Consider all the moments we have walked into a store or browsed some product or service on the internet. All the little calculations we do in our heads to determine if we can afford to make the decision we are about to make. All the data in front of us is saying no, stop, you can afford it, its too expensive, you’ll max out the card, and a whole slew of other reasons. Yet, lit in the appropriate emotional context of the decision, it “feels right”. Therefor what is the final driver that makes us swipe the card, say something we shouldn’t, impress our friends and family, ignore the absolutely rational and all the data telling us to hit the breaks and make the rational choice? Emotion.

With all this data we create and surround ourselves with it has created a false understanding of what makes us ‘tic’ as human beings. The current global understanding or consensus is that with enough data, we can understand the patterns of society. That every step a person takes, or every purchase they make can be predicted. I would contend that this sounds like an assumption of an assumption. We may find that all this data, leads up to a choice that we otherwise would not have taken, but the bombardment and structure of how we market, research, and employ resources forces a false perspective. A false choice. The data, the data! It says this is what we should do! How we should act! So we take these artificial suggestions, extrapolate their significance to a false truth, and put massive amounts of resources behind them all in pursuit of trying to find the simplest of answers.

A false prediction of how we as humans make choices becomes common place. A plethora of data from disparate sources, sources of an uncommon kind stitched, analyzed, parsed, sold, resold, arrayed, rotated, extrapolated and regressed. Yet, someone has to create a better model each time to come closer to the prediction. Closer to the certainty principle. A model marketable enough that says, we know who you are. We have analyzed your rationale. Your trends, habits, and web history so now with that, we would like to offer you this, and suggest to you that. Leaving you with only the choices this structure of society has made available to you. You must make a choice that lacks the fundamental and emotional makeup of who you are. You are left with compromise rather than emotional alignment.

Now how would this data salvage its path of forced choice, poor predictions, and resource waste? It would begin by appreciating the other half of the picture that truly drives all the most important choices we make in this world. It would employ a model that receives information directly from those who generate it, not second hand. It would establish a great weight to the emotional aspect of the data we create and our choice. The model would find coherence in combining rational with the emotional human spirit. Information from the source and by the source. Source Data.

A path of resources would begin to find themselves more organic, meandering like a soft stream that moves with the earth, rather than fights it. Models would become soft, emotional, and flexible rather than rigid and finite. Data becomes Source Data. Our understanding of choice and rationale becomes better understood. Business decisions become more effective and accurate. Now because we are employing data that combines the emotion of the human spirit, this Source Data will be able to solve to most challenging questions we face as a society, and better guide the technology we create to advance ourselves far into our bright future. Where the diversion that we once had of technology from the human spirit, which had its hands on the steering wheel, now shares the driver seat with the oldest driver of choice we know, emotion.

Source Data will help the world turn the corner by making the data we create that much more valuable. With that I leave you with a quote to resonate in your mind.

“I know that most men, including those as ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”