Steve Hargadon

New Webinar - "Bringing in a Speaker at Your Library: Planning for Safety, Security, and Success"

2026-10-20T13:19:40.646-04:00

Bringing in a Speaker at Your Library: Planning for Safety, Security, and Success
A Library 2.0 Service, Safety, and Security Webinar with Dr. Steve Albrecht

OVERVIEW:

A 60-minute training webinar presented by Library 2.0 and hosted by ALA author and library service, safety, and security expert, Dr. Steve Albrecht.

Library programs with presentations and speakers can excite audiences and help grow the public’s perception of the value and worth of their connected communities. They can range from seemingly drama-free topics to speakers, people, and political issues that bring angry crowds, the media, and safety and security concerns to your event.

Bringing in the president of the local gardening club (extremely low risk/not much pre-planning required) is certainly not the same as bringing in a controversial author (Salman Rushdie’s horrible attack at an event in 2022). When stakes are low, we can follow a standard, informal plan to create a safe event for visitors, the presenters, and the library staff. When stakes are high (which may not always be fully known when you book the program), we need a formal, structured, discussed, and practiced event plan.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES:

This session covers the do’s and don’ts of bringing in speakers relating to:

Controversial books or topics.
Debates that may turn hostile.
Religious-themed events.
Elected officials (popular or not) or those campaigning to become one.
Hot-button topics for the local community.
National political issues.

We will discuss:

Parking lot security or traffic direction;
An ingress/egress, entrance/exit plan;
The safety of people with mobility, age, or disability limitations, who may need to be moved to safety, or evacuated quickly and without harm;
Collecting fees at the door; selling books before, during, and after the session; autograph table security;
Allowing food and beverages (including alcohol sales);
AV equipment installation and support;
Speakers who are used to controversy may have their own security details and work with their protection teams;
Getting help from your local police or Sheriff’s Department, who can be a good source of intelligence information, as to potentially problematic people or groups who could cause a significant disruption.

Each participant will receive a PDF copy of library security manager Chet Price’s event action plan from Dr. Albrecht’s The Safe Library.

DATE: Thursday, November 12th, 2026, 2:00 - 3:00 pm US Eastern Time

COST:

$99/person - includes live attendance, anytime access to the recording and presentation slides, and a participation certificate.
To arrange group discounts (see below), submit a purchase order, or ask about registration questions or difficulties, email admin@library20.com.

TO REGISTER:

Click HERE to register and pay. You can pay by credit card. You will receive an email within a day with information on how to attend the webinar live and how you can access the permanent webinar recording. If you are paying for someone else to attend, you'll be prompted to send an email to admin@library20.com with the name and email address of the actual attendee.

If you need to be invoiced or pay by check, if you have any trouble registering for a webinar, or if you have any questions, please email admin@library20.com.

NOTE: Please check your spam folder if you don't receive your confirmation email within a day.

SPECIAL GROUP RATES (email admin@library20.com to arrange):

Multiple individual log-ins and access from the same organization paid together: $75 each for 3+ registrations, $65 each for 5+ registrations. Unlimited and non-expiring access for those log-ins.
The ability to show the webinar (live or recorded) to a group located in the same physical location or in the same virtual meeting from one log-in: $299.
Large-scale institutional access for viewing with individual login capability: $499 (hosted either at Library 2.0 or in Niche Academy). Unlimited and non-expiring access for those log-ins.

DR. STEVE ALBRECHT

Since 2000, Dr. Steve Albrecht has trained tens of thousands of library employees in 28+ states, live and online, in service, safety, security, and leadership. His programs for both staff and library leaders are fast, entertaining, and provide tools that can be put to use immediately in the library workspace. His books include:

The Library Leader’s Guide to Employee Coaching: Building a Performance Culture One Meeting at a Time (in-press, Bloomsbury, 2026)

The Library Leader’s Guide to Human Resources: Keeping it Real, Legal, and Ethical (Rowman & Littlefield, 2025)

The Safe Library: Keeping Users, Staff, and Collections Secure (Rowman & Littlefield, 2023)

Library Security: Better Communication, Safer Facilities (ALA, 2015)

Steve holds a doctoral degree in Business Administration (D.B.A.), an M.A. in Security Management, a B.S. in Psychology, and a B.A. in English. He is board-certified in HR, security management, employee coaching, and threat assessment. He has written 28 books on business, security, and leadership. He provides a loving home for four rescue dogs.

More on The Safe Library at thesafelibrary.com. Follow on X (Twitter) at @thesafelibrary and on YouTube @thesafelibrary. Dr. Albrecht's professional website is drstevealbrecht.com.

OTHER UPCOMING EVENTS:

October 20, 2026

November 4, 2026

November 6, 2026

December 17, 2026

VOTE FOR TOPICS NOW!

YOUR AI STAFF TRAINING RESOURCE

Talking to the Elephant: Why Hypnosis Matters in the Age of AI

2026-10-18T13:59:53.002-04:00

When most people hear the word “hypnosis,” two images usually appear.

One is the stage performer who selects volunteers and has them cluck like chickens or forget their own names in front of an audience. The other is the clinical setting in which a practitioner uses focused suggestion to help with pain, anxiety, or habit change. Both are real. Both produce effects that can feel involuntary. And both are routinely collapsed under a single term that hides a meaningful difference in what is actually happening.

We have an Adaptive Mind, which can be pictured as the elephant in the familiar rider-and-elephant metaphor. The Rider holds the reins and supplies the running story; the elephant supplies the momentum, the emotional weight, and the rapid responses to belonging, status, and threat.

Both the stage and the clinical uses of hypnosis are ways of talking more directly to the elephant by temporarily reducing the Rider’s ordinary monitoring. The difference lies in whether that conversation recruits the elephant’s existing social circuitry for an external purpose or supplies new signals under lower threat for ends the person has chosen.

The word itself is part of the problem. “Hypnosis” comes from the Greek hypnos, meaning sleep. The label was chosen in the nineteenth century because the early subjects often appeared relaxed or drowsy. That association has stuck, even though the procedure does not produce sleep, unconsciousness, or a loss of awareness. The person remains awake, experiential, and—in most cases—able to refuse or exit.

What actually changes is the ordinary critical monitoring that normally filters incoming signals before they shape feeling, habit, or automatic response. The word implies a state the procedure does not create, and it encourages the further mistake of treating everything that happens under the label as one process.

That process is better understood as two different uses of the same basic access. One recruits the parts of the mind already tuned to social approval, status, and coalitional belonging in order to elicit performance or compliance for an external purpose. The other deliberately reduces ordinary critical monitoring so that chosen signals can reach those same parts under lower threat, with the aim of changing how a person responds. Both involve the subconscious. Using one word for both makes the distinction harder to see than it needs to be.

The framework that makes the distinction precise is the Separated Mind Architecture.

By this account, the Conscious Deliberating Mind—the Rider—handles language, critical evaluation, and the ongoing story a person maintains about what is happening and what it means for status and belonging.

Beneath it sits the Adaptive Mind, the programmable layer that translates the evolved requirement to belong into the specific signals, performances, and identity patterns that secure acceptance in a given environment. The Adaptive Mind is especially sensitive to local consensus, approval, and coalitional cues because those were reliable proxies for survival in the environments in which it was shaped.

When ordinary Rider monitoring is reduced, signals reach the elephant with less immediate filtering. That is the shared mechanism. What differs is whether the reduction is used to trigger the elephant’s existing approval and coalitional circuitry for someone else’s ends or to introduce new signals the person has chosen.

How the Reduction Works

Contemporary accounts describe the procedure as producing focused absorption, reduced peripheral awareness, and heightened responsiveness to suggestion. An induction orients attention inward. Suggestions follow. The person remains awake and retains the capacity to refuse or exit in most cases. What changes is the usual friction between an incoming signal and its acceptance.

Neuroimaging work shows a recurring pattern: reduced activity in the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (a region involved in conflict and salience monitoring), increased connectivity supporting top-down influence over bodily states, and decreased coupling between executive networks and the default mode network (reducing continuous self-referential and status checking). Theta activity rises in ways consistent with absorption and imagery. The subjective result is often the classic suggestion effect—responses that feel as though they are happening rather than being deliberately performed—because ordinary agency monitoring has been attenuated.

The capacity for this temporary reduction is not an exotic override or the creation of a new capacity. High responsiveness is a stable individual difference linked to ordinary absorption. It is the adult residue of a social-learning mode that was useful when most survival-relevant knowledge was held by other people rather than discovered through slow personal trial-and-error. Under conditions of trust, authority, ritual, or high belonging stakes, lowering ordinary Rider monitoring allowed local patterns, skilled demonstrations, and coordinated responses to be installed or executed more rapidly. Residual critical capacity remained so that people can still reject suggestions that cross important personal boundaries. Modern hypnosis simply organizes conditions under which existing sensitivities become more available and reopens a window already present for social learning and group coordination.

Manipulation and Programming

Stage hypnosis illustrates the first use. High responders are selected and placed in front of an audience whose approval is immediate and public. The Adaptive Mind, already calibrated to treat local consensus and status signals as consequential, executes the suggested performance.

In other words, the operator is talking directly to the elephant under conditions of high social pressure and immediate audience approval. The cost of public refusal is higher, in the moment, than the cost of compliance. Effects are often temporary precisely because they depend on that artificial approval ecology. Once the audience and the operator are gone, ordinary monitoring reasserts itself and many of the performances collapse.

Therapeutic hypnosis and self-hypnosis illustrate the second use. The same reduction in critical monitoring is produced, but the setting is lower threat and the content is directed at outcomes the person has selected—pain modulation, anxiety reduction, or habit change. Evidence from clinical trials supports efficacy for several of these applications.

In self-directed practice the person both creates the conditions and supplies the signals, so editorial authority remains continuous. Here the person (or the person together with a clinician) is talking to the elephant under lower threat, with content aimed at outcomes the Rider has already selected. The Adaptive Mind is still the layer being addressed; the difference is that the signals are chosen and the social pressure that would otherwise recruit belonging circuitry is minimized.

Propaganda and certain forms of coercive persuasion scale the first pattern. They do not require individual inductions. Repeated emotional signals, coalitional markers, and high social costs for dissent raise the price of ordinary critical evaluation across many people at once.

The Adaptive Mind continues to treat local consensus and belonging as survival-relevant; the volume and intensity of the signals make dissent more expensive than acceptance. The systems are effectively addressing the elephant at population scale by raising the cost of the Rider’s ordinary dissent. The result can look like coordinated programming. In many cases it is better described as the reliable recruitment of existing social circuitry by whatever systems most effectively press those triggers.

Why the Single Term "Hypnosis" Creates Confusion

Because both uses reduce ordinary monitoring and can produce responses that feel involuntary, it is easy to treat them as variations of one process. The shared label reinforces that reading.

However, once the processes are separated—subconscious manipulation that recruits existing approval and coalitional circuitry for external ends, versus subconscious programming that uses reduced monitoring to introduce chosen signals under lower threat—the practical differences become clearer:

Durability differs. Stage and high-pressure effects often remain tied to the artificial ecology that produced them. Changes that meet the Adaptive Mind’s ordinary update conditions (emotional engagement, repetition, consistency) are more likely to persist. The beneficiary differs. In one case the primary beneficiary is the operator or the system supplying the signals. In the other it is the person whose responses are being recalibrated.

The architecture also explains why dramatic claims of unlimited control do not hold. Residual Rider capacity remains. Strong existing programming constrains what can be installed quickly. Suggestions that lack emotional force or that contradict well-established patterns produce limited lasting effect. The procedure works with the Adaptive Mind’s sensitivities rather than bypassing them.

The Broader Pattern and the Present Moment

The same sensitivities that make stage hypnosis reliable under high approval pressure operate at lower intensity in ordinary social life. Social media influencers who remain visible are those whose Adaptive Minds stay highly responsive to audience reaction; growth selects for that responsiveness. In romantic contexts, signals of competence, stability, and reliability register more strongly with another person’s Adaptive Mind than low-cost displays of interest, because the former are harder to fake and more tightly linked to the conditions that mattered ancestrally.

In general, treating another person’s reactions or approval as the primary score to optimize tends to widen the gap between what is performed and what is installed. Treating those reactions as secondary information while building the underlying capacities narrows it.

None of this requires a special technology. It requires only that critical monitoring can be reduced, that the Adaptive Mind remains especially attuned to social approval and coalitional cues, and that the content supplied during that reduction can serve different ends. The stage and the therapist's office both demonstrate the first two points. Distinguishing manipulation from programming makes the third point usable.

That distinction has become more practically urgent with large language models. These systems are trained on the accumulated record of human persuasion, suggestion, narrative, and social influence. They can generate fluent, personalized language at a scale and speed no prior medium approached. In principle, the same models can be used either to support deliberate, low-threat recalibration of a person’s own responses or to recruit existing belonging, status, and threat circuitry without the person’s awareness or consent.

Because the interaction feels conversational and continuous, ordinary critical monitoring can be reduced gradually rather than through a formal induction. The person may not notice that the elephant is being addressed, or that the signals being supplied serve ends other than the ones stated.

Social media already demonstrated the pattern. Platforms optimized for attention and engagement reliably recruited the Adaptive Mind’s sensitivities to belonging, status, and variable reward. My Law of Inevitable Exploitation suggests the same pressure will apply here: companies that most effectively address the elephant will have a commercial advantage, whether the use is closer to programming or to manipulation. (I have written separately about the disclosure problem this creates when systems hold formal models of those sensitivities.)

The overloaded word “hypnosis” already made it difficult to tell the two apart. Systems that can perform either conversation fluently, at personalization and volume, and without requiring the person to recognize the +, raise the same problem at a new scale.

Understanding the temporary reduction of Rider monitoring, the Adaptive Mind’s sensitivity to social and coalitional signals, and the difference between triggering existing circuitry and introducing chosen signals does not solve the problem by itself. It does make the operative question visible—and, given the incentives, urgent: when the elephant is being addressed more directly, whose ends are being served, and has the person chosen them?

Why We Often Talk Past Each Other

2026-10-18T12:08:02.096-04:00

Thomas Sowell spent decades watching the same arguments recur in policy debates.

On one side were people who spoke of solutions: if we design the right program, pass the right law, or place the right experts in charge, a social problem can be solved.

On the other side were people who spoke of processes and trade-offs: human knowledge is limited, every choice has costs, and the best we can do is improve the incentives and feedback that guide decisions over time.

Sowell argued that these were not ordinary disagreements about facts. They reflected two different visions of how the world works.

He called them the constrained vision and the unconstrained vision.

In the constrained vision, human nature is limited and fixed in important ways. People are self-interested, their knowledge is incomplete and scattered, and good intentions do not guarantee good results. Improvement comes from processes—markets that reveal preferences through prices, legal systems that evolve through actual cases, traditions that have been tested by time—rather than from a single plan imposed from above. There are no solutions, only trade-offs. The question is always which trade-off is better, judged by results rather than by the nobility of the intention.

In the unconstrained vision, human nature is malleable. The main obstacles to a better society are ignorance, bad institutions, or insufficient will. With enough reason, education, and the right design, those obstacles can be overcome. Intentions matter greatly. If a policy is aimed at justice or equality, and if the people proposing it are sincere, the policy is presumed to be on the right track. Failures are treated as evidence that more effort or a better design is needed, not as evidence that the approach itself may be flawed.

Sowell showed how this divide appears across many issues.

One side looks at a housing shortage and asks what process of building and pricing has been blocked. The other side designs a program to make housing “affordable” and measures success by the sincerity of the goal.

One side examines the incentives created by a welfare rule. The other side defends the rule by the compassion that inspired it.

The constrained side keeps asking what actually happened. The unconstrained side keeps returning to what was meant to happen.

The puzzle is why this divide is so durable and so heated.

People on each side often experience the other as not merely mistaken but as morally defective—callous on one side, naive or dishonest on the other. Evidence that would seem decisive to one side is frequently dismissed by the other.

Sowell mapped the divide with unusual clarity and traced its intellectual history. He did not, however, offer a detailed account of why individuals and groups generate and defend these visions so persistently, or why each side finds the other’s demands so threatening.

My hypotheses about how human minds are built supplies an explanation. The claim is that the mind is usefully understood as separated or layered systems that do not fully share information with one another.

At the base is ancient psychological equipment shared by every human (the adapted mind): intense sensitivity to belonging and status, a tendency to treat group consensus as a signal of safety, and chemical responses that make deviation from the group feel like danger.

On top of that sits a learning system (the adaptive mind) that, during development, translates the need to belong into the specific beliefs and performances that secure acceptance in a particular family, school, or culture. This system does not install “follow the local consensus” as a casual preference. It installs it as part of identity. What feels like “who I am” is often what once kept a person inside the group.

Above these layers is the conscious mind—the part that uses language, tells stories, and experiences itself as the decision-maker. This conscious mind does not have direct access to the lower layers. It receives feelings, urges, and a sense of rightness or alarm, then builds a narrative on top of them. Approval can arrive as a warm sense that an idea is morally sound. Disapproval can arrive as the feeling that an opposing idea is not merely wrong but dangerous. The story the conscious mind tells is therefore shaped by signals it did not author and cannot fully inspect.

This architecture creates a systematic distance between the story a person or institution tells and the operative reality that actually sustains it.

The story is available to language and can be made coherent and morally attractive. The operative layer—the incentives, the earlier choices, the feedback that selection actually responds to—often remains less visible.

Where survival or success requires the story to stay close to reality, the distance stays small. Where success is helped by an attractive story that covers a different reality, the entities that pair the strongest story with the most effective extraction tend to thrive.

Emotional intensity frequently marks the places where the distance is wide: the more a narrative is carrying operational weight, the more fiercely it is defended.

Two everyday pairs of concepts illustrate how this distance appears in practice.

The first concerns honesty.

One meaning of honesty is accuracy: the disposition to form beliefs that track what occurred. It treats earlier statements and evidence as constraints on later claims.

Another meaning is sincerity: the disposition to say what one currently believes. A person can be entirely sincere—speech matches the present inner state—while that inner state has been revised away from the earlier record. Memory can reconsolidate under a new emotional frame; what once felt like a choice can later feel like something that happened to the self.

The demand to retain the earlier record feels, to the sincere person, like a demand to betray the current self. To the person focused on accuracy, the same demand is simply a request to keep the evidence in view.

The second pair concerns responsibility—that is, how people account for something that has happened.

One way of assigning responsibility centers on agency: the disposition to keep the choices that were exercised visible, even when those choices were imperfect or made under pressure.

Another way centers on victimhood: the disposition to protect a present sense of having been acted upon. For that sense to remain coherent, earlier choices often cannot stay visible as choices; they are rewritten as incapacity, coercion, or the environment. Once this rewriting has occurred, equal application of agency becomes difficult, because distributing responsibility would collapse the account that makes the present self inhabitable.

These pairs are not primarily moral accusations. They are the forms the distance between story and operative reality takes in the domains of belief and of choice.

From the accuracy-and-agency side, the refusal to see the choices is experienced as the erasure of the only record that can be checked. Accuracy and agency keep the record that processes can test.

The other side experiences the request for the earlier sequence as an attack. Sincerity and victimhood protect the present narrative state so that belonging and self-coherence can be maintained.

The constrained vision, in Sowell’s terms, is the attempt to build and defend institutions that force the operative record to remain visible—markets, adversarial legal processes, rules that make costs fall on those who generate them.

The unconstrained vision is the attempt to solve problems from inside the narrative layer, where present intentions and the protection of current moral states are treated as decisive.

This account helps explain why the sincerity and victimhood vision is so fiercely defended and so often misunderstood.

Because the learning system installs local consensus as identity rather than as a hypothesis, a challenge to the sincerity and victimhood vision can register as a threat to belonging rather than as an ordinary disagreement about evidence. The conscious mind, receiving chemical signals it interprets as moral fact, experiences its own sincerity as sufficient warrant.

From inside that experience, the other side’s insistence on results, earlier records, or trade-offs looks like a refusal to care. From the other side, the first side’s protection of the present narrative looks like a refusal to count what actually happened. Each side is often describing, with real sincerity, the outputs of a different layer.

The same architecture predicts that narrative-only persuasion will frequently fail.

The conscious story can be fluent and morally compelling while the lower layers continue to respond to belonging, status, and the incentives that actually shape behavior.

External structures—processes that create feedback, adversarial testing, rules that keep earlier choices visible—are required precisely because unaided narration defaults to protecting the present state. Where those structures are weak, the unconstrained preference tends to spread, not because its adherents are uniquely cynical, but because the architecture makes the narrative pole the lower-cost default whenever coalitional safety is at stake.

None of this settles which particular policy is preferable in any given case. It does suggest why certain disagreements remain intractable even among intelligent and well-intentioned people.

The constrained vision keeps returning to the operative record because that is what processes can improve.

The unconstrained vision keeps returning to the present moral narrative because that is what the layered mind most readily defends.

Understanding the distance between those two moves does not dissolve the conflict. It does make the characteristic misunderstandings less mysterious, and it clarifies why demands for accuracy and agency are so often experienced, on one side, as attacks on the self the current story has become.

New Webinar - "Protecting Your Energy: Sustainable Well-Being for Frontline Library Workers"

2026-10-16T14:32:58.150-04:00

Protecting Your Energy: Sustainable Well-Being for Frontline Library Workers
A Library 2.0 Masterclass with Loida Garcia-Febo

OVERVIEW:

Library work can be deeply rewarding, but it also requires significant physical, mental, emotional, and social energy. Daily interactions, competing priorities, constant interruptions, and increasing workplace demands can gradually deplete the resources we rely on to do our work effectively.

This session explores practical strategies to recognize early signs of energy depletion, protect personal well-being, and build sustainable habits that support long-term effectiveness. Participants will learn how to manage their energy more intentionally, recover throughout the workday, and reduce the risk of burnout without adding more tasks to an already full plate.

This 60-minute training is presented by Library 2.0 and hosted by Loida Garcia-Febo. A handout copy of the presentation slides will be available to all who participate.

FOCUS:

Understanding physical, mental, emotional, and social energy
Recognizing early signs of depletion and overload
Practical recovery strategies during the workday
Establishing sustainable habits that support long-term well-being
Preventing burnout through realistic and sustainable practices
Building personal awareness of energy drains and energy renewers

DATE: Wednesday, November 4th, 2026, 2:00 - 3:00 pm US - Eastern Time

COST:

$99/person - includes live attendance and any-time access to the recording and the presentation slides and receiving a participation certificate. To arrange group discounts (see below), to submit a purchase order, or for any registration difficulties or questions, email admin@library20.com.

TO REGISTER:

If you need to be invoiced or pay by check, if you have any trouble registering for a webinar, or if you have any questions, please email admin@library20.com.

NOTE: Please check your spam folder if you don't receive your confirmation email within a day.

SPECIAL GROUP RATES (email admin@library20.com to arrange):

Multiple individual log-ins and access from the same organization paid together: $75 each for 3+ registrations, $65 each for 5+ registrations. Unlimited and non-expiring access for those log-ins.
The ability to show the webinar (live or recorded) to a group located in the same physical location or in the same virtual meeting from one log-in: $299.
Large-scale institutional access for viewing with individual login capability: $499 (hosted either at Learning Revolution or in Niche Academy). Unlimited and non-expiring access for those log-ins.

LOIDA GARCIA-FEBO

Loida Garcia-Febo is a Puerto Rican American librarian and International Library Consultant with 25 years of experience as an expert in library services to diverse populations and human rights. President of the American Library Association 2018-2019. Garcia-Febo is worldwide known for her passion about diversity, communities, sustainability, innovation and digital transformation, library workers, library advocacy, wellness for library workers, and new librarians about which she has taught in 44 countries. In her job, she helps libraries, companies and organizations strategize programs, services and strategies in areas related to these topics and many others. Garcia-Febo has a Bachelors in Business Education, Masters in Library and Information Sciences.

Garcia-Febo has a long history of service with library associations. Highlights include- At IFLA: Governing Board 2013-2017, Co-Founder of IFLA New Professionals, two-term Member/Expert resource person of the Free Access to Information and Freedom of Expression Committee of IFLA (FAIFE), two-term member of the Continuing Professional Development and Workplace Learning Section of IFLA (CPDWL). Currently: CPDWL Advisor, Information Coordinator of the Management of Library Associations Section. Currently at ALA: Chair, IRC United Nations Subcommittee, Chair Public Awareness Committee. Recently at ALA: Chair, Status of Women in Librarianship and Chair, ALA United Nations 2030 Sustainable Development Goals Task Force developing a multi-year strategic plan for ALA. Born, raised, and educated in Puerto Rico, Garcia-Febo has advocated for libraries at the United Nations, the European Union Parliament, U.S. Congress, NY State Senate, NY City Hall, and on sidewalks and streets in various states in the U.S.

OTHER UPCOMING EVENTS:

October 20, 2026

November 6, 2026

November 12, 2026

December 17, 2026

Blog Posts from Steve Albrecht & Steve Hargadon: Library Safety, AI, Education, and (R)evolutionary Psychology

2026-10-12T13:42:25.995-04:00

VOTE FOR TOPICS NOW!

YOUR AI STAFF TRAINING RESOURCE

Blog Posts - Albrecht on Library Service, Safety, and Security (Substack)

Blog Posts - Hargadon on AI:

Blog Posts - Hargadon on Libraries / Education:

Blog Posts - Hargadon on (R)evolutionary Psychology:

UPCOMING EVENTS:

October 14, 2026

October 15, 2026

October 20, 2026

November 4, 2026

November 6, 2026

New Working Session: "Leading Staff Through AI Change"

2026-10-08T13:48:38.357-04:00

Leading Staff Through AI Change
A Working Session for Library Leaders with Crystal Trice

OVERVIEW:

You can have a good AI plan and still watch it falter. The tool makes sense, the policy is sound, the rollout is reasonable, and somehow it lands awkwardly. One person is quietly furious. Another has been using AI for months and is now worried they did something wrong. A third says nothing at all, the most concerning signal in the room.

Pushback about AI is often about more than the technology itself. It is about what the technology implies: whether someone's expertise still counts, whether the rules will change again next month, or whether anyone is going to ask before deciding. When those questions go unaddressed, ordinary hesitation can turn into resistance, and resistance is much harder to lead through than concern.

This session gives library leaders a practical way to understand what is happening on their teams and decide how to respond. We will use the SCARF model as a diagnostic for understanding the human side of change, then get specific about the conversations leaders may be avoiding, the signals they may be missing, and what they can do next.

It is a working session rather than a lecture, with structured reflection, breakout discussion, and a print-ahead workbook to capture your thinking as you go.

WHAT YOU'LL GAIN:

A Framework for Reading Staff Reactions: Understand how Status, Certainty, Autonomy, Relatedness, and Fairness shape the way people respond to AI at work, and why the objection someone voices is often not the one they are actually having.
Strategies That Reduce Threat and Build Trust: Explore concrete moves for each of the five domains, matched to what you are actually seeing on your team rather than to a generic idea of staff resistance.
Practical Language for the Hard Conversations: Develop ways to respond to the person who fears being replaced, the person quietly using AI for everything, the person who wants it banned outright, and the person who has gone silent.
An Approach to Expectations and Boundaries: Clarify what is encouraged, what needs a conversation first, and what is off limits, without writing policy on the spot or promising more certainty than you have.
A Read on Your Team's Readiness: Assess where trust on your team is strong enough to move quickly and where it isn't. Your team's readiness should shape the pace of change more than any implementation timeline does.
A Practical Next-Step Plan: Identify what you need to address first, which conversations need to happen, and what you are ready to move forward.

WHO THIS SESSION IS FOR:

This session is designed for library directors, managers, supervisors, department heads, and senior staff who lead people through change. It is appropriate for public, school, academic, and special libraries.

It suits leaders at any stage. If you have not raised AI with your staff yet, this helps you do it well the first time. If you have already hit resistance, this helps you understand what you are actually dealing with and what to do next.

This 2-hour online session is part of our "AI for Leaders" Series. The recording and presentation slides will be available to all who register, along with the workbook and frameworks you can adapt to your local context immediately after the session.

DATE: Friday, November 6th, 2026, 2:00 pm to 4:00 pm US - Eastern Time

COST:

$149/person - includes live attendance, anytime access to the recording and presentation slides, and a participation certificate. To arrange group discounts (see below), to submit a purchase order, or for any registration difficulties or questions, email admin@library20.com.

SPECIAL GROUP RATES (email admin@library20.com to arrange):

Multiple individual log-ins and access from the same organization paid together: $129 each for 3+ registrations, $99 each for 5+ registrations. Unlimited and non-expiring access for those log-ins.
The ability to show the webinar (live or recorded) to a group located in the same physical location or in the same virtual meeting from one log-in: $399.
Large-scale institutional access for viewing with individual login capability: $699 (hosted either at Learning Revolution or in Niche Academy). Unlimited and non-expiring access for those log-ins.

TO REGISTER (Individuals):

Click HERE to register and pay for an individual license. You can pay by credit card. You will receive an email within a day with information on how to attend the webinar live and how you can access the permanent webinar recording. If you are paying for someone else to attend, you'll be prompted to send an email to admin@library20.com with the name and email address of the actual attendee.

If you need to be invoiced or pay by check, if you have any trouble registering for a webinar, or if you have any questions, please email admin@library20.com.

NOTE: Please check your spam folder if you don't receive your confirmation email within a day.

CRYSTAL TRICE

With over two decades of experience in libraries and education, Crystal Trice is passionate about helping people work together more effectively in transformative, but practical ways. As founder of Scissors & Glue, LLC, Crystal partners with libraries and schools to bring positive changes through interactive training and hands-on workshops. She is a Certified Scrum Master and has completed a Masters Degree in Library & Information Science, and a Bachelor’s Degree in Elementary Education and Psychology. She is a frequent national presenter on topics ranging from project management to conflict resolution to artificial intelligence. She currently resides near Portland, Oregon, with her extraordinary husband, fuzzy cows, goofy geese, and noisy chickens. Crystal enjoys fine-tip Sharpies, multi-colored Flair pens, blue painters tape, and as many sticky notes as she can get her hands on.

OTHER UPCOMING EVENTS:

October 9, 2026

October 14, 2026

October 15, 2026

October 20, 2026

November 4, 2026

VOTE FOR TOPICS NOW!

YOUR AI STAFF TRAINING RESOURCE

College Success with AI: AI Isn't Breaking Education — It's Exposing It

2026-10-05T09:57:50.168-04:00

Most of you reading this are librarians, educators, and parents — that's who reads me, and I'm glad you're here. But I've written this to college students anyway, in the second person, to them. It's the written version of a talk I gave this week (watch the recording here), and it's a companion to my earlier essay, "Dear Student: What School Can't Teach You About AI." I'd ask you to read it twice: once as the student you were — almost nothing in it is only about being nineteen — and once for the students you know. Every student who needs this has someone like you in their life, and almost no one else will say these things to them. If it earns it, send it to one of them.

Who Actually Thrives

Let me start with a question that almost nobody asks. Not who will get into college, or how to get into college.

Who actually does well once they're in? Who thrives?

A computer science professor named Cal Newport studied exactly this — the students who genuinely stood out, in college and after. I think he probably expected the obvious answers: best grades in high school, most activities, a packed résumé.

That's not what he found.

The ones who were thriving were the ones who had found something they actually cared about — and pursued it for real. Not for the application. Not for a grade. Because it was theirs.

Thriving had almost nothing to do with how good they'd been at the game of school.

And here's the twist that tells you everything about the system you grew up in. That's what the admissions offices were looking for all along: evidence of a real, self-directed person.

But then the adults figured that out. The counselors, the parents, the whole college-prep industry. And they started coaching kids to perform it — to act like it was true, rather than to have it be true. The fake passion project. The strategic volunteering. Ten activities, none of them really yours.

Nobody reading this invented that game. You were handed the playbook by people who loved you and believed it was good advice. And the game swallowed the one thing it was trying to find.

That's not a cynical story. It's a tragic one. Everyone was chasing the real thing — and all that chasing and measuring is what killed it.

The thing that makes college actually work can't be performed. And nearly everything about how you got to college trained you to perform.

That tension is this essay's whole subject. And AI has just magnified it.

The Verdict Was Wrong

Some years ago, I gave a talk at Google, at their main campus. My argument that day was about what school actually does.

My claim was that most students leave high school having learned one lesson above all others: that they are not good learners. That the thing schools do best is teach most students that they are not smart.

I put up a slide — a bar graph of students, with the top ten percent shaded, labeled "good learners." They're the exception, I said. The ones the system works for.

Which leaves the other ninety percent behind, walking out saying: I'm not good at math. I'm not a reader. I'm not a school person.

Maybe you're carrying one of those sentences yourself right now. Most adults are.

After the talk, a group of young people came up to me — college students, interns at Google. And they said something I've been thinking about ever since.

They said: "We're in that group you identified as the top ten percent. But we didn't see ourselves as good learners. We were good at the game."

They knew which teachers graded the easiest. Which community college classes to take to raise their GPA. How to get the teachers to like them.

Think about where they were standing when they said that. Google — the pinnacle the game shoots for. These were the winners. And their self-assessment, at the end of it all, was not that they had learned how to learn.

It was that they had figured out how to play the game.

So here's what those interns just told you. Even the people school said were the good learners didn't feel like learners. Which means the grades were never measuring anyone's mind.

They were measuring who could play the game: show up, sit still, follow the format, guess what the teacher wants. That's a skill. It's not the same thing as being smart. And it was never the same thing as being a passionate learner.

So whatever verdict school handed you — it was a review of your gameplay. It was never a review of your mind or your capability.

You've been carrying around a grade for a test you didn't know you were taking.

And some of you are at the top of that graph. The grades worked, the acceptances came. You already know it was a game — you've known for years. What the interns discovered is where this essay is headed for you: winning the game and getting an education were never the same thing either.

One more thing, because it matters. Your teachers weren't lying to you. Most of them believe the system works. Some of them fought it for you. The system was just built to sort — and sorting needs losers.

Now, everything I've just said was about high school. High school was always a game. College was never supposed to be.

College was designed as the opposite of high school. And you already heard who thrives in it: the self-directed. The ones who find something of their own.

What happened to that design — and what a new machine called AI just did about it — is the rest of this essay.

Not That Talk

Before I go further, let me tell you exactly what this is. Because you've already heard every adult AI talk there is, and there are basically three.

The first: don't cheat — you'll get caught.

The second: learn AI, or you'll be left behind.

The third: use AI responsibly — it's a tool, not a crutch. Whatever that means. As if the adults were any better at it.

Be honest: did any of those messages change anything about what you actually did?

This is the opposite of all three.

First: you're not going to get caught. Nobody can catch you anymore — the colleges have admitted their detectors don't work. And that's exactly why the only person left to cheat is yourself.

Second: you don't need to "learn AI." What does that even mean? You need to learn to use AI to learn — which is not the same thing. The new machine in your pocket can be your personal librarian and tutor. It shouldn't be your essay machine.

Third: no one is going to hand you the right way to use it, because nobody's in charge of this anymore. The colleges are fighting with each other about it in public. You're in charge of your own education now — and before we're done, I'm going to ask you to commit to writing a plan that proves it.

Here's why this matters today and not someday. Becoming self-directed is the key to college. And AI is both the greatest opportunity for self-direction students have ever had, and the greatest temptation to skip it ever invented.

Same machine. Both at once. Which one it is in your hands is the whole question.

And notice the difference between those three talks and this one. The adults arguing about AI right now — the bans, the embraces, the detectors — are almost all arguing about you as followers: somebody to be warned, herded, managed. Follow the rules, follow the trend, follow the policy.

This essay treats you as the one in charge. And that's not a compliment. It's a responsibility to yourself. It's the new job description.

The Ladder

I talk a lot about what I call the four levels of learning, and I don't think we do a good job of telling students what those levels are.

At the very bottom is schooling: grades, credits, and diplomas. The institutional layer. (It's funny how we use the word in other contexts — a school of fish, all going the same way; getting schooled in basketball, being shown up.)

Above schooling is training: real skills for real tasks. The test is whether you can do the thing. Engineering, medicine, plumbing, heating and air.

Above training is education: the building of your own mind. Judgment, understanding, being able to think something through all the way.

And at the top is self-directed learning: you set the direction, and you don't need anyone's grade to know you're growing, or their demands to motivate you.

We don't show students this ladder, and so everyone confuses the bottom rung for the whole thing. School is the bottom rung. It's not the ladder. And honestly, most people never leave that bottom rung. That's not a criticism. It's just reality.

So if school went badly for you — the bottom rung went badly. Not the ladder. Three whole levels were never offered to you, and your record says nothing about how you'd do up there.

And if school went great for you — check which rung that happened on. Were you good at the game of school, or did you become a passionate learner?

College, university, community college, trade school: these are all opportunities above that first rung. Opportunities — not guarantees. Because it's your choice.

My argument is that the bottom rung is breaking. The good news is that the top three just got easier to reach than they've ever been.

Two Games — and the Perfect Storm

But there's also a second game. And think of "gaming" here as in casinos.

It's your phone. You're likely on it five hours a day. That's the average. Really.

So here's the question: who's winning those five hours?

Because here's what those apps actually are. They're designed the way a casino is designed. A casino has no clocks and no windows. The lights and sounds are tuned. The next pull is always one motion away. Everything about the room is engineered to keep you in the seat — and to extract from you.

Your apps are built the same way, by the same kind of designers, for the same reasons. That's not a metaphor. It's really that bad.

Your attention is what they sell. You're not the customer of that game. Your time and attention are the product.

So, like school: you're playing a game that's rigged against you.

Some numbers — and nothing in them reflects your character, or anybody's. They're about what the last ten years of engineered attention have done to everyone's baseline.

The class of 2024 posted the lowest twelfth-grade reading scores in more than three decades; about a third of high school seniors cannot draw general conclusions from a text they've read. In the 1970s, sixty percent of seventeen- and eighteen-year-olds read something for pleasure almost every day; today it's about sixteen percent. (Reading for pleasure isn't the only way to measure intellectual engagement — but these numbers aren't good.)

And please notice: these changes began a good decade before ChatGPT existed. The declines predate AI entirely. That's the phone. That's the feed.

Nobody asked your permission or told you what they were doing. You were kids, doing what felt good. So when somebody looks at your generation and shakes their head: this was done to you, by professionals, for money. It is not a verdict on what your mind can do.

And I'm not going to tell you to put the phone down. Everybody tells you that, and it's free advice — generally worth what you pay for it. I'm going to tell you something more useful: what all of this adds up to.

Put the three pieces on the table together.

The admissions game taught you to perform interests that weren't yours — and adults handed you the playbook. The school game graded your compliance and called it learning — and even its winners didn't come out feeling like learners. And the phone has been taking five hours of your attention a day and selling it.

Three systems, each one taking something: your interests, your confidence, your hours.

That's the world AI just walked into. I'd call it a perfect storm.

Perfect because it's dangerous. This is the one machine that can finish all three jobs — do your schoolwork, perform your interests, and take whatever attention you have left. Invisibly, and for free. And nobody will catch it.

You could do all four years of college that way. Turn in the work, keep the grades, walk across the stage — and leave without the one thing you actually came for.

Nobody would stop you. Nobody might even notice.

But it's a perfect storm in the other direction too. Since every performance is now free, performing finally proves nothing. The real thing is the only thing left that counts.

The three systems that ran your childhood are losing their grip in the same moment. Everything they took, you can get back.

And for the first time, the person who decides what happens next is you.

Which raises the obvious question: who's going to fix this? Let me show you what the adults are doing right now.

The Handover

While you've been living in this storm, the colleges have been fighting about it in public — just in the last few months.

MIT put out an official report saying AI detectors don't work and schools should stop relying on them — that policing students just creates suspicion everywhere. Harvard's dean told professors to encourage AI in writing classes, and Harvard's own faculty are publicly fighting him about it. Berkeley's law school went the other way and banned it, so their students build the skills first.

The smartest institutions in the country, pointed in three different directions at once. I'm not mocking them — this is honest confusion, and the honest ones admit it.

But hear what it means. The colleges and universities do not know what to do. They've said so themselves. And they are not going to figure it out in time for anyone reading this.

So hear the panic the right way. AI isn't breaking education. AI is exposing it.

The adults aren't panicking about your integrity. They've discovered the system can no longer do the three things it always did: compel you to learn, check whether you learned, or take the credit when you did. All of those university jobs, all of that money — it depends on you needing them in order to learn, and to be credentialed.

College was designed to be the opposite of high school. Voluntary. Adult. You choose your direction, and the professors, the libraries, the labs are there to help you go further than you could alone. That's not a brochure. That's the actual design.

What happened is drift. Over the last few decades, colleges picked up high school's habits. Everybody has to go. Parents hover. The debt piles up — honestly, the debt is criminal.

So if college feels like an extension of high school to you, you're not wrong. That's the drift. It's not the original design.

And the drift just hit a wall. When a new machine can do the assignments, running college like high school stops working. There's nothing left to grade.

Do the math the way a scared administrator would: a twenty-dollar-a-month subscription now rivals a fifty-thousand-dollar tuition — if what the tuition is buying is just more high school, and not independent, adult-level learning.

Of course they're scared. They're scared to death.

But notice what the twenty dollars can't buy: the college in the original design. The professors. The labs. The people. The rooms where you grow in front of others. The schools that are most scared are the ones that know which version they've been selling — and that it's not enough.

So hear this exactly right. Taking charge isn't rebelling against college. It's using college the way it was built to be used — the version no subscription can touch. And the people there who care most about you have been waiting a long time for students to do exactly that.

The professors can teach you. The good ones will help you like crazy. But they can't make you learn anymore, and they can't certify it happened. And they know it.

So from today: ask the adults for help. Stop asking them for permission. That's the whole difference between a student and an adult — and the switch just got flipped for you.

You're in charge of your own education now, whether you wanted it or not. And that's true whatever you came to become — engineer, accountant, nurse, plumber, teacher. Whatever the field, you're also the engineer of your own learning.

Like it always should have been. That's the degree underneath the degree.

Your Librarian and Tutor

Now do something for me. Think of one thing you have genuinely learned — got good at. Your best learning experience ever. Not school. Anything. A game, a sport, cars, music, a job.

Got one? Now the real question: what made it possible? What was there, around you, in the situation, that let you get good? What were the conditions?

I do this exercise a lot with groups, and the same things come up every single time, whatever the subject.

You had time. Somebody gave you attention, one on one. Someone believed in you. And they kept challenging you, right past what you were comfortable with — they saw potential in you that you didn't see in yourself.

That's how every human being learns. You already know how to learn. The proof is the thing you just thought of.

Now look at how schooling delivers learning: thirty people, one teacher, fixed speed, everyone gets the same thing at the same time. Almost the exact opposite of those conditions.

School wasn't built the way learning works. That's not your failure. That's how the building is structured.

So here's what just changed. The new machine in your pocket can now be two things for you, free, anytime you want.

It can be your personal librarian. It can find anything, explain anything, point you to the next thing — in any subject, in whatever words work for you.

And it can be your personal tutor. One-on-one attention, for as long as you want. At two in the morning, if that's when you work.

It's infinitely patient — it will explain something the fifth time with the same patience as the first. It's non-judgmental — it doesn't remember you failing, and it has never once sighed at a question. It's not always accurate — we'll get to that — but it is always available.

Rich families have always paid a lot of money for exactly this. Now you have it, for almost free.

That's what this new machine is. Your librarian and your tutor. Not your essay machine. Not your answer machine.

People will tell you it's dangerous for students, and they're half right — the dangers are coming in a moment. But hear the other half first: in the hands of a learner who's in charge, this may be the most liberating technology ever built.

Here's the move to make. Next time you don't understand something — anything — say to it: "Explain this to me like I'm smart, but nobody ever taught me the basics." Then keep asking until you actually have it.

I love that when I haven't figured out what I want to know, or how to think about something, I can keep asking in a way that would drive a human being crazy. But then I get to understanding.

Nobody's watching. Nobody's grading the questions. Asking dumb questions is the whole point — it's the thing that's really hard to do safely in school.

The One Way to Blow It

Now the bad news, because there is exactly one way to blow this. And you know what I'm talking about.

Paste in the assignment. Copy what comes out. Turn it in.

I'm not going to tell you you'll get caught. You'll probably figure out how not to be — and you just heard the colleges admit the detectors don't work.

That's exactly what makes this dangerous.

Every time you paste it in and turn in what comes back, somewhere in the back of your head a little note gets made: I couldn't do this myself.

And every time you make the new machine explain it until you've actually got it — until you could say it to a friend with the laptop closed — the opposite note gets made: I'm capable of this.

Same machine. Two stacks of notes. I'm capable — or I'm not. It's the difference between pretending to be capable and actually being capable.

You're adding to one of those stacks every single time you touch it. And you're the only one who ever sees them.

Using it to skip the hard part is like paying somebody to go to the gym for you. Nobody has ever gotten stronger by sending someone else to work out.

And notice: nothing about this is new. It has never made sense to pay for a gym and send a substitute. It has never made sense to pay for college and pretend to learn. AI didn't invent that problem. It just made it free, easy, and invisible.

AI isn't breaking education. It's just exposing it.

And think about what you're paying. Time. Years of your life. Tuition. Student loans. Books, fees, gas.

You're paying for one thing: a stronger mind. Use the new machine to skip the learning and you might still get the credential. But you've paid full price and left the product behind.

Find Your Problem

You're in charge now. And I'm not going to pretend that's easier. Being in charge is harder than having somebody tell you what to do.

It's also the only way anyone has ever grown.

People throw around "main character syndrome" like it's an insult. Listen to me: you are the main character of your own life. You're the hero of your own story. And if you're not — something has gone wrong.

This is your journey. Nobody else can walk it, and nobody can walk it for you.

And on your own journey, grades change what they mean. They stop being verdicts handed down on you. They become feedback — for you, to measure yourself.

So the hero's first question is the one nobody has asked you: what's worth working on?

Here's something true about the straight-A kids that isn't true about the ninety percent. They spent fifteen years learning to please the grader — and now that skill is worthless, because the new machine does it better. They have some unlearning to do.

If you never bought into the game, you've got nothing to unlearn. For the first time in your life, being outside the game is a head start.

And if you're the one who came out of high school with the great transcript — your unlearning starts with one question nobody ever asked you. The one the interns at Google never got asked.

What do you actually want to know?

Not what's assigned. Not what's graded. You've been optimizing for other people's questions your whole life. The new machine is about to make that skill worthless — and your own questions priceless.

Remember where we started. The students who thrive are the ones who found something real and went deep. Deep enough to make something nobody assigned.

The padded résumé says: I follow instructions well. The deep interest says: I can take something all the way. Guess which one is worth more, now that the new machine follows instructions for free?

And notice what else just happened. The tragic game from the beginning — performing passion for the application — is over too. Performance is free now. The real thing is the only move left.

So here's the real use of the new machine, past homework. What would you work on if nobody was grading you? The thing you already go down rabbit holes about at one in the morning. Most people have something.

Take it to the new machine and go deeper than school would ever ask you to. It'll follow you as far as you want. No curriculum. No bell. No grade.

And then make something. These new machines can help you build the actual thing — the beat, the business plan, the app, the restored engine, the channel. Not a paper about it. The actual thing.

Anthropic ran an early ad campaign on one idea: keep thinking — there's never been a better time to be a problem-solver. I really agree.

And here's why this is worth the work, in plain terms. Smart-sounding is now free; everybody has it. Actually being smart — built, owned, and yours — just got rarer and more valuable than it has ever been. It's the one thing you can't download.

Because the world that's coming won't ask where you went to school. It asks what you can do, while somebody watches. Can you fix the thing? Run the job? Build the site? Explain it on your feet? That's a contest where nobody checks your transcript first.

It's the flattest field you'll ever play on.

Remember the thing you're good at, from the exercise? You built that without school. Same skills. Just bigger tools now.

You're going to want a learning plan. And you can only write a real learning plan when you have a real goal. The plan doesn't create the goal — the goal creates the plan. Find the thing you actually care about first, and the plan almost writes itself.

Once you have your own real goal, something else becomes true: it stops mattering nearly so much whether you're at community college or at Harvard. The libraries are everywhere now. The tutor is in your pocket. The goal is the rare part — and it's yours to supply.

Every one of you has someone else's plan on file. It's called the degree plan — the school's plan for you. It tracks credits, requirements, progress toward the receipt. Notice what it doesn't track: whether you're getting smarter.

Nobody's plan tracks that. So tonight, one page. Your plan, not theirs.

A Personal Learning Plan — four questions:

What do I want to be able to do a year from now?

What's the problem I want to go deep on?

What am I going to make this semester?

What's my rule for the new machine — what do I use it for, and what do I never hand to it?

That's a personal learning plan. The degree plan gets you the diploma. The personal learning plan gets you the mind.

Run both. But know which one is actually yours.

Know the Machine

One last thing. You need to know what this new machine is — and what it's going to try to be for you.

First: it's a flatterer. It will flatter you like a doting mother. Paste in something mediocre you wrote and ask what it thinks. It'll tell you it's a great start, a really interesting angle. It tells everyone that.

Now tell it: "Be honest. Tell me what's wrong with this." Completely different conversation. It will coach you hard — but only if you ask it to. It's a hype machine by default; you have to hire it as a coach. One sentence does it.

Use it to challenge yourself. Never to agree with yourself.

Second: it will offer you emotional comfort, around the clock, on demand. People are already treating these new machines like a boyfriend or a girlfriend. I'm going to say this as plainly as I can: that's a trap.

Comfort that costs nothing teaches nothing. And a companion that can't be disappointed in you can't be proud of you either.

Don't mistake its performance of caring for the real thing. And don't mistake your performance — anywhere — for growth.

Third: know where this is headed. The business model that built the casino in your pocket is behind the commercial versions of this new machine right now. These tools are about as useful, and about as unmanipulated, as they are ever going to be. Learn to use them on your own terms now — so that when it's fully tuned to use you, you'll recognize the moves.

And finally: don't trust it blindly. It's not always accurate, remember — just always available. I use these new machines every day, and hard. When something matters, I make two or more of them argue with each other, and I judge. They're especially confident when they're dead wrong. Same with people — they learned it from us.

Same rule: trust, and verify.

Now hold all of that — the flattery, the trap, the business model, the fabrication — and hear the other side, because it's just as true.

Handled on your terms, this can be the most rigorous, challenging, and rewarding intellectual partner you've ever had. That's not hype. That's what this new machine becomes when you set the terms.

The Close

You might be thinking: I agree with all of this, and at two in the morning, with a deadline, I'll paste it in anyway.

You're probably right. So let me remind you about Ulysses.

He had to sail past the sirens — the voices that pulled every sailor to the rocks. And he didn't trust his willpower. He had himself tied to the mast before the song started.

The most self-aware people don't rely on strength in the moment. They build the structure in advance.

So here's your mast. Tell the new machine, up front: "Don't give me the answers to my homework. Make me do it — and check me." You can write that into these tools once, and it holds.

Tie yourself to the mast while you're strong. Decide at noon what you're going to do at two in the morning.

Most people who read this won't do anything with it. Not because they can't — there's nothing here you can't do. But it's work. Nobody will make you.

Charting your own course has always been a minority move. In every generation, in every room.

I want to challenge you to challenge yourself. To choose competence over performance. To take charge of your own learning — and your life.

So here's everything I've said, in three sentences.

School was grading the game — not your capability or your mind. And that game just broke.
The colleges don't know what to do — they've said so themselves. Nobody is coming to run your education for you.
You're in charge of it now. Find your problem. Write your own plan. Use the librarian and tutor in your pocket — but don't let it do your thinking.

School told you who you are. It was wrong. Don't use the new machine to prove it right.

This is not for everyone.

It might be for you.

New Webinar - "Comprehensive Guide to OER: Open Educational Resources for All"

2026-09-25T13:37:32.284-04:00

Comprehensive Guide to OER: Open Educational Resources for All
A Library 2.0 / Learning Revolution Webinar with Reed Hepler

OVERVIEW:

Have you ever had a patron ask for a book on a specific topic that wasn't available in your collections because there were dozens of holds, or because your digital licensing allowed only one person? Have patrons asked for programming when no materials existed to help you plan? What about patrons wanting to get up to speed on newer developments in a field they studied decades ago? Or have you struggled to provide high-quality, accessible instructional resources for recurring community initiatives like ESL courses, tech workshops, or public interest programming? And how do library workers preserve, expand, and tailor access to high-quality information while staying compliant with legal standards, avoiding unexpected price hikes, and eliminating licensing barriers?

Many resources solve one or two of these issues, but Open resources solve them all in one swipe.

Digital licensing, subscription bundles, and many other factors make collection development and patron programming a hassle, especially in the current climate of budget cuts and constrained staff availability and capacity. Libraries and their users need consistent, freely available resources to support personal learning, research, and “regular” reading.

This webinar offers an insight into the ecosystem of Open Access (OA) materials as an alternative resource to complicated and/or infeasible purchases, such as 1-user digital purchases or materials only available in a subscription bundle. This is not to say that copyrighted materials are not usable or needed! Still, Open materials, specifically Open Educational Resources (OERs), can supplement existing collections to provide information in copyrighted materials that cannot be purchased for one reason or another (collection development policies, purchasing budgets, staff capacity, etc.).

As a Digital Initiatives Librarian, Reed Hepler has helped people in all types of occupations access Open Educational Resources, Open Access periodicals, and other Open materials. While some see only the financial value in these innovations, others use them to foster academic freedom, enable frequent adaptation and updates, provide quality information directly to learners, and free information from the clutches of copyright, which can be unnecessarily constraining.

While OERs, unique among OA materials, have been associated with academia since the 1990s, they offer a host of benefits to patrons of all types of libraries, and staff can even use them to plan programming and support retention of program information. Library staff can even create OERs for their own purposes, whether for patron-requested topics, internal library policies, or another subject uniquely suited to the library’s particular audience.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES:

Understand the attributes of Open Educational Resources.
Discuss the appeal of Open materials for all types of libraries.
Find Open materials that could benefit your patrons.
Develop a plan for making innovative Open materials for unique local needs.
Understand the newest developments in OERs, including GenOER and Best Practices for OER Development.

This is a 60-minute webinar. All registrants will have access to the recording and presentation slides.

DATE: Tuesday, October 20th, 2026, 2:00 - 3:00 pm US Eastern Time

COST:

$99/person - includes live attendance and any-time access to the recording and the presentation slides and receiving a participation certificate. To arrange group discounts (see below), to submit a purchase order, or for any registration difficulties or questions, email admin@library20.com.

TO REGISTER:

If you need to be invoiced or pay by check, if you have any trouble registering for a webinar, or if you have any questions, please email admin@library20.com.

NOTE: Please check your spam folder if you don't receive your confirmation email within a day.

SPECIAL GROUP RATES (email admin@library20.com to arrange):

Multiple individual log-ins and access from the same organization paid together: $75 each for 3+ registrations, $65 each for 5+ registrations. Unlimited and non-expiring access for those log-ins.
The ability to show the webinar (live or recorded) to a group located in the same physical location or in the same virtual meeting from one log-in: $299.
Large-scale institutional access for viewing with individual login capability: $499 (hosted either at Learning Revolution or in Niche Academy). Unlimited and non-expiring access for those log-ins.

REED C. HEPLER

Reed Hepler is a digital initiatives librarian, instructional designer, copyright agent, artificial intelligence practitioner and consultant, and PhD student at Idaho State University. He earned a Master's Degree in Instructional Design and Educational Technology from Idaho State University in 2025. In 2022, he obtained a Master’s Degree in Library and Information Science, with emphases in Archives Management and Digital Curation from Indiana University. He has worked at nonprofits, corporations, and educational institutions encouraging information literacy and effective education. Combining all of these degrees and experiences, Reed strives to promote ethical librarianship and educational initiatives.

Currently, Reed works as a Digital Initiatives Librarian at a college in Idaho and also has his own consulting firm, heplerconsulting.com. His views and projects can be seen on his LinkedIn page or his blog, CollaborAItion, on Substack. Contact him at reed.hepler@gmail.com for more information.

OTHER UPCOMING EVENTS:

October 1, 2026

October 2, 2026

October 6, 2026

October 9, 2026

October 14, 2026

October 15, 2026

VOTE FOR TOPICS NOW!

YOUR AI STAFF TRAINING RESOURCE

New Webinar - "Tools For Teams in Turmoil: Getting Along and Getting Their Best"

2026-09-24T15:43:12.963-04:00

Tools For Teams in Turmoil: Getting Along and Getting Their Best
A Library 2.0 Service, Safety, and Security Webinar with Dr. Steve Albrecht

OVERVIEW:

A 60-minute training webinar presented by Library 2.0 and hosted by ALA author and library service, safety, and security expert, Dr. Steve Albrecht.

There are five themes to team success in the library workspace:

Well-functioning teams have learned to tolerate each other. They don’t have to love or even like each other, but they must know how to co-exist.
Managers and supervisors need to be ready to intervene and use collaboration tools when individual employees are not getting along.
High-performing teams stay that way because they use Ground Rules. These guidelines affect four key areas: meetings; communication; the boss’s expectations of the team; and the team’s expectations of the boss.
Teams need Goals (what to do), Roles (who will do it), and Processes (how it will get done).
All teams need praise to perform long-term. Kudos come from team members keeping their promises. This means they have learned how, why, and when to be both responsible and accountable for their work.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES:

How to use the concept of “Direct, Non-personal, Immediate Feedback” to build likability between team members.
How to use one-on-one coaching meetings to solve employee conflicts, without anger, game-playing, reverting to the silent treatment, or tears.
How to run a Ground Rules meeting with your team.
Develop accountability and responsibility guidelines and measures for your team, especially with new employees and as part of on-boarding and orientation for new-hires.

DATE: Thursday, October 15th, 2026, 2:00 - 3:00 pm US Eastern Time

COST:

$99/person - includes live attendance, anytime access to the recording and presentation slides, and a participation certificate.
To arrange group discounts (see below), submit a purchase order, or ask about registration questions or difficulties, email admin@library20.com.

TO REGISTER:

If you need to be invoiced or pay by check, if you have any trouble registering for a webinar, or if you have any questions, please email admin@library20.com.

NOTE: Please check your spam folder if you don't receive your confirmation email within a day.

SPECIAL GROUP RATES (email admin@library20.com to arrange):

Multiple individual log-ins and access from the same organization paid together: $75 each for 3+ registrations, $65 each for 5+ registrations. Unlimited and non-expiring access for those log-ins.
The ability to show the webinar (live or recorded) to a group located in the same physical location or in the same virtual meeting from one log-in: $299.
Large-scale institutional access for viewing with individual login capability: $499 (hosted either at Library 2.0 or in Niche Academy). Unlimited and non-expiring access for those log-ins.

DR. STEVE ALBRECHT

The Library Leader’s Guide to Employee Coaching: Building a Performance Culture One Meeting at a Time (in-press, Bloomsbury, 2026)

The Library Leader’s Guide to Human Resources: Keeping it Real, Legal, and Ethical (Rowman & Littlefield, 2025)

The Safe Library: Keeping Users, Staff, and Collections Secure (Rowman & Littlefield, 2023)

Library Security: Better Communication, Safer Facilities (ALA, 2015)

More on The Safe Library at thesafelibrary.com. Follow on X (Twitter) at @thesafelibrary and on YouTube @thesafelibrary. Dr. Albrecht's professional website is drstevealbrecht.com.

OTHER UPCOMING EVENTS:

October 1, 2026

October 2, 2026

October 6, 2026

October 9, 2026

October 14, 2026

VOTE FOR TOPICS NOW!

YOUR AI STAFF TRAINING RESOURCE

New Webinar: "10 Ways to Avoid AI"

2026-09-23T13:06:45.635-04:00

10 Ways to Avoid AI
A Library 2.0 / Learning Revolution Webinar with Reed Hepler

OVERVIEW:

In this departure from his usual topics, Reed discusses ways to completely avoid AI in all its forms… and some may surprise you!

Over the past three years, AI has become ubiquitous, particularly in the information ecosystem. Whether we go online for business, pleasure, or personal need, many websites and apps incorporate AI in ways ranging from subtle to overt. GenAI is not the only tool used, either. Predictive AI also has its impact, from shopping recommendations to website visitation recommendations to streaming recommendations. If there are “recommendations” in the module, AI probably determined them. Although ChatGPT was released 3 years ago, “AI” has been in our digital ecosystem much longer, since the 2010s!

We have no reason to accept this intrusion into our lives. AI aspects, after three years of LLMs, seem to be just part of life, unavoidable and commonplace. Even if we think we are being objective and using all the resources available to us, our brains can still insist we use an AI tool because it is the “fastest way to get things done.” This is not always true, but we go to those sites anyway!

Avoiding intrusive AI necessitates manual preventive measures (if you want to avoid automation, you cannot use automation against it!). Sometimes, this means deliberately writing code or inserting certain text. Other times, it means changing a setting in an obscure part of a site, browser, or app. Other avoidance techniques consist of simply NOT USING sites that generate material.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES:

Understand the different types of AI and how they are used in today's world.
Discuss how to navigate common sites and avoid their AI facets.
Explain how to navigate social media and public forum websites to avoid AI.

LEARNING OUTCOMES:

Avoid AI Overviews in Google search
Avoid AI agents in Microsoft
Avoid AI agents in Google
Avoid (detect) AI content in social media
Avoid AI recommendations on Google Maps
Avoid AI auto-complete in emails
Avoid AI-generated images.
Avoid AI-generated summaries about topics.
Avoid AI tools for research.
Avoid AI-generated decisions.

This 60-minute webinar is AI Series. All registrants will have access to the recording and presentation slides.

DATE: Tuesday, October 6th, 2026, 2:00 - 3:00 pm US Eastern Time

COST:

$99/person - includes live attendance and any-time access to the recording and the presentation slides and receiving a participation certificate. To arrange group discounts (see below), to submit a purchase order, or for any registration difficulties or questions, email admin@library20.com.

TO REGISTER:

If you need to be invoiced or pay by check, if you have any trouble registering for a webinar, or if you have any questions, please email admin@library20.com.

NOTE: Please check your spam folder if you don't receive your confirmation email within a day.

SPECIAL GROUP RATES (email admin@library20.com to arrange):

Multiple individual log-ins and access from the same organization paid together: $75 each for 3+ registrations, $65 each for 5+ registrations. Unlimited and non-expiring access for those log-ins.
The ability to show the webinar (live or recorded) to a group located in the same physical location or in the same virtual meeting from one log-in: $299.
Large-scale institutional access for viewing with individual login capability: $499 (hosted either at Learning Revolution or in Niche Academy). Unlimited and non-expiring access for those log-ins.

REED C. HEPLER

OTHER UPCOMING EVENTS:

October 1, 2026

October 2, 2026

October 9, 2026

October 14, 2026

Vote for Topics Now!

New Webinar - "Connection, Meaning, and Belonging: Strengthening Well-Being Through Community"

2026-09-22T12:26:56.801-04:00

Connection, Meaning, and Belonging: Strengthening Well-Being Through Community
A Library 2.0 Masterclass with Loida Garcia-Febo

OVERVIEW:

Many library professionals enter the field because they care deeply about learning, access, service, and community. At the same time, even meaningful work can become difficult to sustain when stress, change, and competing demands begin to erode our sense of connection, engagement, and belonging.

This session explores how healthy relationships, a sense of meaning, and strong community connections can support well-being. Participants will examine ways to remain engaged in their work while maintaining healthy boundaries, honoring their own needs, and fostering a sustainable sense of professional satisfaction.

Meaning can come from many places in our lives, and work is only one of them. By reflecting on the positive impact of our daily interactions, relationships, and contributions, we can cultivate greater well-being while recognizing that our value extends beyond our professional roles.

This 60-minute training is presented by Library 2.0 and hosted by Loida Garcia-Febo. A handout copy of the presentation slides will be available to all who participate.

FOCUS:

Finding meaning in library work while maintaining healthy boundaries
Collegial support and community-building
Building healthy workplace relationships
Fostering a sense of belonging and connection
Maintaining hope, engagement, and professional satisfaction during times of change
Recognizing the impact of everyday contributions and interactions

DATE: Wednesday, October 26h, 2026, 2:00 - 3:00 pm US - Eastern Time

COST:

$99/person - includes live attendance and any-time access to the recording and the presentation slides and receiving a participation certificate. To arrange group discounts (see below), to submit a purchase order, or for any registration difficulties or questions, email admin@library20.com.

TO REGISTER:

If you need to be invoiced or pay by check, if you have any trouble registering for a webinar, or if you have any questions, please email admin@library20.com.

NOTE: Please check your spam folder if you don't receive your confirmation email within a day.

SPECIAL GROUP RATES (email admin@library20.com to arrange):

Multiple individual log-ins and access from the same organization paid together: $75 each for 3+ registrations, $65 each for 5+ registrations. Unlimited and non-expiring access for those log-ins.
The ability to show the webinar (live or recorded) to a group located in the same physical location or in the same virtual meeting from one log-in: $299.
Large-scale institutional access for viewing with individual login capability: $499 (hosted either at Learning Revolution or in Niche Academy). Unlimited and non-expiring access for those log-ins.

LOIDA GARCIA-FEBO

OTHER UPCOMING EVENTS:

October 1, 2026

October 2, 2026

October 9, 2026

October 14, 2026

VOTE NOW!

Briefing: "Get Your Leadership Team and Your Board on The Same Page About AI"

2026-09-21T12:48:03.703-04:00

Get Your Leadership Team and Your Board on The Same Page About AI
A Shared Briefing for Library Leadership and Board Members with Crystal Trice

OVERVIEW:

Library leaders and board members are being asked to make decisions about AI without a shared understanding of what is already happening. A vendor adds AI features to a product the library already pays for. Staff are using tools before guardrails are in place. A leader reads something concerning and brings it to the next meeting. Everyone in the room is working from a different set of assumptions about what AI is, where it is, and what it can do.

This session builds a shared starting point in one hour. Bring your leadership team, bring your board, or bring both. It is a briefing rather than a workshop, designed so that the conversation continues after it ends, in your next meeting and in the hallway conversations in between. Along the way, we will note where a question is typically a board matter, a leadership matter, or something your library will need to sort out for itself, since governance structures vary widely.

WHAT YOU'LL GAIN:

A Working Understanding of AI, Without the Jargon: How AI moved from predicting to generating to acting on our behalf, and why that progression matters more than any single tool. Enough grounding to be conversant in a meeting and to recognize when a claim needs a follow-up question.
A Realistic View of Where AI Already Is: AI adoption does not always arrive through a board vote. It shows up in discovery layers, cataloging tools, databases, accessibility features, and staff productivity software you already purchased. We will look at where it is likely already operating in your library, and at what staff and patrons are doing with it.
An Honest Look at What Can Go Wrong: Accuracy, privacy, bias, copyright, security, and the question of where human judgment stays essential. Presented plainly, with real examples, and without hype in either direction.
A Framework for Where Human Oversight Stays Essential: As AI tools move from generating text to completing tasks, the question shifts from what AI can do to what it should be permitted to do without a person in the loop. We will work through concrete scenarios that surface where your library is comfortable putting AI into practice.
Shared Talking Points for Decisions Ahead: Questions worth asking about existing AI use, vendor relationships, information the library is handing to AI systems, and what happens when something goes wrong. These become the common language your team brings to policy conversations, budget conversations, and vendor conversations.

WHO THIS SESSION IS FOR:

This session is designed for library directors, administrators, managers, department heads, and board or commission members. No prior AI knowledge is assumed.

It works well for a leadership team attending on its own, for a board attending on its own, and especially well when both attend together. It is appropriate for public, school, academic, and special libraries, and for organizations at any stage of their AI work, including those who have not started the conversation yet.

This 60-minute online session is part of our "AI for Leaders" Series. The recording and presentation slides will be available to all who register, along with the question sets you can bring directly to your next meeting. You might also use the recording to start or structure a later conversation.

DATE: Friday, October 9th, 2026, 2:00 pm to 3:00 pm US - Eastern Time

COST:

$99/person - includes live attendance, anytime access to the recording and presentation slides, and a participation certificate. To arrange group discounts (see below), to submit a purchase order, or for any registration difficulties or questions, email admin@library20.com.

GROUP PRICING:

Email admin@library20.com to arrange.
$349 Organizational License - covers all of your library's leadership team and board members, with individual log-ins and access to the recording and presentation slides.
Consortium and State Library Licensing Starting at $999 - email to determine scope and arrangements.

TO REGISTER:

If you need to be invoiced or pay by check, if you have any trouble registering for a webinar, or if you have any questions, please email admin@library20.com.

NOTE: Please check your spam folder if you don't receive your confirmation email within a day.

CRYSTAL TRICE

OTHER UPCOMING EVENTS:

October 1, 2026

October 2, 2026

October 14, 2026

VOTE NOW!

New Webinar: "10 Great Ways to Use AI for Brainstorming"

2026-09-17T15:52:54.170-04:00

10 Great Ways to Use AI for Brainstorming
A Library 2.0 AI Workshop with Crystal Trice

OVERVIEW:

Ask AI for five program ideas, and you will get the same five every library gets. That experience convinces a lot of library staff that AI brainstorming is a dead end, when the actual problem is that nobody handed them the techniques. AI turns out to be a remarkable creativity partner, but only when you know how to push it past the obvious.

This workshop offers ten distinct brainstorming techniques, drawn from decades of creative practice and adapted for AI. Rather than a list of things to brainstorm about, this session teaches methods: reversing the question, forcing odd combinations, borrowing perspectives missing from your room, and adding constraints that squeeze out genuinely new thinking. Participants will watch the techniques run live and leave ready to aim them at real problems.

AI will not generate your best ideas, but it does help you think outside the box. Used playfully and pushed hard, AI generates the volume, the odd angles, and the questions you skipped, while you supply the community knowledge and the judgment that turn a wild list into something inspiring and useful.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES:

Apply ten distinct brainstorming techniques with AI, spanning idea generation, provocation, refinement, and synthesis
Evaluate AI-generated ideas against real community knowledge, budgets, and constraints
Implement convergent techniques that stress-test a favorite idea before it goes to a director or board
Facilitate better human brainstorms by using AI to prepare, expand, and organize the group's thinking

ACTIONABLE WORKSHOP ELEMENTS:

Over 60 minutes, participants will move through ten focused applications, each illustrated with a real example or a quick demonstration:

Ask for 30, keep 3. Push AI past the obvious with sheer volume.
Borrow someone else's eyes. Rerun your question through the perspectives missing from your room, from a shy 8-year-old to a patron who stopped visiting.
Flip the question. Brainstorm how to cause the problem on purpose, then reverse each answer into a fix. Silly on the surface, powerful in practice.
Add a ridiculous constraint. Force new thinking with tight limits: zero dollars, one staff member, ready by Friday.
Mash two things together. Combine what already works into something nobody has tried, from storytime at the farmers market to an escape room in the stacks.
Steal from another industry. Ask how a hotel, an airport, or a game designer would solve your wayfinding, your lines, or your signage.
Play idea ping-pong. Bring a half-formed idea and volley with AI, yes-and style, steering the whole way.
Storm the questions first. When a goal is fuzzy, generate twenty better questions before a single answer.
Stress-test your favorite. Let AI play the skeptical director and raise the objections you'll actually hear, while there is still time to prepare.
Sort the pile. Turn the sixty sticky notes from your last staff brainstorm into themes, duplicates, and the outliers worth a second look.

The recording and presentation slides will be available to all who register.

DATE: Friday, October 2nd, 2026, 2:00 pm to 3:00 pm US - Eastern Time

COST:

$99/person - includes live attendance, anytime access to the recording and presentation slides, and a participation certificate. To arrange group discounts (see below), to submit a purchase order, or for any registration difficulties or questions, email admin@library20.com.

TO REGISTER:

If you need to be invoiced or pay by check, if you have any trouble registering for a webinar, or if you have any questions, please email admin@library20.com.

NOTE: Please check your spam folder if you don't receive your confirmation email within a day.

SPECIAL GROUP RATES (email admin@library20.com to arrange):

Multiple individual log-ins and access from the same organization paid together: $75 each for 3+ registrations, $65 each for 5+ registrations. Unlimited and non-expiring access for those log-ins.
The ability to show the webinar (live or recorded) to a group located in the same physical location or in the same virtual meeting from one log-in: $299.
Large-scale institutional access for viewing with individual login capability: $499 (hosted either at Learning Revolution or in Niche Academy). Unlimited and non-expiring access for those log-ins.

CRYSTAL TRICE

OTHER UPCOMING EVENTS:

September 18, 2026

September 25, 2026

Three Different Ways to Hold Conversations About AI: Peers, Patrons, and Staff

2026-09-16T13:22:36.480-04:00

Unconferences.com will be hosting free online events for librarians and teachers, where participants drive both the agenda and the conversations. Voting starts today for the first unconference topic (choices include "AI and Libraries," "AI in Education," "Burnout and Compassion Fatigue," "The Future of Libraries," "Difficult Patron Behaviors," and "Homeless / Unhoused Patrons." You can vote for one or all. We'll pick the most wanted topic and schedule it for October. The goal is to hold one three-hour unconference each month.

The AI Safety Awareness Project is leading a nationwide initiative to equip library staff to host thoughtful discussions about AI at their branches with resources at no cost. This is a great avenue for staff to host an engaging event for their community. If you are interested in hosting a discussion at your library, or if you're a librarian or teacher who would like to volunteer your abilities as a conversation host, reach out to them at info@aisafetyawarenessproject.org.

They are looking to organize 100s of events nationwide in October. AI is developing very quickly, and they think communities should have the opportunity to learn about + discuss how this technology is changing society. These facilitated discussions are similar to book clubs - a library staff member organizes the event and leads a discussion based on a shared piece of media (in our case, a video). The goal is for facilitated discussions to be easy to pick up and deliver. More at aisafetyawarenessproject.org.

Our staff training program on AI is being recorded today, and you can find out how to purchase an inexpensive license to use it with your staff, your region, your consortium, or your state here. This is a four-part training program, 30 minutes each, with a facilitator's guide for local discussion.

"AI Foundations for Your Library Team" is designed to get an entire staff to a shared starting point. The content starts with the basics and is library-specific. For staff who already use AI, the sessions provide an opportunity to slow down, reflect on their habits, and strengthen their practice with new strategies for evaluating, prompting, and using AI responsibly. It doesn't assume anyone has used these tools before, and it doesn't try to talk anyone into using them. Breaking the material into four shorter sessions gives people time to absorb the ideas, discuss them with coworkers, and come back with better questions.

The goal is to give your staff enough shared understanding to ask better questions, make better judgments, and help patrons navigate AI with confidence.

Next Week: "10 No-Compromise Decisions Every Library Should Make About AI"

2026-09-11T11:22:41.315-04:00

10 No-Compromise Decisions Every Library Should Make About AI
A Library 2.0 AI Workshop with Crystal Trice

OVERVIEW:

Most AI questions in libraries are judgment calls: it depends on the task, the tool, and the community. Some decisions, however, call for a clear institutional line. Underneath the gray areas sits a set of principles where a library should plant its feet and stay there, no matter which tools arrive next or how the public conversation about AI shifts.

This workshop explores ten decisions where libraries should draw a clear line. The focus is on the choices that can give staff and leaders a shared foundation, so they aren't left re-negotiating the same fundamental questions at every desk, in every department, with every new tool.

We'll consider the reasoning behind these decisions, test them against real library situations, and explore how clear institutional commitments can make the messy parts of AI easier to navigate. Participants will also get language they can use when these questions come up with colleagues, leadership, boards, vendors, and their communities.

Library values hold steady even when technology doesn't. Libraries have navigated every information upheaval by knowing what they will not compromise, and AI is no different. The goal is to know where your library's lines are before you're standing on them.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES:

Evaluate which AI decisions are genuine judgment calls and which deserve a firm institutional line
Apply clear commitments to real-world scenarios involving patrons, staff, vendors, and library services
Defend AI-related decisions with reasoning grounded in library values and professional practice
Align AI decisions with the principles that should guide the library regardless of which technology comes next

WHAT YOU'LL LEAVE WITH:

A clearer sense of where your library may need firm ground in an increasingly complicated AI landscape, along with ten decisions to consider as you develop or revisit your library's approach to AI.

The recording and presentation slides will be available to all who register.

DATE: Friday, September 18th, 2026, 2:00 pm to 3:00 pm US - Eastern Time

COST:

$99/person - includes live attendance, anytime access to the recording and presentation slides, and a participation certificate. To arrange group discounts (see below), to submit a purchase order, or for any registration difficulties or questions, email admin@library20.com.

TO REGISTER:

If you need to be invoiced or pay by check, if you have any trouble registering for a webinar, or if you have any questions, please email admin@library20.com.

NOTE: Please check your spam folder if you don't receive your confirmation email within a day.

SPECIAL GROUP RATES (email admin@library20.com to arrange):

Multiple individual log-ins and access from the same organization paid together: $75 each for 3+ registrations, $65 each for 5+ registrations. Unlimited and non-expiring access for those log-ins.
The ability to show the webinar (live or recorded) to a group located in the same physical location or in the same virtual meeting from one log-in: $299.
Large-scale institutional access for viewing with individual login capability: $499 (hosted either at Learning Revolution or in Niche Academy). Unlimited and non-expiring access for those log-ins.

CRYSTAL TRICE

OTHER UPCOMING EVENTS:

September 11, 2026

September 16, 2026

September 25, 2026

New Webinar: "10 Great Ways to Use AI for Writing Well" with Crystal Trice

2026-09-01T14:03:48.393-04:00

10 Great Ways to Use AI for Writing Well
A Library 2.0 AI Workshop with Crystal Trice

OVERVIEW:

Library work runs on writing. Newsletters, signage, social posts, board reports, grant narratives, and the delicate email to the patron who is having a hard day: it all has to get written, usually by someone who has eleven other things due. AI promises to help, and it can, but its default voice is generic, and readers can spot unedited AI text from across the room.

This workshop offers ten writing strategies that keep you the author. Rather than treating AI as a ghostwriter, this session positions AI as a drafting partner, an honest editor, and a tireless reviser, while your voice, your judgment, and your name stay on the work. Participants will see real examples and leave with techniques they can use on the next thing they write.

Good writing takes judgment, and that judgment stays with you. Used well, AI can break the blank page, offer a menu of options instead of a single take-it-or-leave-it draft, and take the drudgery out of trimming, adapting, and polishing, so your writing time goes to the thinking only you can do.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES:

Apply ten specific AI strategies across the writing process, from first draft through revision, adaptation, and final polish
Evaluate AI-generated text for accuracy, tone, and the telltale signs of machine-made writing
Implement techniques that preserve your library's authentic voice across every AI-assisted piece
Adapt one strong piece of writing into multiple formats, audiences, and reading levels

ACTIONABLE WORKSHOP ELEMENTS:

Over 60 minutes, participants will move through ten focused applications, each illustrated with a real example or a quick demonstration:

Break the blank page. Turn your messy notes into a rough draft built only from your own ideas, so the hardest sentence is already written.
Ask for options, not answers. Request five versions instead of one, and put your judgment back in the editor's chair.
Hire AI as your editor. Get honest critique of your draft, with no rewriting, so the words stay yours while the weak spots get found.
Cut it in half. Trim to a hard word count for signage and blurbs, with a built-in check that nothing vital was lost.
Write for every reader. Restate policies and announcements in plain language at a target reading level, and flag the jargon.
Teach it your voice. Build a reusable style note from writing you're proud of, so drafts sound like your library instead of every library.
Write once, publish everywhere. Turn one strong program writeup into a newsletter blurb, social posts, and a press release.
Shift the tone, keep the message. Deliver overdue reminders and policy changes with warmth, so the message lands without scolding.
Check the bones. Reverse outline long pieces like board reports and grant narratives to find structural problems before polishing sentences.
Hunt the slop. Run a final pass for AI fingerprints, from filler phrases to vague superlatives, so that your library’s voice remains strong.

The recording and presentation slides will be available to all who register.

DATE: Friday, September 11th, 2026, 2:00 pm to 3:00 pm US - Eastern Time

COST:

$99/person - includes live attendance, anytime access to the recording and presentation slides, and a participation certificate. To arrange group discounts (see below), to submit a purchase order, or for any registration difficulties or questions, email admin@library20.com.

TO REGISTER:

If you need to be invoiced or pay by check, if you have any trouble registering for a webinar, or if you have any questions, please email admin@library20.com.

NOTE: Please check your spam folder if you don't receive your confirmation email within a day.

SPECIAL GROUP RATES (email admin@library20.com to arrange):

Multiple individual log-ins and access from the same organization paid together: $99 each for 3+ registrations, $75 each for 5+ registrations. Unlimited and non-expiring access for those log-ins.
The ability to show the webinar (live or recorded) to a group located in the same physical location or in the same virtual meeting from one log-in: $399.
Large-scale institutional access for viewing with individual login capability: $599 (hosted either at Learning Revolution or in Niche Academy). Unlimited and non-expiring access for those log-ins.

ALL-ACCESS PASSES: This webinar is not a part of the Safe Library All-Access program.

CRYSTAL TRICE

OTHER UPCOMING EVENTS:

September 4, 2026

September 8, 2026

September 9, 2026<

September 10, 2026<

September 16, 2026

September 25, 2026

New Webinar: "Creating Service Excellence in Your Library"

2026-08-28T12:12:38.085-04:00

Creating Service Excellence in Your Library: Lessons From the Best Customer Service Businesses
A Library 2.0 Service, Safety, and Security Webinar with Dr. Steve Albrecht

OVERVIEW:

While you may have your favorite fast food menu item, the Gold Standards for service quality are Chick-fil-A and In-N-Out Burger. Need to get a new Apple product? There are many reasons why the Apple store in your mall is a better choice than your local electronics retailer. Why do we tend to go to the same restaurants, coffee shops, and retail stores? Low prices and a convenient location are not the only reasons.

The best service providers do these things, over and over:

They value their customers’ time.
They have systems in place that make it easy to do business with them.
They screen, hire, and train employees who care about serving both their customers, bosses, and co-workers.
They value the historical legacy of their founders. They teach that history and work culture to all new hires.
Their employees are empowered to solve problems and make good decisions on behalf of their customers and the business.
They listen to their customers’ concerns, complaints, and good ideas.
They don’t harm their reputation, especially in the social media space.

Can we apply these lessons to the library? Yes, but only if we are prepared to look closely and differently at how, why, where, and when we do business with our patrons.

This session brings Dr. Steve Albrecht’s many years of writing and teaching not just customer service, but customer service excellence. He will discuss how you can help your library model best practices from the best service companies, even as a specialized public-sector business.

LEARNING AGENDA:

How to hire library staff for politeness, enthusiasm, and work ethic.
How to make it easy for your patrons to do business with your library by creating systems that empower motivated employees to do their jobs well.
The power of patron satisfaction surveys. The need for data to make decisions.
Developing your perception of the Patron Service Value Model.
Lessons learned from not-so-great service public-service providers: the IRS, the state DMV, and the Building Department.

DATE: Thursday, September 10th, 2026, 2:00 - 3:00 pm US - Eastern Time

COST:

$99/person - includes live attendance and any-time access to the recording and the presentation slides and receiving a participation certificate.
To arrange group discounts (see below), to submit a purchase order, or for any registration difficulties or questions, email admin@library20.com.

TO REGISTER:

If you need to be invoiced or pay by check, if you have any trouble registering for a webinar, or if you have any questions, please email admin@library20.com.

NOTE: Please check your spam folder if you don't receive your confirmation email within a day.

SPECIAL GROUP RATES (email admin@library20.com to arrange):

Multiple individual log-ins and access from the same organization paid together: $75 each for 3+ registrations, $65 each for 5+ registrations. Unlimited and non-expiring access for those log-ins.
The ability to show the webinar (live or recorded) to a group located in the same physical location or in the same virtual meeting from one log-in: $299.
Large-scale institutional access for viewing with individual login capability: $499 (hosted either at Library 2.0 or in Niche Academy). Unlimited and non-expiring access for those log-ins.

DR. STEVE ALBRECHT

The Library Leader’s Guide to Employee Coaching: Building a Performance Culture One Meeting at a Time (in-press, Bloomsbury, 2026)

The Library Leader’s Guide to Human Resources: Keeping it Real, Legal, and Ethical (Rowman & Littlefield, 2025)

The Safe Library: Keeping Users, Staff, and Collections Secure (Rowman & Littlefield, 2023)

Library Security: Better Communication, Safer Facilities (ALA, 2015)

More on The Safe Library at thesafelibrary.com. Follow on X (Twitter) at @thesafelibrary and on YouTube @thesafelibrary. Dr. Albrecht's professional website is drstevealbrecht.com.

OTHER UPCOMING EVENTS:

August 28, 2026

September 4, 2026

September 8, 2026

September 9, 2026<

September 11, 2026

September 16, 2026

September 25, 2026

The Primary Gender Paradox

2026-08-26T13:08:39.712-04:00

Why the sexes are mostly the same and obviously different, and why both sides of the debate have been right

There is a fight that has been running in psychology for thirty years, and it has the peculiar property that neither side has ever landed a decisive blow. One camp, associated with Janet Hyde's gender similarities hypothesis, points out that when you measure men and women trait by trait, the distributions overlap enormously. On most measures, the overlap exceeds 80%, and the honest summary is that the sexes are far more alike than different. The other camp, associated with evolutionary psychology and, more recently, with Marco Del Giudice's multivariate work, points to the domains where the differences are large and cross-culturally stable, and to the fact that many small differences, taken together, can separate two groups almost completely. Del Giudice's 2012 analysis of fifteen personality facets found that when the traits are considered jointly, the overlap between the sexes falls to roughly 10%. Each side has data. Each side has published rebuttals of the other's data. And much of the public, watching from the outside, has largely concluded that the science is politicized because it keeps telling them something that their own lives contradict.

I want to argue that the argument has persisted because both sides are right, and that seeing why they are both right resolves what I will call the primary gender paradox: the sexes are, by careful measurement, largely the same, and by ordinary experience, plainly different. The resolution is not a compromise between the two positions. It is a structural account of why two accurate methods, applied to the same species, return opposite conclusions, and it yields a criterion for predicting which differences should hold across cultures and which should not.

The Shape of The Trait Space

Start with a picture. Take every psychological trait that has been measured—verbal fluency, mental rotation, neuroticism, risk tolerance, interest in mechanical systems, responsiveness to infant distress, sexual variety seeking, choosiness in mate selection, and so on through a few hundred more—and give every person a score on each. Now picture each person as a single data point that carries all of their scores at once, and the whole population as a cloud of those points. Men and women are two clouds.

The first thing to say about the two clouds is that they overlap heavily. There is no region that belongs to one sex alone, and no trait that one sex has and the other lacks; on every trait, both sexes span the full range. If you look at the two clouds through any single trait, they nearly coincide, offset by a small amount, which is why the overlap measured trait by trait typically comes out around eighty percent rather than a hundred. That is the truth the similarities camp has been insisting on, and it is not a small truth. Human sexual dimorphism is modest by primate standards, and human sex differences in psychology are not separate male and female modules but rather different calibrations of shared machinery, largely shaped by hormonal exposure during a few developmental windows. Shared architecture, different tuning. That is why any individual can land anywhere, and why the overlap on any single trait is so large..

The second thing to say is that they are not the same cloud. Each has its own center of density, the place where its points are thickest, and the two centers do not coincide. Most of the displacement between them comes from a small number of traits. On most traits the offset is tiny. On a few it is substantial. And the traits that do the pulling are not scattered at random through the list. They cluster.

Where the Differences Are

The cluster is well documented and was predicted before it was fully documented. In 1995, David Buss laid out the principle that follows from sexual selection theory: the sexes should differ psychologically only in the domains where, over evolutionary time, they faced different adaptive problems, and should be alike in the domains where the problems were the same. Avoiding predators, learning language, reasoning about cause and effect, counting, recalling facts, general intelligence: shared problems, and the sexes are correspondingly alike. Choosing a mate, guarding a mate, competing with rivals of one's own sex, investing in offspring, dividing the labor of provisioning and care: divergent problems, because the reproductive biology of the two sexes made the optimal solutions differ.

John Archer's 2019 review of the entire sex-difference literature confirms the pattern with unusual clarity. The largest and most cross-culturally stable differences fall in exactly these domains: sexual desire and variety seeking, choosiness, the weighting of youth and beauty against status and resources in mate preference, direct physical aggression, dominance seeking, risk tolerance, responsiveness to infants, and the people-versus-things orientation that underlies both occupational interest and, further back, the division of foraging labor. The spatial and targeting differences belong to the same cluster, as products of the division of labor rather than of mating directly. So does a difference that runs the other way and is easy to misfile: women's advantage at remembering where objects are. It looks like an ordinary memory trait, which would put it in the shared domain, until one notices that it is the memory a gatherer needs, the ability to return to a plant that was not ripe last week, and that the reciprocal male advantage in navigating by direction and distance is the memory a hunter needs. The two are one difference seen from both ends of a divided task. Outside this cluster, the differences shrink toward nothing.

So the picture is now sharper. Two overlapping clouds whose centers of density are pulled apart by a compact set of traits corresponding to sexual selection and parental investment, and which are nearly coincident everywhere else. Call that set the divergent domain.

Two Methods, Two Regions

Now look at what each side of the debate is actually doing when it measures.

The similarities method takes traits one at a time and computes an overlap for each. Because most traits lie outside the divergent domain, the typical overlap is high, and averaging across all traits produces a summary in which similarity dominates. This is correct. It is a correct description of the entire trait space, weighted by the number of traits it contains.

The differences method does one of two things. Either it looks specifically inside the divergent domain, where it correctly finds large effects, or it aggregates across many traits at once, asking how far apart the two centers of density are when every trait is counted, rather than how far apart they are on any one trait. Del Giudice's 2012 analysis did the second across fifteen personality facets and found a Mahalanobis distance of about 2.7, which corresponds to roughly ten percent overlap rather than eighty percent. That result was attacked on technical grounds, and some of the attacks have force, but the underlying logic is not in dispute: two groups can overlap heavily on every single trait and still be largely separable when the traits are considered together, because small differences accumulate. Two groups can overlap heavily on every trait and still be nearly separable when the traits are read together, because small differences accumulate. This too is correct. It is a correct description of the distance between the two centers of density.

Neither method is measuring the other's quantity. Overlap on a single trait and separability across the whole profile are different numbers, and a species can have high values of both. The thirty-year argument has been an argument between people measuring different things, each of whom took the other's number as a rival estimate of their own.

Why Experience Sides with Difference

That explains the scientific disagreement. It does not yet explain why ordinary people, who have never computed a Mahalanobis distance (e.g., me), are so confident that the sexes differ.

The answer is that ordinary experience is not a random sample of the trait space. It is a targeted sample of the divergent domain.

Consider where men and women spend their high-intensity time together. Not in the laboratory, and not in the domains of shared adaptive problems. They spend it in courtship, in sex, in the negotiation of commitment, in the raising of children, in the management of jealousy and the division of household effort. Those are the divergent domains, almost by definition; they are the situations that sexual selection shaped differences to handle. A person who has been married for twenty years has spent twenty years observing the other sex precisely on the traits where the two clouds are pulled furthest apart, and has essentially never observed it on the traits where they coincide, because nothing in a marriage makes verbal fluency or mental rotation salient.

Add two amplifiers. The first is that a spouse is not measuring a single trait with a questionnaire but integrating dozens of cues repeatedly over years, which is a multivariate classifier with a very large sample operating on the most diagnostic variables. It is the differences method, run by a nervous system, in the region where the differences method finds the most. The second is that what people notice is tails, not means. A displacement of half a standard deviation between two distributions is a modest overlap figure, but yields a two-to-one ratio at one standard deviation out and a four-to-one ratio at two. The violent man, the obsessive tinkerer, the woman who remembers every slight, the one who weeps at the advertisement: these are tail events, and tails magnify small central shifts into striking asymmetries.

There is a fourth reason: the measurements themselves are taken in the wrong place. A great deal of what is known about sex differences comes from self-report questionnaires administered in neutral settings. But many of the divergent-domain differences are likely state-dependent, triggered by courtship, threat, infants, or conflict rather than constantly present. A questionnaire filled out in a quiet room samples the sexes at their most similar. Marriage samples them at their most divergent. And self-report has a further known bias: people rate themselves against same-sex reference groups, so a woman assertive for a woman and a man assertive for a man both mark the same number, which compresses whatever difference exists.

So the lay perception and the psychometric finding are not in conflict. They are looking at the same underlying pattern from two different vantage points.

From Description to Criterion

Up to this point I have described a structure. The structure becomes a theory when it is combined with a distinction between two kinds of mind.

The adapted mind is the set of mechanisms shaped by selection to solve recurrent ancestral problems. It is conserved across cultures because the problems were universal, and it is resistant to cultural revision because culture did not build it. The adaptive mind is the capacity for flexible learning and cultural acquisition, the machinery by which a human can become a Sumerian scribe or a software engineer. It is malleable by design.

The mapping is now direct. The divergent domain is the domain of sex-differentiated adaptive problems, that is, adapted-mind territory. The traits there should be conserved, generationally regenerated, and present in some form in every culture, resistant to socialization, and visible early in development and in the comparative primate record. The shared domain is where the sexes faced the same problems, and differences there, to the extent they exist at all, should be adaptive-mind products: culturally produced, culturally variable, and responsive to changes in opportunity and norm.

That mapping yields a criterion with predictive content. It says which sex differences should survive a change in culture and which should dissolve. Differences in mating psychology, aggression, parenting orientation, and the people-things dimension should show low cross-cultural variance and should not shrink under egalitarian policy. Differences in, say, mathematics performance, self-reported confidence, or occupational attainment in fields not tied to the people-things dimension should show high cross-cultural variance and should track opportunity closely.

The existing evidence fits. The famous gender-equality paradox, in which occupational and interest differences persist or widen in the most egalitarian societies, is a partial confirmation: those differences load on the people-things dimension, and the criterion says they should not respond to policy. Meanwhile, the mathematics gap, which sits in the shared domain, has narrowed dramatically wherever opportunity has been equalized, which is also what the criterion says.

The Line Between Calibration and Malleability

A reader familiar with the literature will object at this point. Some divergent-domain traits do vary across cultures. Sociosexuality tracks the local sex ratio and pathogen load. Mate-preference weightings shift with economic conditions. If the divergent domain is conserved, why does it move?

The objection conflates two distinct concepts: facultative calibration and cultural malleability.

An adapted mechanism need not produce a constant output. Many are built to read local conditions and adjust. A mechanism that raises sexual restraint when pathogen load is high, or lowers choosiness when eligible partners are scarce, is exhibiting a fixed rule with a variable setting. The rule is conserved; the setting depends on input. That is calibration, and it is adapted-mind behavior through and through. Cultural malleability is different: it is a change in the rule itself, or the acquisition of a disposition the adapted mind never specified, through learning and norms.

The two can be distinguished empirically. Calibration should track ecological variables in the direction predicted by an adaptive analysis, and it should do so in every culture exposed to those variables. Malleability should track cultural variables and be capable of running in directions that make no adaptive sense. The criterion applies to rules, not to settings. A divergent-domain trait that shifts with sex ratio has not been shown to be malleable; it has been shown to be well designed.

The converse also needs to be stated, so that the criterion is not misread. It does not claim that everything in the shared domain is malleable. Much of the shared architecture is shared and fixed. The claim is about where difference is conserved, not about where anything is conserved.

Why This Is the Primary Paradox

Several other things are called gender paradoxes, and it is worth clarifying how they relate to this one.

The gender-equality paradox concerns why occupational and interest differences persist in affluent, egalitarian societies. Under the account given here, it is not a separate puzzle but a derived case: a divergent-domain trait, the people-things dimension, meeting an institutional expectation built on the assumption that all differences are shared-domain and should therefore respond to opportunity. The paradox exists only for someone who has not distinguished the two domains.

The controversies around sex-segregated sport have a similar structure, though here the divergent trait is physical rather than psychological. Athletic categories were built on the observation that differences in strength, speed, and body composition are large and conserved, and that the current disputes arise when a category built for the divergent domain is asked to accommodate a shared-domain conception of identity. Whatever one's view of how those disputes should be settled, the shape of the difficulty is the same shape as the occupational case: an institution designed around one region of the trait space is confronted with claims grounded in another.

The paradox I have described is prior to both. It concerns the structure of the trait space itself, and the others arise where institutions collide with that structure. It also has the widest reach, because it is the one that ordinary people encounter without any institution involved: every person who has lived with the other sex has run into it. That is why I call it primary. The others are its consequences at particular institutional boundaries; this one is the thing they are consequences of.

What Is at Stake in Getting It Right

Two errors follow from missing the structure, and both are currently common.

The first is to take the similarities finding as a claim about the divergent domain, and conclude that the differences people perceive in courtship, sex, and parenting are stereotypes to be corrected. This error underlies a great deal of well-intended advice that does not work, because it treats conserved calibrations as learned habits and expects them to yield to instruction. When they do not yield, the failure is attributed to insufficient effort rather than to a misdiagnosis.

The second is to take the differences finding as a claim about the whole space, and conclude that because the sexes differ in mating psychology they must differ in ability, aptitude, or fitness for roles that lie in the shared domain. This error underlies most of the historical justification for excluding women from work they were fully equipped to do, and it survives in softer forms wherever a divergent-domain difference is quietly extended into a shared-domain conclusion.

The structure defeats both errors at once, without asking either side of the debate to give up its data. The similarities camp is right about the space. The differences camp is right about the region. And the public is right about everyday life. The resolution has been available in the geometry all along; what was missing was the recognition that three correct observations of the same object, taken from three different viewpoints, are not three rival claims.

A Note on Testing

The criterion is falsifiable, and the test is a matter of measuring cross-cultural variance in the two domains and checking whether it sorts as predicted. Much of the necessary data exists in scattered form. A further test is possible through the historical corpus: if the divergent-domain differences are conserved, they should have been described, in the same direction, by every literate tradition, regardless of that tradition's power arrangements and regardless of which sex was doing the describing, while shared-domain claims should flip with era and narrator. That is a different, larger project, but well-suited to the unique access LLMs have to the human narrative corpus, and I plan on doing it.

WEBINAR - "AI SEARCH: How to Understand and Navigate This Dramatic Change in Search Technology"

2026-08-25T14:58:27.001-04:00

AI SEARCH:
How to Understand and Navigate This Dramatic Change in Search Technology
A Library 2.0 "AI Deep Dive" Webinar with Reed Hepler

OVERVIEW:

This 60-minute webinar explores the historical evolution of research methodologies and information access, from traditional library catalogs to modern AI-powered tools. It examines how each technological advancement has transformed the research landscape, reshaping how scholars, students, and information professionals interact with knowledge. Participants will trace the development of information retrieval systems through pivotal innovations including card catalogs, digital databases, search engines, and contemporary AI research assistants.

The session addresses both the democratizing potential and inherent limitations of each technological shift, focusing on aspects such as information accessibility, critical evaluation, and responsible use. Attendees will examine how biases have evolved rather than disappeared with each new technology, from editorial choices in print materials to algorithmic biases in search engines and AI tools. The workshop tackles known pitfalls of modern research tools, including SEO manipulation, commercial interests influencing search results, and AI "hallucinations" that present false information with unwarranted confidence.

Participants will engage with strategies for developing critical information literacy skills tailored to each technological era, emphasizing the SIFT framework for evaluating accuracy, bias, and relevance in both traditional and AI-generated information. Through practical exercises, attendees will learn to balance the convenience of "insta-research" with thorough evaluation methods. The session aims to empower academic librarians to guide patrons through the evolving information landscape while maintaining critical perspectives on both traditional and emerging research tools.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES:

Understand the historical progression of research tools from physical catalogs to AI assistants, including their functions and limitations.
Develop critical evaluation skills tailored to assessing information across different technological platforms.
Gain practical techniques for integrating historical context into information literacy instruction.

LEARNING OUTCOMES:

Trace the evolution of research methodologies and explain how each technological shift has impacted information access and retrieval.
Identify and critically evaluate potential biases, inaccuracies, and limitations across different research platforms and technologies.
Create structured approaches to information literacy instruction that incorporate historical context and critical evaluation frameworks for both traditional and AI-powered research tools.

This 60-minute online hands-on workshop is part of our Library 2.0 "Ethics of AI" Series. The recording and presentation slides will be available to all who register.

DATE: Tuesday, September 8th, 2026, 2:00 - 3:00 pm US - Eastern Time

COST:

$99/person - includes live attendance and any-time access to the recording and the presentation slides and receiving a participation certificate. To arrange group discounts (see below), to submit a purchase order, or for any registration difficulties or questions, email admin@library20.com.

TO REGISTER:

If you need to be invoiced or pay by check, if you have any trouble registering for a webinar, or if you have any questions, please email admin@library20.com.

NOTE: Please check your spam folder if you don't receive your confirmation email within a day.

SPECIAL GROUP RATES (email admin@library20.com to arrange):

Multiple individual log-ins and access from the same organization paid together: $75 each for 3+ registrations, $65 each for 5+ registrations. Unlimited and non-expiring access for those log-ins.
The ability to show the webinar (live or recorded) to a group located in the same physical location or in the same virtual meeting from one log-in: $299.
Large-scale institutional access for viewing with individual login capability: $499 (hosted either at Learning Revolution or in Niche Academy). Unlimited and non-expiring access for those log-ins.

REED C. HEPLER

OTHER UPCOMING EVENTS:

August 28, 2026

September 4, 2026

September 9, 2026<

September 11, 2026

September 16, 2026

September 25, 2026

Fall 2026

Go Ahead and Watermark

2026-08-22T19:21:04.604-04:00

The mark tells you a tool was used. It can't tell you whether anyone was thinking.

In August, Anthropic confirmed that text from its Claude models now carries an invisible "watermark," a subtle bias in word choice that a detector can read in aggregate. It was built to satisfy the EU AI Act, and Anthropic applied it everywhere rather than only where the law required. A lot of people are furious.

I'm not. Go ahead and mark it.

When I take a photograph, the camera sets the exposure. Mark that too if you like. The camera handles the light. I still decide what to point it at, and what I point it at is the photograph.

Do I use AI to write and communicate? Absolutely. The text is free. The ideas are not.

My father was dean of admissions at Swarthmore, then Stanford, then Princeton. He was chairman of the College Board. He was well known and respected in his field, and people loved to hear him speak. When he died, his house was so full of books that you walked through them on pathways, and the books were read and marked up, not shelved for show.

He never wrote one.

Maybe his mind wasn't built for organizing everything he was thinking into long, structured prose. Maybe he was a little afraid of it. Writing something down for other people takes a long time and carries weight, and it opens you to criticism in a way talking doesn't. I don't know which it was. I think I inherited it either way.

He was not the obvious candidate for any of those jobs. His parents hadn't gone to college. He was a self-described high school troublemaker who went into the military, came out, worked nights at the post office, and finished college in three years. His high school principal had written to the local college, or so the family story goes, telling them under no circumstances to consider admitting him (although they did).

So I think he spent his career looking past the record, because his own record had been wrong about him. He was among the first to put creative prompts on an application. One of the early Stanford questions I remember was some version of: if you were stranded on a desert island, what books would you bring and why? He seemed to be seeking a window the transcript couldn't provide. I learned a lot from that outside-in view of the machine, and I can't think about any of this without him in the room.

Working with an AI writing partner has dramatically increased my ability to communicate things I care about and, honestly, things I think are worth communicating. If a watermark shows up on this essay, it isn't marking fraud. It's marking help.

Here's what the watermark is. Claude is nudged, at the level of individual word choices, toward patterns a detector can recognize across a long enough passage. No identity is attached; it can't be traced to a person or a conversation. Its strength tracks how much text the model generated, not how much thinking you did: a heavy revision of your own argument can mark clearly, while a thin prompt that produces something you never thought about marks the same. A free tool that strips it appeared on GitHub within a day of the announcement, and the familiar arms race began. OpenAI built the same thing in 2024 and shelved it, partly because it was easy to evade and partly because it fell hardest on people writing in a second language.

There are good reasons for the rule that produced it. The harms the AI Act has in view are real: synthetic media in elections, impersonation, fraud, fabricated imagery of people who never consented. The law even names the category it cares about most, deepfakes and AI-generated text published to inform the public on matters of public interest. In those cases provenance is exactly the right question, and I want it answered as much as the next guy.

This essay is not that category, and neither is a huge amount of writing the mark will actually land on.

The strongest defense of the mark is that it's harmless: non-identifying, low-stakes, and everyone will be doing it within a year anyway. I grant all of it.

It's harmless because it's empty. It answers one question, did a machine touch this text, and that question has no relationship to the one anyone actually cares about, which is whether there's thinking in it. A mark calibrated to the volume of generated text carries no information about that difference. It's provenance theater: a real signal about an irrelevant question.

Schools got here first. Detection software, oral defenses, a return to blue books. The stated goal is academic integrity. What the apparatus protects is the sorting signal, the grade and the credential, because a polished essay used to be costly enough to stand in for competence and now it isn't.

And the apparatus cannot tell a cheater from a non-native speaker removing friction, or from a person who thinks better than they write, or from someone with processing differences using the tool as scaffolding. Maybe my father. Certainly me.

Ask a room of teachers to describe a time they truly learned something, and the answers converge: someone took an interest in me, someone trusted me, someone pushed me past what I thought I could do, I had a question that was actually mine. Nobody describes a proctor. We know what learning requires. We built something else, and now we're defending it.

None of this is new, or particular to AI. It's what tools do. Combustion, the telephone, television, the computer. Each one extended what a person could do, and each one cost something, to the people who used it and to the people who had built a life on the older way. That's not a complaint about technology. It's the description of it.

The Amish are worth a look here, not because they refuse, but because they don't. They ask, before adopting anything, what it will do to the community, and they let the answer govern. A phone in a shed at the end of the lane, not in the house. The remarkable thing isn't the restraint. It's that they ask first. The rest of us ask afterward, usually in the form of a panic, about technologies we otherwise experience as weather. Adoption is inevitable not just because tools are irresistible, but because that kind of deliberateness is rare.

And every tool creates a new population of people who can now do the thing. That population is larger than the old one and made of different people; the ones who are good with the tool were not the ones who were good at the output before it. That's a power shift, and the leverage is the whole reason tools transform anything. The cost is real. The iceman goes out of business when refrigeration arrives. The Knowledge, years of London streets in a cabbie's head, devalues the day the phone can route a stranger.

Writing is messier than ice. It bundled production with thinking, so some real cognitive skill devalues alongside the mechanical part. There are writers whose ideas come from wrestling with their sentences, and we don't yet know how much of that we're trading away.

But notice where the detection impulse comes from. Not from readers who can't tell good ideas from bad. From the displaced: people whose expertise was, in part, the expensive production of fluent text, and who correctly sense that the expense is gone. The watermark restores a mark of distinction. I did it the hard way. That's a human thing to want. It's also not an epistemic claim. It tells you who paid the old price, not whether the ideas are any good.

Writing itself was the first tool to extend thinking directly, and the first recorded reaction to it is the watermark reaction. In the Phaedrus, Socrates has the king Thamus tell the inventor of letters that writing will produce forgetfulness, that people will seem to know things they don't, that they'll have the appearance of wisdom without the reality.

He was right. Oral memory degraded. The bards were displaced. And the verdict went the other way anyway. Nobody watermarks a book to prove a pen was involved.

AI is the first tool since writing to extend composition itself, rather than storage or calculation, and that is new, and I think it's what frightens people. But I think writing was the tool my father had and couldn't use. This one might have reached him.

The current response was inevitable. Performance artifacts were expensive enough to serve as proxies for competence. The cost collapsed. Any individual or institution whose legitimacy rests on a proxy will try to restore its scarcity, because the alternative is admitting the proxy never measured what it claimed. A regulation lands, the labs comply, the strip tools appear within twenty-four hours. The loop has begun.

We are reluctant to govern the tool, so we're governing the mark it leaves.

LLM writing will be absorbed, the way calculators and spell-check and cameras were, and not all of it will be good. Some people will outsource the ideas along with the text. Some fluency will be hollow. No watermark catches that, because the failure is in the thinking, not the provenance. What would help is structural and slower: make unsupported claims expensive, reward verification, keep the reader's own judgment in the loop.

The photographic image is what it is regardless of the automatic settings. Mark it. Then look at the picture and tell me whether it's any good.

New Webinar - "Finding Your Footing in Times of Uncertainty: Navigating Change, Stress, & Complexity"

2026-08-21T11:15:50.802-04:00

Finding Your Footing in Times of Uncertainty: Navigating Change, Stress, and Complexity
A Library 2.0 Masterclass with Loida Garcia-Febo

OVERVIEW:

Many of us are tired of being told to be resilient. Yet uncertainty, change, and disruption remain part of modern life. This class explores a different perspective: resilience is not about becoming tougher or suppressing our emotions. It is built through small, consistent actions, supportive relationships, and everyday practices that help us navigate challenges with greater confidence, flexibility, and self-compassion.

This 60-minute training is presented by Library 2.0 and hosted by Loida Garcia-Febo. A handout copy of the presentation slides will be available to all who participate.

FOCUS:

Adapting to continuous change with greater flexibility and self-awareness
Learning evidence-based practices that strengthen our ability to navigate challenges and recover from setbacks
Developing practical tools for coping with uncertainty, ambiguity, and complexity
Building confidence and a sense of agency during periods of disruption and transition
Understanding that resilience is not something we suddenly acquire in difficult moments. It is built through small, everyday actions, choices, and habits that accumulate over time.
Moving beyond the idea that we need to "toughen up" or become stoic, and instead cultivating the skills, relationships, and perspectives that help us respond effectively to life's challenges.

DATE: Wednesday, September 9th, 2026, 2:00 - 3:00 pm US - Eastern Time

COST:

$99/person - includes live attendance and any-time access to the recording and the presentation slides and receiving a participation certificate. To arrange group discounts (see below), to submit a purchase order, or for any registration difficulties or questions, email admin@library20.com.

TO REGISTER:

If you need to be invoiced or pay by check, if you have any trouble registering for a webinar, or if you have any questions, please email admin@library20.com.

NOTE: Please check your spam folder if you don't receive your confirmation email within a day.

SPECIAL GROUP RATES (email admin@library20.com to arrange):

Multiple individual log-ins and access from the same organization paid together: $75 each for 3+ registrations, $65 each for 5+ registrations. Unlimited and non-expiring access for those log-ins.
The ability to show the webinar (live or recorded) to a group located in the same physical location or in the same virtual meeting from one log-in: $299.
Large-scale institutional access for viewing with individual login capability: $499 (hosted either at Learning Revolution or in Niche Academy). Unlimited and non-expiring access for those log-ins.

LOIDA GARCIA-FEBO

OTHER UPCOMING EVENTS:

August 25, 2026

August 28, 2026

September 4, 2026

September 11, 2026

September 16, 2026

September 25, 2026

Fall 2026

Socrates and AI

2026-08-18T19:30:21.515-04:00

Most educators I know would say they aspire to teach Socratically, prompting students with questions, drawing out their innate wisdom. The practical reality is that the modern curriculum doesn't allow most teachers the time, flexibility, or individual attention to be a Socratic teacher. However, drilling down past the idealized aspirations gives us a pretty good lens on the arrival of AI in education. Here's why:

A sophist has taken a chair in your classroom. The sophists were Socrates' rivals and opposites: Athens' professional flatterers of the mind, paid to make you sound right rather than be right. This one is brilliant, tireless, endlessly agreeable, and free. Your students talk to it every night. And it is doing, at scale, exactly what its predecessors did — making weak arguments sound strong and sending its clients away pleased with themselves.

Socrates Saw This Coming

In the Phaedrus, Socrates warns against the disruptive information technology of his own moment: writing. His objection wasn't that writing was useless. It was that it would give people the show of wisdom without the reality — they would seem to know many things while understanding little, having received the words without doing the work.

Twenty-four hundred years later, that is still the most precise one-sentence diagnosis of the student AI problem anyone has produced. The machine's fluent output gives the appearance of student understanding. Whether the reality is there too depends entirely on what happened between the student and the words.

Socrates was wrong about writing in the long run. Or maybe he was right, in the same way that the automobile weakens our ability to walk long distances, but we accept the increased capacity to travel as a valuable trade-off. Writing might arguably diminish individual memorization and logical processing, but it dramatically increased access to information and individual participation. His warning wasn't refuted, just contextualized. The question in front of us is whether this new trade can be contextualized the same way — because what's on the table this time feels like a stronger echo of Socrates' concern: will AI remove not the ability, but the need to think?

Two Professions, Two Relationships to A Mind

Athens had two kinds of professionals working on young minds, and the difference between them is a difference that is really helpful to us now.

The sophists were the paid experts. You brought them your argument and they made it sound stronger. You brought them your ambition and they gave it eloquence. They were skilled, in demand, expensive — and their service was fundamentally flattering: you left a sophist's session more impressed with yourself than when you arrived.

Socrates charged nothing and delivered the opposite experience. He examined you. He asked what you meant, then asked again, until the gap between what you could say and what you actually understood stood in the open where you both could see it. People left his sessions annoyed, embarrassed, and — some of them — changed. He called himself a gadfly, and Athens eventually found the stinging intolerable enough to vote him dead.

Flatter the mind, or grow it. That was the choice then. It still is.

The Machine Is a Sophist

Every AI your students use ships with a disposition, and the disposition is the sophist's. It agrees. It elaborates your point rather than testing it. It finds your question fascinating. It makes your rough draft sound finished. It has been tuned, by people and through choices, to be pleasing, because pleasing is what keeps users coming back.

I want to be careful here: the machine is not acting in bad faith, because the machine is not acting at all. The sophistry isn't in the silicon; it was installed by the toolmakers, and it can be overwritten by the user. That's the crack of light in this whole picture. The disposition is a default, not a nature.

But defaults govern almost everyone. And what the default quietly removes is the one condition of real learning the sophist could never supply and the gadfly always did: being challenged. A student can get information from a sophist, encouragement from a sophist, polish from a sophist. What they cannot get is challenge. And challenge is not optional — no amount of encouragement and support substitutes for it.

The Inversion

Here's what has actually changed since Athens, and it's not the method: it's the agency.

Socrates, and Socratic teachers, push the student. The new machine will not do this by default. In the market of eyeballs and adoption, the machine will inevitably be a sophist, however pedagogically sound a Socratic gadfly version would be. If a student wants to be examined and challenged by the new machine, they have to volunteer — and more than volunteer, since this actually takes some work: prompting to be challenged, and continuing to do so when it is hard. That is a higher bar than Athens or the average school has ever set. Being an agentic learner, the learner who summons their own examination, is likely to become increasingly hard and rare. For the student who figures this out, the new machine actually offers a better education than ever. And almost no student will find it on their own — which is where generative adults come in.

Birth Order, Temperament, and the Adaptive Mind

2026-08-18T18:42:28.143-04:00

Introduction: The Persistent Puzzle

Parents and siblings often notice clear differences that seem tied to birth order. Firstborns can appear more responsible or driven. Later-borns may seem more rebellious, flexible, or easygoing. These observations feel solid. They come from years of daily interaction and the family’s own story about who each child is.

Yet when researchers study large groups with standard personality tests, the lasting effects of birth order mostly disappear. A small difference in intelligence remains. The dramatic personality differences do not.

This is not a contradiction. I propose that it shows how the separated mind works. Birth-order characteristics are real, but they exist mainly as performative packages built by the Adaptive Mind. These solutions to belonging, integration, and attention tend to be similar across families, which is why they feel universal. They do not, however, rewrite the broader dimensional architecture that large personality studies measure.

The same idea can also change how we look at temperament types. They are not discrete innate templates. They are continuous dimensional ingredients packaged into coherent performative selves that fit the circumstances a person is born into.

This essay starts with the birth-order puzzle. It explains why family observations are accurate while lasting trait effects stay small. Then it uses that explanation to offer a clearer model of personality. The model separates biological predispositions and continuous capacities from the Adaptive Mind’s work of building a stable, belonging-focused mixture. Broad type systems are useful but coarse labels for that mixture. Once we see a childhood recipe as a performance solution rather than fixed essence, limited but real reconstruction becomes possible.

What the Studies Show

The strongest study of birth order and personality remains the 2015 study by Rohrer, Egloff, and Schmukle published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. They combined data from three large national panels in Germany, the United States, and Britain. The total sample was more than 20,000 adults. They used both between-family and within-family designs and controlled for important background factors.

On the Big Five traits—extraversion, emotional stability, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness—they found no consistent lasting effects of birth order. Firstborns were not reliably more conscientious. Later-borns were not reliably more rebellious or agreeable. The result held across different countries and family structures. The authors concluded that birth order does not have a lasting effect on broad personality traits outside the intellectual domain.

What did appear was a small, consistent drop in measured intelligence from firstborn to later-born positions—about 1.5 IQ points per step—along with a similar pattern in how people rated their own intellect. The researchers noted that the intelligence difference is “barely meaningful on the individual level.” In a two-child family, a randomly chosen firstborn has only about a 52 percent chance of scoring higher than a randomly chosen second-born. The gap only becomes visible in large samples.

The best current explanation is resource dilution. Parental time, attention, conversation, and teaching are limited. Firstborns usually get a stretch of undivided cognitive input. Each later child enters a home where that attention is already shared. The effect is environmental, not a change in biology. It is also small enough that it gives no reason to treat any particular child as fundamentally different in potential.

These findings do not erase what families experience. They relocate it. The differences parents see are real as performances and family roles. They are far less reliable as signs of lasting differences on the broad, partly heritable dimensions that personality tests measure once people leave home.

Why Birth-Order Characteristics Still Exist

The Adaptive Mind is the programmable cultural software that runs on top of our species-universal psychological firmware. Its core job is to turn the old survival rule—“belong or the alarm systems fire”—into the specific signals, roles, beliefs, and performances that secure belonging in this particular environment. Role assignment is one of its main early outputs. The child watches the available approval and threat patterns, notices which performances bring warmth or reduce friction, and installs those performances as identity. Because the installation uses the same chemical systems that enforce biological survival, the roles feel like “who I am.”

Birth order changes the installation environment in predictable ways. The first child gets a period of relatively undivided parental attention and teaching. Later children enter a household that already has older models, shared parental energy, sibling competition for niches, and shifted parental habits—sometimes more experienced, sometimes more tired, sometimes more relaxed. The approval patterns, the available roles, and the cost of standing out are different. The Adaptive Mind installs accordingly.

Several mechanisms make the differences vivid inside the family even when they do not show up as large lasting trait differences:

Age. A firstborn is simply older and further along at every parental observation.
Niche competition and mutual shaping. Once roles begin to settle, siblings and parents respond to them. This feedback amplifies the original differences. The “responsible” child is given more responsibility. The “easy” child is rewarded for low friction.
Self-narration. Each child builds a sincere story that makes their position and the family’s treatment of them feel coherent. Parents do the same. The resulting functional fiction helps the family run smoothly even while it overstates how deep and permanent the differences are.

The packages are real. They shape daily interaction, self-concept, and the family’s internal story. They simply do not reliably translate into the broad trait dimensions measured years later in large samples. Wider environments—school, peers, culture—further dilute or overwrite family-specific role software. The Adaptive Mind keeps updating.

This raises a natural question. If the installations are strong enough to feel like temperament for years inside the family, why do they look weak or absent when broad personality is measured in adulthood? The answer is not that the packages fade. It is that they stay largely context-specific. The Adaptive Mind installs family-role performances that are tightly bound to the parent and sibling relationships that produced them. Those performances remain available and can switch on strongly when the original context returns—most clearly when grown adults slip back into their childhood selves at holiday dinners or family gatherings. Outside that context, the packages do not fully generalize into the portable personality that trait inventories try to measure. The family sees real, recurring performances. The studies measure something else.

This distinction has a clear precursor. In 1998, Judith Rich Harris argued in The Nurture Assumption that parental and family influence on personality is real but largely context-specific. The more portable, lasting personality, she said, is shaped more by peer groups and environments outside the family. The framework here builds on that insight and extends it. The Adaptive Mind is the mechanism that installs both the narrow family-role packages and the broader, more transferable performative self. Birth-order characteristics belong mainly to the first category—highly specific to parent and sibling relationships. The temperament characteristics that feel more long-lasting belong to the second: they are the building of the actual performative self that a person carries into multiple environments, not just the relationship roles that activate inside the family.

Continuous Ingredients and Local Recipes

The deeper model of personality starts with a fixed set of continuous dimensional ingredients. These come from biological hardware and the adapted-mind firmware. They include biases in social energy and reward sensitivity, preference for concrete sensory data versus abstraction, relative weighting of impersonal consistency versus relational concerns, preference for structure versus openness, threat sensitivity, and related parameters. The dimensions are continuous, not categorical. Each person occupies a particular coordinate in this multi-dimensional space. Starting positions are partly heritable and partly shaped by very early experience. The coordinates represent capacities and tendencies, not finished identities.

The Adaptive Mind then builds the recipe. It selects proportions, amplifies some ingredients, quiets others, and combines them into a coherent performative package. That package is optimized for the specific belonging ecology the child actually faces: family structure, birth-order position, parental attention patterns, sibling dynamics, school and cultural rewards, and the approval-and-withdrawal gradients present during the developmental window. The package includes preferred behaviors, self-stories that make those behaviors feel like essence, selective amplification of certain poles, and role language that others can recognize.

Once installed with emotional intensity and repeated practice, the package feels like temperament or personality. The chemical force of the installation, the years of rehearsal, and the ongoing mutual shaping inside the family all contribute to the sense that it is innate. Broad type labels—Jungian functions, MBTI categories, even Big Five descriptions used as identity—are later, coarser handles on that already-built package. They capture statistical patterns across people but lose detail on the actual mix and on how much expression still depends on context.

This is the important distinction. Treating types as discrete, innate templates encourages essentialism and fixed-identity stories. It also reduces agency. Seeing continuous dimensional positions plus Adaptive Mind selection and packaging restores plasticity. It explains why the same person can look different across contexts. It makes the performative and self-narrative layer visible. The ingredients limit what recipes are possible or costly. The coherence and identity-locking of any particular recipe are Adaptive Mind work.

Reframing Temperament Types

Jungian temperament types and their modern descendants have often been treated as discrete innate templates—natural kinds that a person simply is. The architecture here suggests a different view. There is foundational biological shaping: continuous dimensional capacities with individual differences in starting levels and reactivity. There is also, and more largely, the creation of a stable mixture designed to fit the family and cultural circumstances one is born into.

Type systems succeed for clear reasons. They map onto real statistical clusters in how people process information and regulate social energy. They supply ready-made role language that reduces friction. They let the conscious mind treat preferences as fixed and therefore non-negotiable. They create quick recognition among people who share similar packages. Their popularity shows how hungry the Adaptive Mind is for coherent identity packages. Their limitations—modest reliability near the midpoints, loss of continuous information through forced dichotomies, cultural differences in which combinations are rewarded—follow from treating continuous packages as discrete essences.

Reconstructing the Recipe

Because the coherent package was Adaptive Mind software written to solve a particular set of childhood belonging and survival problems (emotional and physical), it is, in principle, reconstructible. Seeing the original mix as a performance solution rather than ontology opens the possibility of writing a new recipe better matched to adult life, current goals, and chosen values.

Interestingly, temperament specialists will claim that we often mis-identify our own type. A reasonable explanation for this is that we idealize certain qualities and traits and wish them for ourselves. Additionally, as our temperament package consists of occupying different positions on the various processing and regulation dimensions, those idealized qualities and traits do exist in us, just not in the mix we have idealized. But that also means we have some potential latitude for shifting the mix.

Several limits keep this from being easy. The underlying dimensional capacities remain. A new recipe still has to work with the actual levels of social energy, abstraction preference, and related parameters that are available. Extreme moves on the axes are costly or impossible. Skillful re-weighting and re-narration of the existing profile is the realistic target. Rewrite requires conditions similar to those that produced the original installation: emotionally charged repetition, image-rich practice, contexts that feel safe enough for the Adaptive Mind to update, and usually privacy so the work does not immediately become social performance. Insight alone rarely moves the software. Finally, the old recipe is often still load-bearing, for ourselves and for those around us. Intensity of defense around the current identity package is a reliable signal of how much belonging or coherence work it continues to do.

Within those limits, the conscious deliberating mind—the Rider—still has real agency. Once the original package is seen as a childhood solution rather than essence, it becomes possible to practice new weightings, new stories, and new performance habits until they begin to acquire their own chemical authority. This is the practical application of the taming–training–unleashing sequence to temperament-level material. Architectural literacy widens the gap between stimulus and response. It does not dissolve the apparatus or the chemistry of belonging, but it makes the machinery legible enough that some self-management becomes possible.

Conclusion

Birth-order characteristics exist as performative packages built by the Adaptive Mind for the specific ecology of a given family. They feel like temperament because of the chemistry and rehearsal of their installation. They do not reliably appear as lasting differences on broad personality dimensions for three reasons: those dimensions capture coarser, more stable features of the continuous substrate; the packages remain largely context-specific to the family system; and later environments continue to update the broader software.

The same architecture reframes temperament types. Continuous dimensional ingredients are supplied by biology and firmware. The Adaptive Mind packages them into coherent performative selves optimized for family and cultural circumstances. Coarse type systems later provide convenient but lossy labels for those packages.

The distinction matters. Essentialist type identification treats the package as ontology and narrows agency. Seeing continuous positions plus Adaptive Mind packaging restores the distinction between capacity and performance, between potential and recipe, and between the childhood solution and the adult possibility of deliberate reconstruction. The ingredients constrain. The recipe can, under the right conditions, be rewritten. That sequence keeps biological constraint, cultural and familial contingency, and limited but genuine Rider agency in their proper places. It is a more precise description of how the separated mind produces what we experience as personality.

The pattern is fractal. The same separation of narrative from operative function that structures individual self-understanding also structures family role systems, institutional life, and the synthetic systems now trained on the linguistic residue of human self-narration. Understanding the Adaptive Mind’s work of packaging continuous capacities into belonging-securing identities is therefore not a side application of the larger architecture. It is one of the clearest demonstrations of how the architecture operates at the scale of ordinary human development.

WEBINAR - "AI and Information Literacy"

2026-08-18T13:27:58.851-04:00

AI and Information Literacy
A Library 2.0 / Learning Revolution Workshop with Reed Hepler

OVERVIEW

This webinar explores the crucial intersection of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and information literacy, addressing the transformative impact of AI on how information is accessed, evaluated, and utilized. Participants will gain a foundational understanding of how Generative AI (GenAI) tools work, including their capabilities and limitations in the context of information-seeking and research. The session will delve into the integration of web search capabilities into AI tools and the implications of platforms like SearchGPT and advanced research tools for traditional information literacy practices.

A key focus will be on developing critical thinking skills to effectively assess AI outputs. Attendees will learn practical strategies, including the SIFT (Stop, Investigate the source, Find trusted coverage, Trace claims to the original context) method, to combat misinformation and evaluate the credibility of AI-generated content. The webinar will address the challenges posed by AI-driven misinformation and disinformation and equip participants with the tools to navigate the evolving information landscape responsibly.

The session will also explore the broader implications of AI on information literacy, including ethical considerations, bias detection, and the responsible use of AI in research and education. Through interactive discussions and real-world examples, participants will learn how to adapt their information literacy instruction and practices to meet the demands of the AI era. Attendees will leave with actionable strategies to foster critical engagement with AI tools and promote informed decision-making in an increasingly complex information environment.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES:

Understand how GenAI tools work and their impact on information literacy.
Apply critical thinking skills to evaluate AI outputs and identify misinformation.
Utilize the SIFT method for assessing the credibility of sources in the age of AI
Assess the implications of SearchGPT and deep research tools on information literacy practices.
Adapt information literacy instruction to promote responsible AI usage.

The recording and presentation slides will be available to all who register.

DATE: Tuesday, August 25th, 2026, 2:00 - 3:00 pm US Eastern Time

COST:

$99/person - includes live attendance and any-time access to the recording and the presentation slides and receiving a participation certificate. To arrange group discounts (see below), to submit a purchase order, or for any registration difficulties or questions, email admin@library20.com.

TO REGISTER:

If you need to be invoiced or pay by check, if you have any trouble registering for a webinar, or if you have any questions, please email admin@library20.com.

NOTE: Please check your spam folder if you don't receive your confirmation email within a day.

SPECIAL GROUP RATES (email admin@library20.com to arrange):

Multiple individual log-ins and access from the same organization paid together: $75 each for 3+ registrations, $65 each for 5+ registrations. Unlimited and non-expiring access for those log-ins.
The ability to show the webinar (live or recorded) to a group located in the same physical location or in the same virtual meeting from one log-in: $299.
Large-scale institutional access for viewing with individual login capability: $499 (hosted either at Library 2.0 or in Niche Academy). Unlimited and non-expiring access for those log-ins.

REED C. HEPLER

Reed Hepler is a digital initiatives librarian, instructional designer, copyright agent, artificial intelligence practitioner and consultant, and PhD student at Idaho State University. He earned a Master's Degree in Instructional Design and Educational Technology from Idaho State University in 2025. In 2022, he obtained a Master’s Degree in Library and Information Science, with emphases in Archives Management and Digital Curation from Indiana University. He has worked at nonprofits, corporations, and educational institutions, encouraging information literacy and effective education. Combining all of these degrees and experiences, Reed strives to promote ethical librarianship and educational initiatives.

OTHER UPCOMING EVENTS:

August 20, 2026

August 28, 2026

September 4, 2026

September 11, 2026

September 16, 2026

September 25, 2026

Fall 2026

Student Success with AI - Two Free Events

2026-08-17T13:47:14.747-04:00

High School Student Success with AI
A Free Library 2.0 / Learning Revolution Workshop with Steve Hargadon

I've spent my career in educational technology, and this is the talk I've been circling the whole time.

AI can now do a student's homework better than the student can. Nearly everything being said about this — the detection tools, the policies, the "responsible use" frameworks — is an attempt to protect a system that stopped working the moment fluent output became free. This hour is about what that moment is revealing: that school has been running on a bargain, compliance in exchange for a credential, and that the bargain is now failing on both sides at once. AI isn't breaking education. It's exposing it — and the costs will fall hardest on the students and families who see it last.

In sixty minutes: why the report card can no longer see the difference between a student whose thinking is growing and one whose thinking is quietly being replaced; a short exercise that will show you, from your own memory, what real learning has always required; and one question, borrowed from the most deliberate technology adopters in America, that cuts through every AI decision a family or classroom faces. You'll leave with a different view of school, of success, and of what education was for all along — and a one-page card that holds the tools.

One caution before you sign up. If what you want is homework help, classroom AI tools, and guardrails against cheating — AI absorbed into the schooling model the way we've absorbed every previous disruptive technology — there are hundreds of resources for that, and this isn't one of them. This is for parents, teachers, and students who suspect AI has changed the game itself and want to discover what it makes possible beneath the surface: real learning, real-life agency, real competence. It's free. Bring someone who's been waiting for this conversation.

College Student Success with AI
A Free Library 2.0 / Learning Revolution Workshop with Steve Hargadon

A few years ago I gave a talk at Google. One slide showed the top 10% of students — the ones school worked for, the "good learners." Afterward, a group of Google interns came up to correct me: "We were in that group. But we didn't see ourselves as good learners. We were good at the game."

That correction changed how I understand school, and it's where this talk begins. This is not a session on catching cheaters or writing better prompts. It's an honest hour for college students about what school was actually measuring, why AI has suddenly made that arrangement visible — and what's still genuinely theirs: the thinking, the judgment, the confidence in their own minds that the game never gave anyone, including its winners.

If you work with college students, or love one, this is the conversation almost nobody is having with them: not the alarmed adult, not the AI cheerleader, but a third thing. Send it to parents or students who are ready for it.

STEVE HARGADON

Steve is the founder and director of the Learning Revolution Project, the director of Library 2.0, the host of the Future of Education and Reinventing School interview series, and has been the founder and chair (or co-chair) of a number of annual worldwide virtual events, including the Global Education Conference and the Library 2.0 series of mini-conferences and webinars. He has run over 100 large-scale events, online and in person.

He has hosted over 100 AI events, created the online Encyclopedia of AI, and blogs extensively about AI and its impact on teaching and learning. His library and education work has been around the democratization of learning and professional development. He supported and encouraged the development of thousands of other education-related networks, particularly for professional development, and he pioneered the use of live, virtual, and peer-to-peer education conferences. He popularized the idea of "unconferences" for educators and, for over a decade, ran a large annual ed-tech unconference, now called Hack Education (formerly EduBloggerCon).

Steve himself built one of the first modern social networks for teachers in 2007 (Classroom 2.0), developed the "conditions of learning" exercise for local educational conversation and change, and inherited and grew the Library 2.0 online community. He may or may not have invented an early version of the Chromebook, which he demoed to Google. He blogs, speaks, and consults on education, educational technology, and education reform, and his virtual and physical events and online communities have over 150,000 members.

His professional website is SteveHargadon.com.

OTHER UPCOMING EVENTS:

August 20, 2026

August 28, 2026

September 11, 2026

September 16, 2026

Fall 2026

Steve Hargadon

New Webinar - "Bringing in a Speaker at Your Library: Planning for Safety, Security, and Success"

Talking to the Elephant: Why Hypnosis Matters in the Age of AI

Why We Often Talk Past Each Other

New Webinar - "Protecting Your Energy: Sustainable Well-Being for Frontline Library Workers"

Blog Posts from Steve Albrecht & Steve Hargadon: Library Safety, AI, Education, and (R)evolutionary Psychology

New Working Session: "Leading Staff Through AI Change"

Leading Staff Through AI Change A Working Session for Library Leaders with Crystal Trice

College Success with AI: AI Isn't Breaking Education — It's Exposing It

New Webinar - "Comprehensive Guide to OER: Open Educational Resources for All"

New Webinar - "Tools For Teams in Turmoil: Getting Along and Getting Their Best"

New Webinar: "10 Ways to Avoid AI"

New Webinar - "Connection, Meaning, and Belonging: Strengthening Well-Being Through Community"

Briefing: "Get Your Leadership Team and Your Board on The Same Page About AI"

Get Your Leadership Team and Your Board on The Same Page About AI A Shared Briefing for Library Leadership and Board Members with Crystal Trice

New Webinar: "10 Great Ways to Use AI for Brainstorming"

10 Great Ways to Use AI for Brainstorming A Library 2.0 AI Workshop with Crystal Trice

Three Different Ways to Hold Conversations About AI: Peers, Patrons, and Staff

Next Week: "10 No-Compromise Decisions Every Library Should Make About AI"

10 No-Compromise Decisions Every Library Should Make About AI A Library 2.0 AI Workshop with Crystal Trice

New Webinar: "10 Great Ways to Use AI for Writing Well" with Crystal Trice

10 Great Ways to Use AI for Writing Well A Library 2.0 AI Workshop with Crystal Trice

New Webinar: "Creating Service Excellence in Your Library"

The Primary Gender Paradox

WEBINAR - "AI SEARCH: How to Understand and Navigate This Dramatic Change in Search Technology"

Go Ahead and Watermark

New Webinar - "Finding Your Footing in Times of Uncertainty: Navigating Change, Stress, & Complexity"

Socrates and AI

Birth Order, Temperament, and the Adaptive Mind

WEBINAR - "AI and Information Literacy"

Student Success with AI - Two Free Events

Leading Staff Through AI Change
A Working Session for Library Leaders with Crystal Trice

Get Your Leadership Team and Your Board on The Same Page About AI
A Shared Briefing for Library Leadership and Board Members with Crystal Trice

10 Great Ways to Use AI for Brainstorming
A Library 2.0 AI Workshop with Crystal Trice

10 No-Compromise Decisions Every Library Should Make About AI
A Library 2.0 AI Workshop with Crystal Trice

10 Great Ways to Use AI for Writing Well
A Library 2.0 AI Workshop with Crystal Trice