How can we design spaces that enable deep presence and shared thinking, beyond just sharing knowledge?

Initial Question posed in today’s research group:
How might we design environments—physical, social, and informational—that don’t just transmit knowledge, but create the conditions for deep presence, shared processing, and emergent collective intelligence?

Contextual Thread:
This follows from our recent conference reflections on the “well-structured absence of information”—the gaps, pauses, and unscheduled moments where real insight often emerges. How do we hold these spaces with enough form to invite participation, yet enough openness to allow genuine encounter, including with grief, uncertainty, and divergent ways of knowing?

Towards the latter half of the call we focused more on the question or refinement of ‘what we don’t do(/want)’ in these spaces, to help us shape what we do do(/want). Using more traditional conferences and business networking events as our comparison.

Would love to know people’s thoughts and ideas. Here are some of the captures:

:cross_mark: We Don’t Want:

  • Networking without co-creation – leads to superficial connections and “dopamine chasing.”
  • Credential-chasing and extractive relationships.
  • Prescriptive post-networking efforts – lack personalization and adaptability.
  • Overstructured events:
    • Big rooms
    • Long keynotes
    • Packed schedules
    • Lectures
  • Transactional attitudes:
    • “What benefit do you have to me?”
    • Startup/alpha/silicon pitch vibes
  • Overreliance on logic over energy or intuition
  • Disembodied knowledge transfer – without shared presence or relationality.
  • Exclusion of dissent or opposing views
  • Too much gamification – risks “game transfer phenomena”
  • Authoritative, extractive learning styles – “beaten by teachers,” control-driven education.
  • Blind acceptance of status quo models – copying what’s “in” without critical reflection.
  • Strict schedules – that limit space for spontaneity, rest, or deeper reflection.
  • Lack of post-event consolidation or reflection

:white_check_mark: We Want:

  • Co-creation & shared values – like “mycelium nodes”
  • Spaces that invite deep presence, not just knowledge transfer
  • Affinity, learning, and task groups – intentional differentiation of spaces
  • Tents (small, flexible gatherings) – in festivals or firesides
  • Stories over lectures
  • Quiet spaces & talking sticks over mics
  • Invitations over instructions
  • Spaces to breathe – unstructured time, meditation pods, slow pace
  • Room for reflection and emergence
  • Shared significance and relevance – across individual and group lenses
  • Listening & being seen/felt – relational presence
  • Inclusion of opposing perspectives – to embrace complexity
  • Balance between discussing and building – potentially through separate but connected guilds
  • Space for rituals – grounding and meaning-making
  • Post-event integration – to continue the learning and relationships
  • Support for “nudging” purpose discovery – before, during, and after events
  • Emphasis on relationality first – not utility
  • Mindfulness and neuroplasticity – as cultivatable skills
  • Events that feel like life – fluid, emotional, reflective
3 Likes

Thanks for brining forward the great topic @laurenw. I keep coming back to the concept of schismogenesis to create something that stands in contrast to typical conferences. Even if it involves eschewing beneficial technologies. For example, banning microphones. While these allow for effective communication to large groups, the mic gives power to one person. Instead a talking stick creates a limitation on group size, encourages respect for the speaker and the expectation that it be passed. This could be done with business cards. Instead you have to write your contact info on someone’s hand. No formal attire to encourage expressive wear. Another way of differentiating is the flipping of social structures. The attendees create the conference with organizer support. Cooking, cleaning, and contributing are part of the admission. Figures that would typically be keynote speakers would be in listening roles. Limicon did this well where anyone could create a session. Any other conference staples we could play with eliminating or flipping upside down?

1 Like

I’ve recently experimented with this type of structure for IRL lectures/meetups.

  1. The panel or the presenter has exactly 20 minutes to present the topic - so those 20 minutes are their time 100%

  2. The audience asks questions limited to 15 seconds - the presenter responds, again limited to 15 seconds - until everyone who wants to participate has a go. Because of the pace of the discourse - the flow is maintained and the engagement improved. This is strictly - audience to lecturer and other way around, not audience to audience. The emphasis is on being concise and putting forward best insights.

  3. People split up in small groups - everyone’s turn is strictly time-bound, but allows for multiple interactions.

  4. Swap people around. Allow for forming of 1 to 1 breakouts to avoid time limits.

No debating - just dialogos.