I am not talking cosmically, biologically, or philosophically. I am talking time to do things.
Ask anyone to do something new. Make it something worthy and valuable. Ask if they would like to help make it a reality. Odds are way over 90% they will say I would love to help, of course, but I just don’t have time.
Join an action. Read a book to learn together and become good at teaching others. Help create a new organization. Help plan a new demonstration. Even help review something or say what you think of such and such an event. Time gets in the way.
Someone says “I have no time.” It may be a way to deliver a gentle excuse rather than saying get lost, I think your suggestion is idiotic. Someone else says “I have no time.” It may mask laziness, cynicism, or whatever is their real reason for not relating.
These situations happen quite a lot and it would be good to have sincere, effective ways to overcome the obfuscation and arrive at real communication. But there is another “I have not time” meaning even more important.
The person who says it is really saying, I would like to do x or y, but, can’t. No time, no time.
I am working on setting up an online ZSchool. It entails suggesting that folks enroll in courses partly for direct benefit and partly to get the project up and running for future benefits. About 500 people – out of all those hearing about the project – have created an account, providing an email that I can write to. Perhaps a quarter of those folks have enrolled in one or more courses. The rest have looked at offerings but not enrolled. So I decided to ask those who hadn’t enrolled, why they hadn’t and I got a whole lot of replies.
Some had very particular personal comments – I am ill, I will be away from the internet, I have just retired, I have had bad experiences with school, I teach and don’t want to relate to classes in off time. Some, though surprisingly few, mentioned finances. I thought this would be more people and I suspect it was a much larger factor among those who didn’t sign in at all, and who I therefore could not ask their reasons. One dimension would be not being able to pay. Another would be simply thinking it is wrong to pay and wrong to seek payment. I will return to that concern in a follow-up essay.
Among those who did reply, however, there was one reason highlighted in literally every single case.
Over and over people wrote: I looked, I loved the idea. I was attracted to quite a few of the courses and I hope it works. I wanted to participate. I simply could not set aside any time for it. I just have no time.
Why is this answer so important?
Suppose we are trying to change the world and putting out appeals for various projects, tasks, undertakings, and so on, as I hope we all are, at least in some degree. WE are highly focused on making our explanation compelling, moving, valid, and being sure the projects, tasks, and undertakings are worth doing. But suppose that in instance after instance people reply that they want to participate but can’t because they have this sneeze that keeps popping up whenever they try to do anything – or I because such and such a law precludes their doing so, or whatever the reason might be. Replies reveal that one obstacle is so ubiquitous and powerful that it is interfering with chances of successfully changing the world. If we are serious about changing the world, we have to address the obstacle and find a solution that overcomes it, don’t we?
How about addressing time?
I am saying the squeeze on people’s time or at the very least on their perceptions of their time, or both, is a giant obstacle preventing broad and enthusiastic participation in literally anything that transcends people doing anything outside their basic daily life functions. And changing the world for the better is certainly outside those functions.
What can we do?
First, when there is a project, movement, or event that needs participation, those planning it can try to build into it circumstances that free up for people as much time as they need to have if they are to join in. This is what some kinds of day care and car pooling do. Maybe we can figure out other benefits movements can provide those who participate which will free their participants from other responsibilities or functions.
Second, maybe some people handle time less well than others. Maybe there are ways they could do things faster that people could learn that would give them more time for other pursuits. Perhaps movements should teach such skills.
And finally, third, movements could fight for a shorter workday and work week as a valuable aim not only for the attaining the pleasures of more leisure, but from a slightly different direction than is usually discussed – gaining time.
If people have no free time to allot, the best plans, intentions, and possibilities will atrophy. A plan without people to participate is empty.
Win more free time to win more freedom.
ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.
Donate
4 Comments
You are fine to have your opinion, of course – and I appreciate it. Though if you think you can teach a course on, say, economic vision, using youtube and a camera, and offering it free I presume, and you have all the time needed to do that, I would urge you to do so – assuming you feel people taking it would benefit from your offering. What we are aiming at, however, is something very very different.
I am not sure why you write comment on this particular piece that ignores the point of the piece – unless you think that lack of time isn’t an issue, or is a sidebar issue, etc. It would be hard, however, to explain why literally every response saying they are not enrolling in a course pointed to lack of time as the reason… Statistically it was overwhelming. Your comment suggests that maybe you do think that time isn’t an issue – if so, there we will have to agree to disagree, I guess. I would once have said that too – but no longer.
But, since you offered it, the assumptions of your critique are, as often occurs, that diverse methods have not been tried. Or that there is no experience with different approaches. Or that some optimal approach that one can dream up – in this case surveying people and then providing what they say they want, etc. would either yield responses or action based on the responses, or that there are faculty who could teach whatever people might say they want, as compared to what the faculty feel good about teaching. Or that there is infinite time to give to various steps before there is anything tangible that gives any evidence it is more than mere words or hopes. Or that various levels of involvement can be easily had, merely by asking, and so on. None of these are typically the case, however, and not in this instance, I believe, though they might well apply in some other case.
As to your overall feeling that it would be good for a school to receive feedback from people and try to address their desires – which is no easy task, either in getting serious feedback or in addressing it – and which seems contrary to saying time isn’t a big deal since that is precisely the feedback we got – with literally no one saying there was a problem about what was offered – when the school has a first session complete, and thus when asking about preferences becomes a real request that people can see may lead to real results, such querying will most certainly occur. You may think this is backwards, you may be right – but it is certainly not as oblivious to options as your tone suggests.
And finally, here is a guess – no more than that, I acknowledge. If we had put up a poll, and pushed it over and over so everyone would see it and many would take it, thus irritating all our users that way even before irritating them all with news of the school itself, and if the poll had offered a hypothetical sampling of possible course focuses for people to rate as being ones they would like to see offered, or not, and if these included those that we have – and say twenty more, or fifty, or whatever – those we have would have done very well, as would all the others, as course of potential interest. We might well have been able to get a few thousand responses, although I doubt it. Then, contacting possible faculty, and limiting ourselves in a first round of courses, to say 15 as being a good test, we would likely have wound up with pretty much what we now have as the courses that people expressed interest in AND the people were ready to take a plunge on teaching. Maybe a few would vary a bit, I agree. I suspect the subsequent results would have barely differed. I think this is also likely true even if we asked people to send in email with ideas for courses – few would have done so, but however, many that would all then have to be processed, etc. etc.
We can’t know, of course. On the other hand, I suspect/hope that when we get to the second session, we will be able to include pretty much all the courses anyone would have wanted, that would have had general interest, and would have good faculty ready to teach them, and likewise for growth thereafter.
We will see.
“I am not sure why you write comment on this particular piece that ignores the point of the piece – unless you think that lack of time isn’t an issue, or is a sidebar issue, etc.”
I responded directly to the piece, and your comment makes me feel like you didn’t understand what I was saying. I will restate it as clearly as i can.
People do not have a lack of time. They have more free time than in any point in history. What you are experiencing is that people don’t have time for your projects.
I believe that is due to your tactics, and not due to the content. You were arguing people should support your projects due to content.
I contend that people don’t support things due to duty, and instead support them due to passion.
“It would be hard, however, to explain why literally every response saying they are not enrolling in a course pointed to lack of time as the reason… Statistically it was overwhelming.”
I would have responded the exact same way. When someone says they don’t have time, they mean that they don’t have time for your project, because they don’t value it highly enough.
So the question to ask yourself is, what am I doing to cause people to not value the project? What would they value?
Instead you’re asking the question, why does no one have time.
“But, since you offered it, the assumptions of your critique are, as often occurs, that diverse methods have not been tried.”
Here you are stating what you are hearing when reading my words.
1. I don’t believe you’ve tried multiple tactics.
2. That trying an “optimal approach” would yield improved results.
3. The curriculum should be dictated by feedback.
4. Nothing should be done until we spend an infinite level of time garnering feedback
5. Just asking yields meaningful feedback
Those are the main points you subscribe to what I said in that block, so let my try and clarify what I actually believe because it’s not coming across.
Re 1. – I believe you’ve tried many tactics in your lifetime, and have far more experience when it comes to organization in this context than I do. (False)
Re 2 – I do believe that a different approach would yield to improved results. I believe your approach is how we built software in the past, and software has changed to an “Agile” development style, or said in another way, we create and iterate through it. This is now the standard for creating, and is done in large company, and small all over the world. My argument is that move is justified, and there is evidence for it, and it would lead to improved results. (True)
Re 3 – I wasn’t actually addressing the curriculum at all. I don’t believe feedback should determine the curriculum, but I don’t think it’s actually relevant to the discussion at all. (False)
Re 4 – I am not saying this at all. I’m saying the opposite. You create and iterate. You start with a Minimum Viable Product, and you iterate towards a solution that functions in the way that works. (False)
Re 5 – Feedback has nothing to do with asking. You received feedback when only 500 people signed up. There is feedback of all kinds, and perhaps we are using the word in different ways. (INC)
What I take from your words is you didn’t understand what I was saying. You may still disagree with everything that I said, but you have to first understand it.
I hope I’ve done a better job of communicating my views.
I think we shouldn’t belabor too much, so just a few of your points…
“People do not have a lack of time. They have more free time than in any point in history. What you are experiencing is that people don’t have time for your projects. ”
When people say I have no time I agree it is often an excuse or it means I have nothing that I value less than I value what is suggested. I agree. And the article says so. But when people volunteer the explanation with no real reason to do so, and then they say I would really like to do x, I would love to do x, but I cannot find the time – what with my basic time constraints due to my jobs, household responsibilities, etc. etc. I think we need to listen.
The idea that people have so much free time I find really amazing, honestly – work time has drastically increased, and so have many other time outlays due, however to changes in social relations, particularly but not exclusively regarding bringing up kids.
We need to consider that perhaps movement demands and programs that free up people’s time are really needed – as compared to concluding that people have plenty of time… That was the point, by the way, of the essay.
You don’t think that. Okay, we can agree to disagree. No problem.
“I contend that people don’t support things due to duty, and instead support them due to passion.”
If you think everyone does what they do due to passion for it – so be it. I wish we had so much freedom of circumstance that that could be true – though I would also hope people would sometimes let responsibility overrule passion.
If you work nine to five, and cannot take off, and I you hear about some wonderful thing you would absolutely love to do, during that time – well, you can’t – passion, even great passion – just doesn’t matter
Now suppose, like many people, you work ridiculous hours, perhaps even multiple jobs, and you are exhausted much of the rest of the time, and you also have other absolutely binding responsibilities – some might be things you would like to stop but can’t, others might be things you will stop, when you can.
Someone suggest something you would really love to do. You might say I have no time meaning precisely that you simply don’t have the time available. You might add – and this would be a rather strong clue that that is what you are feeling, I would think, that you would really love to do the thing, and you hope to be able to soon, etc. etc.
But let me not ignore the other aspect of your comment – of course many people don’t think taking a course is important at all. Sure. So? What does this tell us? Well, it is hard to say – they don’t like what they see, they just don’t like the idea of it, period… perhaps they think learning more would be painful rather than productive, and so on. The reasons which transcend the case become likely if they don’t look at the case, of course.
“So the question to ask yourself is, what am I doing to cause people to not value the project? What would they value?”
We don’t disagree as much as it might seem – I think this is always a good question, in many forms. We should always try to figure how to do things better. But sometimes the locus of needed change is in what is offered (in this case, say, the courses or concept), sometimes it is how it is offered (the descriptions, etc.), and sometimes it is the circumstances or perhaps even the views, that interfere with people even noticing much less assessing the proposal, regardless of what is offered or how it is offered.
You rightly suggest that in coming up with a project and pursuing it, it is a good idea to iterate it – refining as you proceed taking into account feedback, experience, etc. Absolutely. And since we have just begun, and we are of course doing just that, it isn’t clear why you think the observation is a revelation. It isn’t.
How would one successfully under take the creation of an online course irrelevant of content?
They would create an initial class using free and easy to use techniques (youtube). This is trivial for anyone to do.
This would serve as an example of the content you are trying to provide. You would then send this example to your audience, and ask them for feedback if this is something they’d be interested in.
From there you would iterate the idea using feedback to create something of value that people feel passionate about supporting.
You’d likely use one of the several support functions through youtube to fund the courses, and you’d make them freely available to everyone regardless of support level.
What are you doing? —–
It sounds like you’re doing something similar to the creation of z communications. Building it in a large big bang production, and then appealing to people’s sense of duty to support your project.
People don’t have time for duty. They have time for passion.
500 people. This data point to you means that your audience isn’t supporting you enough, so you lash out to them to tell them why they are wrong.
Now, I don’t have a membership base, or a platform, or an email list. I do not think it would be difficult to beat 500 people using nothing but youtube, and a video camera to teach courses.
Many people do it today for all sorts of topics.
So is the issue really with the userbase, or is the issue with the way you perceive how to solve these problems?
Please understand that I appreciate your work, and you as a thinker, and in no way mean harm by expressing my opinion.