More here.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Friday, May 13, 2011
Quote of the Week
Psychologist Gerd Gigerenzer on risk literacy:
The quote comes from Edge's annual question, which brings together some of the top minds in the world to submit answers. This year's question was 'what scientific concept would improve everybody's cognitive toolkit?' Heady stuff for sure, but definitely worth checking out."Simply stated, statistical thinking is the ability to understand and critically evaluate uncertainties and risks. Yet 76 percent of U.S. adults and 54 percent of Germans do not know how to express a 1 in 1,000 chance as a percentage (0.1%). Schools spend most of their time teaching children the mathematics of certainty — geometry, trigonometry — and spend little if any time on the mathematics of uncertainty. If taught at all, it is mostly in the form of coin and dice problems that tend to bore young students to death. But statistical thinking could be taught as the art of real-world problem solving, i.e. the risks of drinking, AIDS, pregnancy, horseback riding, and other dangerous things. Out of all mathematical disciplines, statistical thinking connects most directly to a teenager's world.Even at the university level, law and medical students are rarely taught statistical thinking — even though they are pursuing professions whose very nature it is to deal with matters of uncertainty. U.S. judges and lawyers have been confused by DNA statistics and fallen prey to the prosecutor's fallacy; their British colleagues drew incorrect conclusions about the probability of recurring sudden infant death. Many doctors worldwide misunderstand the likelihood that a patient has cancer after a positive screening test and can't critically evaluate new evidence presented in medical journals. Experts without risk literacy skills are part of the problem rather than the solution."
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
The Greatest Supervillains of All Time
From time to time it's fun to take a step back from the seriousness and gravity of daily world events and enjoy the insights available to us from fictional domains. In this spirit, here's a list of some fascinating imaginary rogues:
1. Apocalypse: (X-Men) Born in ancient Egypt, he was the world's first mutant. Conquering in the name of a twisted Darwinian creed, technology from the future makes this time-traveling techno-tyrant the ultimate supervillain.
2. Ra's Al Ghul: (Batman) Hailing from ancient Arabia, this alchemist discovered the secret to immortality and used his long life to build a global organization intent on halting ecological destruction at any cost. The ideal eco-terrorist.
3. Lex Luthor: (Superman) The quintessential mad scientist, businessman, and politician. A prolific genius, Luthor exists to destroy Superman, thereby showing humanity it doesn't need alien saviors to decide its fate.
4. Magneto: (X-Men) This Nazi concentration camp survivor fights to protect the mutant minority from institutionalized bigotry and slavery around the world.
5. The Emperor: (Star Wars) He created the greatest military force the galaxy had ever seen, and nearly succeeded in exterminating the Jedi. One bad galactic tyrant.
6. David Xanatos: (Gargoyles) Machiavellian businessman obsessed with obtaining immortality. A curiously thoughtful self-made man, this supervillain is perhaps the most complex.
7. Hush: (Batman) A childhood friend of Bruce Wayne's, Hush secretly coveted the death of his parents and the resultant wealth and freedom. When Wayne received this blessing instead of him, Hush swore vengeance.
8. Q: (Star Trek) The archetypal trickster god, this omnipotent intellect delights in manipulating the Enterprise crew.
9. Alpharius: (Warhammer) The youngest of his bio-engineered brothers, this planet-conquering general takes a resilience-based, ecological approach to combat strategy. Sometimes disappearing for weeks at a time simply to test the individuality and adaptability of his lieutenants, Alpharius is a man of secrets.
10. Mr. Sinister: (X-Men) Originally a human geneticist in Victorian England, Mr. Sinister made a Faustian bargain with a higher power resulting in the loss of his family. He now exists to destroy that which created him.
Monday, May 9, 2011
Sunday, May 8, 2011
The Paradox of Wilderness Intervention
Let's face it, wilderness managers are damned if they do, damned if they don't. When it comes to designated wilderness areas like state parks, active intervention (fire suppression, invasive species control, etc.) means injecting artificiality into systems where artificiality is anathema. On the flip side, however, lack of intervention means important values like native biodiversity, ecosystem function, and ecosystem services, could be lost forever. In Beyond Naturalness: Rethinking Park Wilderness Stewardship in an Era of Rapid Change, editors David Cole and Laurie Yung look at this problem through the lens of several competing wilderness management approaches.
Historically, early approaches to management focused around the notion of "naturalness," but this concept proved to be too vague. Early laws enshrined the language of "naturalness" and caused havoc: its many definitions meant implementation was often arbitrary and ill-coordinated. Additionally, new anthropological research into the impact of early human cultures demolished the idea of a historic "primitive state." Modern ecology, with the adoption of dynamic equilibrium models, destroyed the notion that nature exists in a "natural" equilibrium or climax state. Add to this the global reach of human impact and it's very unclear what our specific management goals are regarding wilderness areas.
Four "post-naturalness" approaches attempt to categorize the different facets of "naturalness":
1. Hands-Off Approach: This is just what it sounds like: not taking any conscious action that manipulates, controls, or hinders the conditions (e.g. habitat), components (e.g. species), or processes (e.g. fire) of an ecological system. Let nature roll the dice. This approach is an alternative to being locked into managing a rapidly-changing system not fully understood. It encourages scientific humility, eliminates the risk of unintended adverse consequences (of intervention), and provides unmanipulated control data. However, this approach may increase the risk to specific elements of biodiversity, and result in the loss of cultural resources (archeological sites, etc.) and property.
2. Ecological Integrity Approach: In this approach, managed intervention is justified in order to maintain ecosystem health, biodiversity, sustainability, etc. Managers must set up specific goals such as: retaining a large population of native species, selecting and monitoring viable indicator species, mixing disturbance regimes (fire, herbivory) over time and area, and ensuring productivity and decomposition operate within limits for system persistence (not too much entropy, example: clear-cutting, bark beetles). This approach is very dependent on the effective operationalization of goals (measuring the right things).
3. Historical Fidelity Approach: Maintain a connection to the past; pass legacy of natural and cultural heritage. Restore past conditions wherever possible. In this approach, species that were historically the most abundant, iconic, or charismatic are the species most critical to ecosystem function (as opposed to keystone species or species that are least redundant). In addition to cultural and philosophical justifications, animals have evolved to fit niches and thus their survival potential is reduced if future environmental conditions deviate too much from the past. A challenge to this approach concerns the inherent dynamism of ecosystems.
4. Resilience Approach: This approach targets an ecosystem's ability to adapt to change, specifically "the capacity of a system to tolerate disturbance without collapsing into a qualitatively different state that is controlled by a different set of processes." Instead of pursuing specific landscape or ecological objectives, managers should focus on the core goal of sustaining functional, adaptable systems. Ecosystem qualities that typically enhance resilience are diversity and modularity (ecosystem sub-systems are coherent and loosely-connected so that if one fails, others can persist and rebuild).
Each approach has a certain naivete, yet also an understandable appeal. By being so narrow in scope, the trade-offs between approaches are revealed, making comparisons much easier. Clearly some mixture of all four approaches is currently being implemented, by design or by default, which is warranted. However I do believe the resilience framework shows the most promise considering the level of global ecological decline.
Historically, early approaches to management focused around the notion of "naturalness," but this concept proved to be too vague. Early laws enshrined the language of "naturalness" and caused havoc: its many definitions meant implementation was often arbitrary and ill-coordinated. Additionally, new anthropological research into the impact of early human cultures demolished the idea of a historic "primitive state." Modern ecology, with the adoption of dynamic equilibrium models, destroyed the notion that nature exists in a "natural" equilibrium or climax state. Add to this the global reach of human impact and it's very unclear what our specific management goals are regarding wilderness areas.
Four "post-naturalness" approaches attempt to categorize the different facets of "naturalness":
1. Hands-Off Approach: This is just what it sounds like: not taking any conscious action that manipulates, controls, or hinders the conditions (e.g. habitat), components (e.g. species), or processes (e.g. fire) of an ecological system. Let nature roll the dice. This approach is an alternative to being locked into managing a rapidly-changing system not fully understood. It encourages scientific humility, eliminates the risk of unintended adverse consequences (of intervention), and provides unmanipulated control data. However, this approach may increase the risk to specific elements of biodiversity, and result in the loss of cultural resources (archeological sites, etc.) and property.
2. Ecological Integrity Approach: In this approach, managed intervention is justified in order to maintain ecosystem health, biodiversity, sustainability, etc. Managers must set up specific goals such as: retaining a large population of native species, selecting and monitoring viable indicator species, mixing disturbance regimes (fire, herbivory) over time and area, and ensuring productivity and decomposition operate within limits for system persistence (not too much entropy, example: clear-cutting, bark beetles). This approach is very dependent on the effective operationalization of goals (measuring the right things).
3. Historical Fidelity Approach: Maintain a connection to the past; pass legacy of natural and cultural heritage. Restore past conditions wherever possible. In this approach, species that were historically the most abundant, iconic, or charismatic are the species most critical to ecosystem function (as opposed to keystone species or species that are least redundant). In addition to cultural and philosophical justifications, animals have evolved to fit niches and thus their survival potential is reduced if future environmental conditions deviate too much from the past. A challenge to this approach concerns the inherent dynamism of ecosystems.
4. Resilience Approach: This approach targets an ecosystem's ability to adapt to change, specifically "the capacity of a system to tolerate disturbance without collapsing into a qualitatively different state that is controlled by a different set of processes." Instead of pursuing specific landscape or ecological objectives, managers should focus on the core goal of sustaining functional, adaptable systems. Ecosystem qualities that typically enhance resilience are diversity and modularity (ecosystem sub-systems are coherent and loosely-connected so that if one fails, others can persist and rebuild).
Each approach has a certain naivete, yet also an understandable appeal. By being so narrow in scope, the trade-offs between approaches are revealed, making comparisons much easier. Clearly some mixture of all four approaches is currently being implemented, by design or by default, which is warranted. However I do believe the resilience framework shows the most promise considering the level of global ecological decline.
Friday, May 6, 2011
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Power Players: Amartya Sen
Check out this great interview by Al Jazeera English:
Amartya Sen is a true polymath whose intellectual contributions are quite possibly unmatched by any other living person. A Nobel laureate, he made major headway in incorporating normative concerns (like poverty and gender inequality) back into the economics discipline. He is a giant among political scientists for his contributions to social choice theory (a quantitative subfield concerned with preference aggregation, example: voting). Lately he has focused on philosophy, probably establishing himself as the most important contemporary philosopher since John Rawls with his capabilities approach to measuring justice.
Amartya Sen is a true polymath whose intellectual contributions are quite possibly unmatched by any other living person. A Nobel laureate, he made major headway in incorporating normative concerns (like poverty and gender inequality) back into the economics discipline. He is a giant among political scientists for his contributions to social choice theory (a quantitative subfield concerned with preference aggregation, example: voting). Lately he has focused on philosophy, probably establishing himself as the most important contemporary philosopher since John Rawls with his capabilities approach to measuring justice.
(Caps) Lock-In
Often the only way out of lock-in is to think big: General Motors' Hy-Wire concept car builds all the essential components (engine, fuel storage, system controls, crush zones, etc.) into a six-inch wheeled platform, thus allowing designers to snap on top any number of unconstricted car designs.
Probably the most famous example of lock-in is the qwerty keyboard. Originally designed to accommodate engineering limitations in typewriters, this preposterous technological dinosaur drastically limits the speed and convenience of our typing. A related absurdity is the caps-lock key: how often does the average person use it? (hint: not much) Now compare that with the frequency of accidental activation and the case for its continued existence disappears.
And it's happening: Google's new laptop replaces the caps-lock key with a search button. Many smartphone keyboards have an '@' key, which is a great idea, and I've also heard of a push to create an internet history eraser button. If you start looking, you'll see examples of path dependence everywhere. Let's start innovating from the ground up.
Question: does internet remix culture increase or decrease path-dependence?
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
The Usefulness of Bubbles
Businessweek is out with a great article on the current tech bubble. The article asserts that this bubble, built around social media and online advertising, is wasting a generation of talent and channelling innovative capitol towards a category of technology whose social benefits are ambiguous.
An economic bubble is basically a localized trend of inflated asset prices. Since prices are the conventional measurement of a thing's social utility, inflated prices result in misallocation of productive forces, like money, talent, or even social prestige. Most bubbles quietly deflate before anybody notices, but sometimes they continue to grow and end up popping suddenly. This usually causes financial turmoil and triggers broader economic hardship.
On the surface, this article's premise is straightforward: bubbles are terrible for the economy, and the current tech craze is exhibiting disturbingly bubble-like behavior. Thus the current tech craze is terrible for the economy. I generally agree with this logic, but it does paint diverse economic situations with a very broad brush. Within the framework of "bubbles are bad," what's the best way to compare potential bubbles (e.g. bubble A is worse than bubble B)?
Magnitude is important, but if we're looking at potential bubbles instead of past bubbles, this can be difficult. Given the extreme uncertainty of future economic events, I'd argue that one good test would focus on a candidate bubble's social usefulness. All bubbles, in varying degrees, maul the economy and ruin countless lives. Yet when the dust settles, they always leave behind certain new technologies or structural changes. Even if we can't predict how damaging a bubble will be, we can still ruminate on and compare these after-effects.
Think about it: after the financial crisis of 2007-8, what were we left with? Tons of arcane financial "instruments," ridiculously flawed arbitrage markets, and lots of cracked-out quantitative risk models. Some legacy, huh? Now consider the railroad bubble of the 1880s. When it popped, the U.S. economy was badly damaged. But we were left with a massive intranational network of railroads, establishing the infrastructure base for future development and growth.
Consider an environmental technology or energy efficiency bubble. It might pop and crash the economy, but at least we'd have made enormous social progress. By the same token, some people have suggested that we're currently in a higher education bubble, with the cost of college ridiculously high relative to it's value. That may be, but at least colleges and universities are building awesome new facilities and research infrastructure that has tons of lasting value. All bubbles hurt, but it's nice to know that, at the end of the day, our economy's persistent drunken crazes are at least doing something useful.
An economic bubble is basically a localized trend of inflated asset prices. Since prices are the conventional measurement of a thing's social utility, inflated prices result in misallocation of productive forces, like money, talent, or even social prestige. Most bubbles quietly deflate before anybody notices, but sometimes they continue to grow and end up popping suddenly. This usually causes financial turmoil and triggers broader economic hardship.
On the surface, this article's premise is straightforward: bubbles are terrible for the economy, and the current tech craze is exhibiting disturbingly bubble-like behavior. Thus the current tech craze is terrible for the economy. I generally agree with this logic, but it does paint diverse economic situations with a very broad brush. Within the framework of "bubbles are bad," what's the best way to compare potential bubbles (e.g. bubble A is worse than bubble B)?
Magnitude is important, but if we're looking at potential bubbles instead of past bubbles, this can be difficult. Given the extreme uncertainty of future economic events, I'd argue that one good test would focus on a candidate bubble's social usefulness. All bubbles, in varying degrees, maul the economy and ruin countless lives. Yet when the dust settles, they always leave behind certain new technologies or structural changes. Even if we can't predict how damaging a bubble will be, we can still ruminate on and compare these after-effects.
Think about it: after the financial crisis of 2007-8, what were we left with? Tons of arcane financial "instruments," ridiculously flawed arbitrage markets, and lots of cracked-out quantitative risk models. Some legacy, huh? Now consider the railroad bubble of the 1880s. When it popped, the U.S. economy was badly damaged. But we were left with a massive intranational network of railroads, establishing the infrastructure base for future development and growth.
Consider an environmental technology or energy efficiency bubble. It might pop and crash the economy, but at least we'd have made enormous social progress. By the same token, some people have suggested that we're currently in a higher education bubble, with the cost of college ridiculously high relative to it's value. That may be, but at least colleges and universities are building awesome new facilities and research infrastructure that has tons of lasting value. All bubbles hurt, but it's nice to know that, at the end of the day, our economy's persistent drunken crazes are at least doing something useful.
Friday, April 22, 2011
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Quote of the Week
Milton Meuller at The Technology Liberation Front on the AT&T/T Mobile merger:
Let’s begin at the beginning and ask why this merger is happening. It’s not as if AT&T is gaining dominance the way Google gained it in search and advertising, or the way Intel did in chips: i.e., through low prices, superior products and customer loyalty. No, last time I looked AT&T was the carrier with the lowest customer satisfaction ratings, some of the highest prices and one of the weakest network performance metrics. In my opinion there is no reason for this merger to take place other than to make life easier for AT&T by reducing competitive pressures on it. AT&T seems to be driven by the following calculus. It can either grow its services and its network under the harsh constraints of market pricing and competition, or it can attempt to reduce the field to an oligopoly with tacit price controls by using its size and financial bulk to eliminate a pest who keeps downward pressure on pricing and service requirements. I think it is rational for AT&T to try to get away with the latter. I think it’s insane for free market oriented thinkers to support it.
Free e-Book!
Okay, it's a public policy textbook, but it's still worth checking out: Policy and Choice: Public Finance through the Lens of Behavioral Economics by William Congdon, Jeffrey King, and Sendhil Mullainathan.
Behavioral economics has been criticized as being a "negative" theory, meaning it focuses more on breaking down the rational-actor assumption of classical economics than explaining social phenomenon. While I think that's somewhat unfair, it does seem that applying psychology to normative questions of policy and economics is a better fit. I loved Nudge, which popularized the idea of government policy using lessons from psychology to help people make better decisions. Conversely, Identity Economics, which tried to incorporate psychology into more traditional explanatory theories of economics and management, totally failed at building useful models. I'm interested to see how Policy and Choice addresses these two realms of theory, and whether it succeeds in both.
Watch Sendhil Mullainathan talk about psychological nudges.
Behavioral economics has been criticized as being a "negative" theory, meaning it focuses more on breaking down the rational-actor assumption of classical economics than explaining social phenomenon. While I think that's somewhat unfair, it does seem that applying psychology to normative questions of policy and economics is a better fit. I loved Nudge, which popularized the idea of government policy using lessons from psychology to help people make better decisions. Conversely, Identity Economics, which tried to incorporate psychology into more traditional explanatory theories of economics and management, totally failed at building useful models. I'm interested to see how Policy and Choice addresses these two realms of theory, and whether it succeeds in both.
Watch Sendhil Mullainathan talk about psychological nudges.
Monday, April 18, 2011
The Grand Perhaps
Most of us are probably familiar with the so-called "New Athiests," the club of popular writers and thinkers that function as anti-religion attack dogs, intent on giving atheism a backbone, using aggressive language whenever possible. Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, philosopher Daniel Dennett, writer Christopher Hitchens, and neuroscientist Sam Harris are typically described as core members of the club.
Each member inevitably has had to carve out their own unique niche in order to sell books and gain popularity. Most focus on demolishing religion and explaining why God probably doesn't exist, in addition to being as cantankerous as possible. Although Richard Dawkins is by far the most accomplished and brilliant, Sam Harris is the most creative and interesting.
With training in both moral philosophy and neuroscience, Harris strings together a complex argument over three books about the role of scientific rigor in moral and ethical reasoning. His recent TED Talk nicely summarizes his conclusion:
Harris focuses on the moral and ethical fitness of religion, science, and public reasoning, rather than simply rehashing old arguments for why God probably doesn't exist. Additionally, he attempts to construct something new by sketching out a possible basis for a secular morality. Employing neuroscience in philosophical discourse is refreshing and potent, and Harris' message that moral and ethical domains should not be off-limits to scientists is spot-on. The current intellectual holding pattern of avoiding moral questions and respecting diversity at all costs must end: next time you're at a fancy dinner, perhaps be a little rude and speak your mind.
Each member inevitably has had to carve out their own unique niche in order to sell books and gain popularity. Most focus on demolishing religion and explaining why God probably doesn't exist, in addition to being as cantankerous as possible. Although Richard Dawkins is by far the most accomplished and brilliant, Sam Harris is the most creative and interesting.
With training in both moral philosophy and neuroscience, Harris strings together a complex argument over three books about the role of scientific rigor in moral and ethical reasoning. His recent TED Talk nicely summarizes his conclusion:
Harris focuses on the moral and ethical fitness of religion, science, and public reasoning, rather than simply rehashing old arguments for why God probably doesn't exist. Additionally, he attempts to construct something new by sketching out a possible basis for a secular morality. Employing neuroscience in philosophical discourse is refreshing and potent, and Harris' message that moral and ethical domains should not be off-limits to scientists is spot-on. The current intellectual holding pattern of avoiding moral questions and respecting diversity at all costs must end: next time you're at a fancy dinner, perhaps be a little rude and speak your mind.
Gear Up for Bike Weather
Creative thinking to enhance bicycle usage is everywhere, but the best new idea I've seen is probably public bike pumps. The Urban Bikeway Design Guide catalogues the more traditional set of strategies. Minneapolis, Bicycling Magazine's 2010 Best Bike City, is preparing for its most bike-friendly spring yet with some cool innovations. Happy riding!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)