" /> Science and Society: October 2006 Archives

« September 2006 | Main | January 2007 »

October 14, 2006

More on digital desires

Mind Hacks has this. on schizophrenia

In other words, very little can be said with certainty. Any definition that finishes with the ominous "This may not be a single entity" suggests we really don't understand much about the associated experiences.

So why does the argument over schizophrenia persist?

Mainly because the medical and legal systems are far more comfortable with cut-and-dry "you have it or you don't" conditions than ones in which you might have a bit of this and a bit of that.

This is often due to the fact that the medical and legal systems have to make cut and dry decisions. To treat or not to treat, to detain or not to detain, and so on. These decisions become a lot easier when the supporting information is as simple as possible.

It also becomes a lot easier to market treatments for specific disorders. In fact, in many countries, drugs can only be licensed for specific disorders.

So, no diagnosis means that there's no way of getting drugs licensed. This is why pharmaceutical companies have a vested interest in supporting the concept of schizophrenia.

In other words, the usefulness of the diagnosis of schizophrenia rests not only upon the supporting medical research, but also on its social function

Madness Explained reviewed here covers this in great detail.

which concludes with a metaphoric description of various mental health professionals

Madness is like being at the wheel of a car that you don't know how to drive on the streets of an unfamiliar city. A psychologist is someone who will look under the bonnet to show you how the bits and pieces seem to connect. A psychotherapist is someone who can point out the traffic jams but may also lose you down a dark narrow street where you end up in a ditch. Psychiatrists are like those men in tow trucks. They can fill the tank with chemicals, they can pull you out of the ditch and sometimes the conversation in the cab on the way home can be surprisingly enjoyable. And they love to turn on those flashing lights...

Madness Explained is a very interesting book. Well worth a read and cast our digital desires in an interesting light.

October 13, 2006

Virtual Team Working

Silicon Republic Asks

Do Virtual teams work?

Reporting on Cisco work

The Cisco study, ‘The Psychology of Effective Business Communications in Geographically Dispersed Teams’, carried out by occupational psychology specialists at Pearn Kandola, examined the trust-eroding phenomena that plague many virtual teams.
Carolyn Shearsmith, an occupational psychologist at Pearn Kandola and co-author of the report, explains: “Despite the increasing globalisation of companies there is still a significant resistance amongst the old order to virtual teams. They are not seen as productive and this is due to a struggle to communicate effectively.�

Shearsmith recommends that companies strive to put in a level of personal, cognitive trust in how virtual teams relate to one another and this can be driven by the use of videoconferencing.

By comparing the pros and cons of computer-based communication with face-to-face interactions, the report identifies new rules for communicating that will help virtual teams to work together successfully.

Users of electronic communication can take up to four times as long to exchange the same number of messages as communicating face-to-face, the research found, particularly as non-verbal cues can account for up to 63pc of the social meaning within face-to-face exchanges.

Trust can be fragile in virtual teams because of ‘behavioural invisibility’ when teams cannot observe each other, a lack of social interaction and the ‘virtual silence’ caused by not responding to emails and voice messages.

Cultural differences can also become exaggerated within virtual teams. Multicultural teams can take up to 17 weeks to become as effective as teams whose members are of the same culture, Cisco claims.

“Because people aren’t sitting together physically, companies need to put in a set of behavioural guidelines so that everybody can adapt their behaviour,� says Shearsmith.

Karl McDermott of Cisco Ireland says that a key strategy taken by Cisco is the creation of one-stop portals from which virtual teams can work. “Basically, in a single view you can tell what a person’s favourite mode of communication is, whether it’s instant messaging, email, voice over IP, SMS or mobile phone. In terms of people working more flexibly in or away from the office, the portal strategy is a definite plus.�

and later there are some interesting snippets

Duftborg believes that issues like trust and cultural differences need to be mitigated by regular meetings between executives. “While all of us are dependant on email and the internet, it is very obvious to us that we need to meet face to face on a regular basis.

“It is seldom that we are all together at the same time but you can’t rely only on email and the internet, especially as we come from different cultures. This throws up lots of different dimensions to communicating: ‘no’ doesn’t always mean no and ‘yes’ can mean no.

“Knowing people means you have to meet them regularly,� Duftborg synopsises.

Googling the source article let me to this site

with some further insight

The first key point is that teams of people must have trust in order to communicate effectively. But this is a bit of a catch 22 since communication is necessary in order to establish trust. The article points out that companies must facilitate development of effective trust using socialization strategies such as virtual coffee breaks and online chat rooms. Furthermore, the article states that trust building in virtual locations is difficult when people cannot observe the amount of effort or overhear what team members say when they are interacting with others. We have seen online virtual coffee breaks, or other discussions work. But more importantly is the concept of knowing what the other party is doing, and being able to get immediate feedback and validation from others about ideas. Think about being able to chat in real time with a team where half the people are chatting in their second language yet it is possible to have a complete and seamless dialog about ideas.

The next key point is about conflict. I especially like the comments that “spontaneous and clear communications is key to reducing conflict in all teams. This is especially important in virtual teams where there may be more ambiguity about what colleagues are doing�. Once again, we have seen this work for years using Persistent Group Messaging. In fact, we can relate this back to personal experience. Our company is itself geographically dispersed. We have core operations in Chicago yet we have sales, support, and implementation teams in London, Washington DC, New York, and Denver. Furthermore, there was a time at the beginning of our company’s history when we had development teams working out of their homes while we moved offices. During that time we were able to deliver 3 releases of software on-time with no loss of productivity. How? Because we were able to communicate effectively, monitor what each other was doing, and easily resolve conflict through constant and persistent communications.

Fooled by Randomness - A Review

Reviewing Fooled by Randomness

Review of "Fooled by Randomness" by Nassim Nicholas Taleb
2nd Edition
Thomson Texere

The short review. Go out and buy this book.

The longer review.

This is an interesting, eclectic and wonderful book. I showed this book to a friend of mine, one of the smartest guys I know, as I was reading it. My friend made a very interesting comment, Taleb doesn't reference the right people". Well as Taleb notes, this is not an academic tome, its a reflection that he developed over time. In fact it is difficult to categorise this book. Part popular science, part memoir, part advice on the markets, it is wholly facinating.

The central point of this book is that the world is more random than we think. "The real trouble with this world of ours , as Peter Bernstein author of 'Against the Gods:The Remarkable Story of Risk' wrote, "

is not that it is an unreasonable world, nor even that it is a reasonable one. The commonest kind of trouble is that it is nearly reasonable, but not quite. Life is not an illogility; yet it is a trap for logicians. It looks just a little more mathematical and regular than it is; its exactitude is obvious, but its inexactitude is hidden; its wildness waits for you". Where Bernstein did a wonderful job tracing the history of statistical analysis and approaches to risk, Taleb does a better job of focussing on this inexactitude, our habit as a pattern matching species, of attributing patterns to results where no patterns exist, of being literally fooled by randomness.

The approach he takes to the task is eclectic. The book takes us from the Stoics of ancient Greece to the mad traders of New York and other cities who profit from, and ultimately fail due to this inexactitude. Taleb describes the inexactitude of the world in terms of 'Black Swans'. This stems from the inductive logic that allows us to conclude that all swans are white on the basis that all observed swans are white. The appearance of single black swan immediately falsifies this notion. The appearance of this black swan can have a nasty effect of breaking the bank if you've bet all your money on white again.

What Taleb is pointing out is that we don't really understand the world. It's more random than it appears. This might appear as capriciousness. Having experienced a 'Black Swan' myself with the sudden death of my father, a man the stoics would have liked, the appearance of 'Black Swans' can make the univerise appear malign. But then ascribing intentionality where there is none is something we humans do well. Its part of the failing that allows us to be fooled by randomness. The real story of the univerise is that it doesn't care, things are more random than they appear and what we see as information is often only noise we haven't managed to understand properly.

The book takes the reader on a wonderful adventure through the looking glass into a wonderland. The important thing is that this strange wonderland is the real world, and our intuitive perception of the world is what is distorted. The book takes us on an informative, entertaining and engrossing ride that ranges from the use of Monte Carlo tools to simulate the range of possible outcomes, through the problems of induction posed by Hume and onto the falsification theories of science posed by Popper. The use of Popper is quite interesting as he is a pivotal character in the philosophy of science. There are criticisms of Poppers claim that falsification is at the heart of true science. What is interesting in this context is that this is a practical application of philosophy predicated on the basis that "some types of knowledge did not increase with information - but which types we cannot be certain". A place where scepticism is a healthier and safer stance than faith.

As I look over my very annotated, heavily underlined version of Talebs book I realise that if I am to do a review that covers everything that caught my attention that this review could go on for days. The scope and breath of this book is staggering. Taleb encompasses classical philosophy (and some of the more modern variety), the neurobiology of emotion as presented by Damasio, and the contributions to economics and decision making of Kahneman and Tversky. He captures the essence of modern statistical quality methodologies such as six sigma (without realising it) when referring to the importance of checking your measurement instruments. His discussion of path dependence of beliefs illustrates why it can be difficult for good new ideas to take root, the issue of paradigm shifts in science described famously by Kuhn in his 'Structure of Scientific Revolutions'.

Taleb uses an interesting and engaging device throughout the book. He presents the example of another trader called Nero Tulip, who is a thinly disguised version of Nassim Taleb. (I stand to be corrected on this one). You have to wonder about what happens to Nero at the end of the book, but you'll have to read the book itself to understand that comment.

Is there anything I didn't like about the book? Well there are a few albeit minor criticisms. Taleb suggests stoicism as a solution to the emotional vagaries of life, such as the 'gentlemen of Victorian England'. I'm not sure this rationally detached group is much of a model for anyone. "The stoic will thus be immune from life's gyrations as he will be superior to the wounds from some of life's dirty tricks". Unfortunately to turn us into stoics would I believe deprive us of the Art and Culture that Taleb so obviously enjoys, art which is in its essence a human emotional responce to the world that affect and effects us. He does recognise this of course recognising that stoicism like other "things can be carried to the extreme". The tone of the book at times borders on arrogance, something Taleb recognises with a small measure of schadenfreude thrown in for good measure. Taleb doesn't suffer fools gladly, and he can be very pointed in his comments as when he refers to "The economics prize in honour of Alfred Nobel awarded by the Swedish Central Bank". The comment, well taken, points out that the "Nobel Prize for Economics" was not created by Nobel, but by some economists so they could give awards to other economists, basking in the reflected prestige of the actual Nobel prizes.

Ultimately the book benefits rather than suffers because of this. By taking this approach Taleb avoids the dry sterility that plagues so many more 'worthy tomes' which implode under their self importance and bombast. Its nice to see someone so open in his thoughts and so passionate in his beliefs, and most importantly there is nowhere that Taleb is obviously wrong in the points that he makes.

There are a few final points that I think are worth making. The first has some profound consequences. The extension of some of the ideas in the book that people prefer a little continual pleasure now even with the risk of a big pain in the future rather than small amounts of pain followed by a big pay off is that we will have serious problems in making society a healthier place. Why the immediate pleasures of the junk food, alcohol and tobacco so easily displace the benefits of longer life and health, that can be achieved through continual rational denial is now obvious.

The penultimate point, posed wholly tongue in cheek is that Taleb is a success, as evidenced by his wealth and success. Is it possible that his success is itself due to luck rather than his application of skill and his attempts to avoid falling into the traps of human fallibility? Is it possible that irony of ironies that the success of Nassim Nicholas Talib is noise rather than information?

Consider this as the work of a renaissance man, someone more interested in getting at the truth where ever it may be found. Talebs unorthodox enquiring mind is worthy of the the men of the renaissance who in an open minded fashion brought together art and science, and were the midwifes of the enlightenment and of modern science. Buy this book. Read this book. Learn to understand this book.

October 12, 2006

Reconciling our analog nature with our digital desires

I'm trying to reconcile our analog nature with our desire for order. I'll call it our digital desires, how we want things to be simple. Its described in some great books
Fire in the Mind: Science, Faith, and the Search for Order, , Being Human: the Search for Order and John L. Casti's "Searching For Certainty: What Science Can Tell Us about the future" though as Nicholas Nassim Taleb points out we are "Fooled by Randomness"http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com (review to follow)

Donald Norman points out

The world is not neat and tidy. Things not only don't always work as planned, but the notion of "plan" itself is suspect. Organizations spend a lot of time planning their future activities, but although the act of doing the planning is useful, the actual plans themselves are often obsolete even before their final printing.

and illustrates with a practical example


The United States Navy has a formal, rigid hierarchy of command and control, with two classes of workers -- enlisted crew and officers -- and a rigid layer of formal rank and assignment. There are extensive procedures for all tasks. Yet in their work habits, especially in critical operations, rank seems to be ignored and crew members frequently question the actions. Sometimes they even debate the appropriate action to be taken. The crew, moreover, is always changing. There are always new people who have not learned the ship's procedures, and even the veterans often don't have more than two or three year's experience with the ship: the Navy has a policy of rotating assignment. Sounds horrible, doesn't it? Isn't the military supposed to be the model of order and structure? But wait. Look at the outcomes: the crew functions safely and expertly in dangerous, high-stress conditions. What is happening here?

So why does drives for process efficiency come from. If Druckers idea that it ain't the people that are broken its the process is true then we improve the process, but processes are limited without smart people. So how do we build adaptable processes and systems relying on smart systems. In our drive to build better processes have we missed much of the point?

October 10, 2006

If writing does this what will Google do ?

Plato on the dangers of writing


... this discovery of yours will create forgetfulness in the learners' souls, because they will not use their memories; they will trust to the external written characters and not remember of themselves. The specific which you have discovered is an aid not to memory, but to reminiscence, and you give your disciples not truth, but only the semblance of truth; they will be hearers of many things and will have learned nothing; they will appear to be omniscient and will generally know nothing; they will be tiresome company, having the show of wisdom without the reality.
Writing (Plato, Phaedrus, 360 B.C.: Thamos to Theuth, god of inventions)

Plato was right to a degree. Experience is important, and so is thoughful reflection on that experience. Think of how the term "Academic" is used to disparage people without practical experience. And these tend to be a group who who write a lot about their subject, almost acting as exemplars of Platos criticisms (and possibly postmodernism is this taken to the worst level. On the whole the benefits of writing outweight the costs. In relation to this Andy Clark has an interesting paper called "Magic Words" where he talks about some of the benefits of extending the mind through language and text, describing how the

"use of words and texts may usefully be seen as computationally complementary to the more primitive and biologically basic kinds of pattern-completing abilities that characterize natural cognition."

The criticisms that Plato makes enable us to use the mind in new ways. Imagine what would happen if we had to consign everything to memory. Thinking about this I wonder if this in what ways will Google change us?

As noted by Dave Snowden via the BBC on Googles purchase of YouTube

"The YouTube team has built an exciting and powerful media platform that complements Google's mission to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful," Google chief executive Eric Schmidt said in a statement.

Dave's point and an excellent one is

Information needs context, and that can only safely be provided by a variety of perspectives and interpretation. What you find when you search is not value neutral; it defines what you know and pay attention to.

He notes that


Nick Carr has a great blog which starts off "It's funny how a set of instructions - an algorithm - written by people can come to be granted, by those same people, a superhuman authority." He has discovered that searching for Marin Luther King gets you to a white supremacist group, and that no one in Google seems worried about it.

And thats just one issue with strpping out context.

When you attempt to strip out context you lose the essence of the information. And when you're attempting to organise all the worlds information you're invariably going to strip out context. What was it Plato said again...


; they will be hearers of many things and will have learned nothing; they will appear to be omniscient and will generally know nothing; they will be tiresome company, having the show of wisdom without the reality

I don't think that genie's like Google could (or should) be put back into their bottles. What we do need to do is to get smart with how we use them and not cede control of too much information to a single company. I think the most interesting question may be how will our tools shape us, as invariably they do, and we haven't seemed to consider this to any degree.

October 9, 2006

Turtles all the way down.

Watching Newsnight on BBC2 while feeding the baba I saw a piece on Paul Davies who's written a book called "The Goldilocks enigma"

He mentions the problem of infinite regress during the interview. I first heard of this quite a long time ago from one of my best friends in secondary school. Its called "Turtles all the way down"

The story goes ...

"A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the Earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the centre of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. "At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." "The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down."

I was thinking about this again this evening., in light of Paul Davies. The question for science being - where do the laws of physics come from. With the answer from religion being that they come from god. The problem is the next question I want answered is where does god come from ? To my mind all the proposition of god adds is one more level of regress without answering any of the questions.

The friend of mine who introduced me to this and much interesting thinking was http://science.jpl.nasa.gov/people/Cleary/">Kieran Cleary who is now working on understanding the early universe.

Now that really is mind expanding.

October 3, 2006

The conditions for innovation

Dave Snowden has some thoughts on the conditions necessary for innovation


I have long argued that there are three necessary, but not sufficient conditions for innovation to take place. These are:

1. Starvation of familiar resource, forcing you to find new approaches, doing things in a different way;
2. Pressure that forces you to engage in the problem;
3. Perspective Shift to allow different patterns and ideas to be brought into play.

And in comments on a previous post on the same site referring to the Data-Information-Knowledge-Wisdom (D-I-K-W)hierarchy he notes

"I would tend to say that K creates I from D and therefore KM is creating shared context (concepts)

What interests me here are the notions of perspective shifting and context sharing and innovation and how they are related.