At the risk of talking about AI here two weeks in a row, the most interesting thing for me last week was getting Ollama and Obsidian Copilot working on my laptop.
Ollama's cute logo
Ollama is a way to use open source AI models privately on your local machine - no sending your data anywhere!
Ollama was pretty easy to set up. I was up and running in less than 10 minutes.
What worked: • I loaded the llama3.2 LLM model and could open a chat window in my Obsidian notes. Performance was great. • It was convenient. I can load up Obsidian Copilot next to my Obsidian notes, and it uses the familiar chat interface. • I can use llama3.2 offline and in the terminal window (if I don’t want to use Obsidian).
I'm not sure why a recipe for meatloaf is the prompt that came to my head to show you an example. Although, now that I've done this, I could see it being cool to use in my personal Obsidian vault...
But I hit some issues: • I learned that my Obsidian files aren’t “embedded” (that is, they haven’t been converted into something the AI can make associations with). The Copilot plugin only enables this as a paid for option, which is $10/month - no thanks. I’ve got to figure out how to run the embedding model on my files outside of that plugin and make them available for the LLM. • The llama3.2 model was fine, but is only 3B parameters (2.0GB download). I wanted to try the Deepseek R1 with 70B (43GB download). • When I tried to download the Deepseek R1 model, I effectively shut down Internet in the house for the five hours it took to download - we have Internet from the 90s! 😬 • The Deepseek R1 70B model is a little too beefy for my computer; it runs, but it's not snappy 🐢
I'll keep playing around with this. It's fun to push the envelope on what I can do.
Good luck with your own hobbies and experiments; have a great week! Kevin
A Quote
“
A winning team doesn’t need artificial morale boosting. All the psyching up and rah-rah exercises companies do to raise morale—solving a puzzle, staging scavenger hunts, or holding a talent show—aren’t nearly as effective in engaging people as the satisfaction that comes from executing with excellence a goal that matters.
— Chris McChesney et. al. in "The 4 Disciplines of Execution"
Three Things
1 - 🪟 Johari Window Experiment - A friend of mine shared this dynamic Johari window web app. Johari window is a self-awareness tool. You select five or so adjectives that describe yourself, then send it to others to have them describe you. The result is an interesting 2x2 matrix showing areas of overlap (or not!). This could be a really cool exercise for teams.
2 - 💬 Linguist Answers Questions on Word Origins - A minor fascination of mine is etymology, or the origin of words. Have you ever wondered why we have silent letters in things like “could”? Where did some of our swear words come from? Is there an origin of the word “dog”? Check out this video walking through these and a few more novel etymologies.
3 - 🧛♂️ N0S4A2 - You don’t want to know how long I had gotten into this book before I realized the title was pronounced, “Nosferatu,” as in vampire 🤦 Part of the reason why is that it’s not an in-your-face vampire story, it’s a twist on the old premise. Read the description, and if you’re even moderately interested (and enjoy Stephen King), I suggest giving it a shot.
Deep Dive on Assertive Inquiry
Assertive Inquiry is the act of clearly communicating your own ideas and the reasoning behind them, while also being genuine in inquiring as to the thoughts and reasoning of others.
It’s very closely related to the term you’ve likely heard before, “strong opinions loosely held.” The difference to me is that “strong opinions…” is more passive. It’s a state of being. You’ve got opinions, and you’re holding them…loosely.
Assertive Inquiry is active. You’re standing up to clearly communicate your perspective, and you’re seeking out supplementary and contradictory perspectives, in service of a greater goal or truth.
A useful analogy is to think of it like driving: - Inquiry alone is where you ask questions about where to go, but don’t move. - Assertiveness alone is where you drive without care; possibly going over a closed bridge because you ignored the signs. - Assertive Inquiry is like using Google Maps; you’ve got a destination in mind, and the route adjusts based on conditions.
“The kind of dialogue we wanted to foster is called assertive inquiry. Built on the work of organizational learning theorist Chris Argyris at Harvard Business School, this approach blends the explicit expression of your own thinking (advocacy) with a sincere exploration of the thinking of others (inquiry). In other words, it means clearly articulating your own ideas and sharing the data and reasoning behind them, while genuinely inquiring into the thoughts and reasoning of your peers.”
Assertive Inquiry is a helpful tool when operating in complexity or a fog of uncertainty.
"Well, I'll just sit here and wait for this fog to pass."
The assertiveness is the drive that keeps you moving, while inquiry is a way to keep your feelers out. The more you assert and inquire, the clearer the picture becomes and the more you can speed up.
It’s really effective when everyone on a team can do this! If everyone is just asking questions, you don’t go anywhere. If everyone is just arguing for their perspectives, you’re stuck and not learning. Through Assertive Inquiry everyone keeps refining and aligning their perspectives and making active progress towards their goal.
I drew this over a year ago and it still works 😁
Done effectively, this can also build strong relationships with everyone you work with. Every human wants to be listened to and understood; it’s a strong way to demonstrate care.
Genuine curiosity paired with active listening is one of the best ways to show you value someone.
How do you actually perform Assertive Inquiry? Follow these steps below.
1️⃣ Share Your Perspective Clearly
The first step is to know what you think, not to start talking! That comes in a little bit.
You’ve got to get clear in your own mind how you see the world, what your assumptions are, and any other piece of context for why you think this way. It’s helpful to engage in a little bit of metacognition (thinking about your thinking).
When it’s time to share your perspective, do a few things: - Share your perspective clearly and succinctly (much easier if you thought about it in advance 😁) - Share how you got to your perspective (e.g. the assumptions, data, frameworks, etc.). - Encourage others to explore your view; poke, prod, and challenge constructively.
“The most productive learning usually occurs when managers combine skills in advocacy and inquiry. Another way to say this is “reciprocal inquiry.” By this we mean that everyone makes his or her thinking explicit and subject to public examination. This creates an atmosphere of genuine vulnerability. No one is hiding the evidence or reasoning behind his views—advancing them without making them open to scrutiny.”
Once you’ve got your perspective out in the open, now it’s time to show some empathic curiosity and look into the perspectives of others.
Your goal is to explore how others see the world to benefit from their diversity, not to seek confirming information to reinforce your own.
To do so, keep these points in mind: - Ask open-ended questions that encourage elaboration, not closed yes/no/true/false questions. - Actively pull out perspectives, don’t wait for people to feel comfortable doing so. Call on the quiet folks, too. - Unearth the assumptions and data that drove them to their view. - Be sure to repeat back to the person what you heard so they can confirm you got it right.
That last point is critical when it relates to the relationship-strengthening nature of this work. It’s the best way to ensure someone feels heard because you’re literally speaking their perspective back to them. There’s no ambiguity in whether you heard and understood them or not.
3️⃣ Think Critically
The next step is to put on your skeptic hat and scrutinize everything you just heard.
It’s like in feedback; just because someone gave you information doesn’t mean you must act on it.
Are the assumptions sound? What’s the quality of their source? Are there issues with their data analysis? Are there any other perspectives or issues that haven’t been explored?
Then there’s Ray Dalio’s concept of “believability.” Does the person have the experience and track record that implies you should trust their judgment?
This is the stage where you’re organizing and assessing all the new information.
4️⃣ Use Judgment
Now the hard part; doing something with all this information and assessments.
You’ll have to merge all sorts of factors in deciding what to do next. The various perspectives, the data, the assumptions, the believability, the probabilistic nature of the future - on and on.
Don’t ignore your intuition here! Remember the two systems of the brain; the conscious and active logical processor called System 2 and the subconscious pattern-recognition machine that is System 1.
System 1 is your intuition and how it speaks to you is through those gut feelings. Both systems are relevant; don’t rely on just one or the other, both are there to help you!
Take your rational and intuitive perspectives into a judgment about what to do.
5️⃣ Keep Moving Forward
Lastly, don’t get stuck! It’s easy (and fun?) to get into analysis paralysis. More analysis can be okay, it’s the paralysis part that’s the problem. You don’t want the team to get stuck.
it is important to keep moving forward. Close out meetings or interactions with the language of action.
Examples could be: - I suggest we do a two week A/B experiment with our target segment to determine which change is more effective. - I recommend we exclude that feature from the scope of the first release. - We need a market analysis on this area to know how to move forward. By when can you get that done?
Where does it go poorly?
Assertive Inquiry is a skill, and there are times when it might not go well. Here are a few things to watch out for.
Arguing your point against someone who is similarly arguing their point If all you do is stop at arguing your perspective, you’re just going to invite people to argue just as vociferously against you.
You’ll be like a North-going Zax and a South-going Zax (video below, adapted from a Dr. Seuss short story). You’ll argue and argue while the world passes you by.
“For me, the first stage was learning how to inquire into others’ views when I do not agree with them. My habitual response to such disagreements was to advocate my view harder. Usually, this was done without malice but in the genuine belief that I had thought things through and had a valid position. Unfortunately, it often had the consequence of polarizing or terminating discussions, and left me without the sense of partnership I truly wanted.”
Insufficient psychological safety (catch up on the psychological safety series here, here, and here)
If there’s not enough safety in the environment, you won’t get much out of seeking other perspectives; you’re likely to hear versions of your own perspective parroted back to you.
Constructive inquiry requires the two highest levels of psychological safety; contributor safety and challenger safety.
Keep working on psychological safety as it’s foundational to a lot of the other techniques you’ll want to leverage as a leader.
Immature staff This is the other side of the psychological safety coin; there’s work on the part of the people around you. Even if you’ve miraculously been perfect in creating psychological safety, sometimes you’ll have members of your team who are not ready to engage in the intellectual friction of idea debate.
It’s like when the German owners of Homer Simpson’s nuclear plant wanted to talk with him, he ran out screaming even though they were being perfectly polite!
Not all questions are curious This last one is for you; pay attention to how you’re inquiring of others. Is your question really curious, or are you asking closed questions seeking confirmation of your own beliefs?
For example, there’s the verbal tic of saying “right?” at the end of a sentence. That’s a question, but it’s not curious.
Another example sounds like, “Don’t you think we should…” That’s a yes/no closed question seeking confirmation - a question, but not curious.
“Bosses try to be compelling, not curious. They ask leading and self-affirming questions. They suppress dissent and push for consensus. This is not collaboration. This is all coercion disguised as collaboration.”
Give some of these techniques a try this week! I’m sure you’ve got some complexity or fog going on, so bring clarity and a path forward by trying out some assertive inquiry.
You can practice getting clear on your own thinking. You can practice articulating your perspective clearly. You can practice gathering other perspectives. You can practice thinking critically about new information.
Let me know if you have questions about this, or want to share your experience with this - I always love hearing from you. Email me at heykev@kevinnoble.xyz.
