Mobile Internet

51% of total time spent on the Internet is on mobile devices - first time ever mobile is #1. pic.twitter.com/WwfoQWfHop

— DataStories (@LindaRegber) March 10, 2016

Unpredictable karma

From An Alchemy of Mind by Diane Ackerman.

Reason and Logic seem perfectly, what's the word, . . . reasonable. But what does it mean to be logical and reasonable. Ackerman gives an example of how cultural wiring can influence understanding of communication. In this instance, providing a perfectly reasonable answer that is, none-the-less, because of differences in cultural expectations, quite unexpected.

The brain is not completely hardwired, though at times it may seem so. Someone once wisely observed that if one's only tool is a key, then every problem will seem to be a lock. Thus the brain analyzes as a way of life in Western cultures, abhors contradiction, honors formal logic, and abides by many rules. Reasoning we call it, as if it were a spice. Cuisine may be a good metaphor for the modishness and malleability of the the thinking brain. In some non-Western cultures the brain doesn't reason through logic but by relating things to the environment, in a process that includes contradiction, conflict, and the sudden appearance of random forces and events. The biologist Alexander Luria was struck by this when he interviewed Russian nomads in 1931. "All the bears up North are white," he said. "I have a friend up there who saw a bear. What color was the bear?" A nomad stared at him, puzzled: "How am I supposed to know? Ask your friend!" These are but two styles in the art of the brain. All people are alike enough to be recognizable, even predictable at times, yet everyone has a slightly different flavor of mind. Whole cultures do. Just different enough to keep things interesting, or, depending on your point of view, frightening.

This is one of those paradoxes that are hard to resolve because they involve trade-off goals.

If we want to move quickly to a constructive answer to an important question we have a contradiction between tactical efficiency and strategic effectiveness.

With the defined problem we are likely to get to a reasonable answer quickly as long as we have people with similar levels of intelligence, a common language, culture and religion, and common life experiences. All these things facilitate rapid and accurate communication that in turn facilitates resolution.

On the other hand, we know from the research of Tetlock and others, that homogenous teams are more likely to quickly reach an efficient answer but the more heterogenous teams reach more effective answers.

A team with differing levels of intelligence, life experience, language, culture, and religion are likely to expend time having to deal with 1) how to make a decision and 2) expend time resolving meanings, definitions and unstated assumptions. They spend much more time but by the time they get to a decision it is both more rigorously tested and more likely to be informed by a broader context. The outcome of their decision-making may not be efficient but it is more likely to be effective.

In stable environments, there is a tendency to favor the efficiency of homogenous teams. In complex dynamic environments the preference swings towards diverse teams. Both teams are good in their context, but which context is it that you are facing? That in turn is hard to know.

The turkey who is accustomed to thinking of the nice farmer as his friend because the farmer shelters, protects and feeds him, is in for a rude awakening when the context becomes less stable the day before Thanksgiving.

Making the decision on whether to use homogenous or diverse teams depends on whether you are focused on tactical efficiency or strategic effectiveness which in turn depends on whether you face a stable or dynamic context. Context is karma and karma is unpredictable.

A suitable caution

The concept of simplification is a lot easier than the accomplishment as documented in Streamlining the Universal Remote Device by Eric A. Taub.

In the classic Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien the action hinges on the One Ring:

One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them.

It has been thirty-one years since the introduction of the first universal remote control and despite the absence of orcs, giants, dragons and trolls, we still don't have a widely acknowledged useful universal remote control. From Taub.

If you’re of a certain age, you may recall what you had to do to watch television: You turned the set on.

Today, things are much more complicated. With HDTV, separate audio receivers, Blu-ray players, game consoles, streaming media players, and cable or satellite set-top boxes, simply turning on the TV feels like operating a console at NASA’s mission control.

The idea of a “universal remote,” one device that can control everything in your home theater setup, is not new. But too often, products that have claimed to be universal have failed to deliver.

To get them to work, users often have had to manually enter codes for each device. And even when that’s successful, many important commands are buried in a remote screen’s submenus, making them cumbersome to operate.

“That’s not an inaccurate assessment,” said Ian Crowe, director of marketing for Logitech’s Harmony, makers of the most popular universal remotes. “We’ve heard problems endlessly about how it’s been impossible to program them. A universal remote only made your coffee table look nicer.”

It is a suitable caution that simple ideas are not the same as easily achieved ideas.

Punctuation and the subtle human mind

From Punctuation in Novels by Adam J. Calhoun.

One of the critical challenges in the interface between human and machine is the subtlety of human communication. Context is obviously critical as is form (written versus spoken). Additionally there is the issue of voice pitch and intonation. Then there is the issue of language structure. Calhoun provides a means of considering just how different people communicate.

When we think of novels, of newspapers and blogs, we think of words. We easily forget the little suggestions pushed in between: the punctuation. But how can we be so cruel to such a fundamental part of writing?

Inspired by a series of posters, I wondered what did my favorite books look like without words. Can you tell them apart or are they all a-mush? In fact, they can be quite distinct. Take my all-time favorite book, Absalom, Absalom! by William Faulkner. It is dense prose stuffed with parentheticals. When placed next to a novel with more simplified prose — Blood Meridian, by Cormac McCarthy — it is a stark difference.

Calhoun illustrates the difference graphically. And it is striking.

Punctuation in Blood Meridian by Cormac McCarthy (left) and in Absalom, Absalom! by William Faulkner (right).

Click to enlarge.

Calhoun then compares a range of books.

Blood Meridian is short sentences. A question or two? Maybe, but then more sentences. And yet Absalom, Absalom! is wild; moreover, one might say, it is statements, within statements, within statements: who doesn’t love that?

Here is a comparison of some other books — notice how large a break A Farewell To Arms was from the past. There almost no commas, just sentences, dialogue. How refreshing and wild that must have been! Look at how spartan Blood Meridian is compared to everything. Pay attention to the semicolons which seem to have disappeared from writing.

Click to enlarge.

Hemingway is noted for his short sentences and directness. Is that what is revealed by his comparatively low use of commas, a punctuation which allows discursion? Apostrophes are used to indicate possession or to contract two words. Is it meaningful that the two books which make the greatest use of apostrophes are also the only two in the sample that are widely read by (and to) children? Is there significance to the fact that among the sampled books, the two women authors use the semi-colon disproportionately often?

Do patterns in punctuation reflect writing eras? Age of the writer? Style of the writer? Gender of the writer? All unknown without a larger corpus and deeper statistical analysis.

The obviousness of the differences among the sampled books are clear, but what are the implications? It is not immediately obvious but it is certainly intriguing. It would be useful if the punctuational signature allowed additional machine insight to the subtle human mind.

Military lessons, business lessons

From The White House’s Seven Deadly Errors by Mark Moyar. This has a feel of being more political that it need be. I suspect the insight is not so much about the White House as it is about conducting protracted, costly operations, particularly military operations, in a participative democracy. It is an irony that participatory democracies are both prone to maintaining societally non-beneficial programs for decades past their ostensible need and at the same time frequently unable to sustain focus on societally beneficial (if tactically costly) initiatives.

Milton Friedman said in Tyranny of the Status Quo that "There is nothing so permanent as a temporary government program." An example would have to include the National Helium Reserve, created in 1925 to ensure that we had access to helium for militarily critical lighter-than-air dirigibles. Congress got around to passing legislation to discontinue the Reserve in 1996. Despite the efforts towards good government, in 2013 Congress voted to extend the Reserve indefinitely. The centennial for the Reserve is just nine years away. As of today it is 66 years since the last flight of a US military dirigible.

Moyar is using the recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as the basis for identifying shortfalls in behavior that undermine achievement of strategic objectives. At a surface reading, the lessons bear many resemblances to those of Vietnam. I am not especially well read in the Philippine-American War (1899-1902) but from what I know, Moyar's analysis seems reasonably pertinent to that conflict as well.

Moyar's Seven Errors are:

1. Excessive Confidence in Democratization

2. Poor Selection of Local Allies

3. Haste in Counterinsurgency

4. Over-reliance on Surgical Strikes

5. Refusal to Commit a Military Footprint

6. Refusal to Maintain a Military Footprint

7. Signaling of Retrenchment

These seem to be truisms across multiple conflicts. It's not just the White House and it's not just Afghanistan/Iraq. Is it extendable to non-military conflict? I suspect so. I would render the corresponding lessons as:

1. Excessive Confidence in Teamwork

2. Poor Selection of Partnerships

3. Mistaking Appearances for Reality

4. Over-reliance on Silver Bullet Solutions

5. Avoiding Trade-Off Decisions

6. Refusal to Follow Through on Commitments

7. Signaling of Equivocation

As we consider how to address the increasing complexity of human-technology interaction, I suspect that these lessons are also pertinent.

Humanism is always the minority school.

From Voltaire's Bastards: The Dictatorship of Reason in the West by John Ralston Saul.

Perhaps most importantly, this failure and the confused response to it by those in charge is a reminder that the glory of the West does not lie in economic ideologies or utilitarian inevitabilities or linear process. What is admirable about Western civilizations is the minority school of humanism. Humanism is always the minority school. Socrates not Plato. Erasmus not Descartes. Periodically this more difficult way of living breaks through to the front line and re-energizes us with purpose, enough to carry us through the next ideological era with whatever destructive forces it will unleash.

Metaphors that shape arguments, organize perceptions, and control feelings

From Conscientious Objections by Neil Postman.

There is no test, textbook, syllabus, or lesson plan that any of us creates that does not reflect our preference for some metaphor of the mind, or of knowledge, or of the process of learning. Do you believe a student's mind to be a muscle that must be exercised? Or a garden that must be cultivated? Or a dark cavern that must be illuminated? Or an empty vessel that must be filled to overflowing? Whichever you favor, your metaphor will control - often without your being aware of it - how you will proceed as a teacher. This is as true of politicians as it is of academics. No political practitioner has ever spoken three consecutive sentences without invoking some metaphorical authority for his actions. And this is especially true of powerful political theorists. Rousseau begins The Social Contract with a powerful metaphor that Marx was to use later, and many times: "Man is born free but is everywhere in chains." Marx himself begins The Communist Manifesto with an ominous and ghostly metaphor - the famous "A specter haunts Europe . . . " Abraham Lincoln, in his celebrated Gettysburg Address, compare's America's forefathers to God when he says they "brought forth a new nation," just as God brought forth the heavens and the earth. And Adolf Hitler concludes Mein Kampf with this: "A state which in this age or racial poisoning dedicates itself to the care of its best racial elements must someday become the lord of the earth." All forms of discourse are metaphor-laden, and unless our students are aware of how metaphors shape arguments, organize perceptions, and control feelings, their understanding is severely limited.