “decision maker,” how many resources are you burning every single day for stuff that can be solved with 0 Euros? I am aware that tech experts have been thinking this way for decades probably. But I am at least glad that I have finally understood; that I am starting to fully understand. It is strange to feel that there is no way back for me. I need to move on with this new perspective at the world and figure out how to shape it with digital thinking and acting.
The only thing that tech will not be able to fix, however, is providing non-digital nourishment to humans.
Reflection Questions
1) How do you personally define “digital thinking”?
2) Do you believe that digital technology can/will fundamentally change capitalism?
3) Which human skills can never be digitalized according to your opinion?