How To Break Anything

Innovation + experience-minded design strategy. The pieces of a working model for understanding culture + change in an increasingly complex world.

  • About
  • Weak Signals
  • nanotrends & links
    • 0
      21 Mar 2011

      from GOOD: "Copenhagen Scientist Reveals Recipe for the Perfect Meal"

      • Edit
      • Delete
      • Tags
      • Autopost


      Earlier this month, Copenhagen University sensory science professor Michael Bom Frøst revealed the results of his research into the relationship between the complexity of a cuisine and people's enjoyment of the dining experience. According to Norwegian research scientist Martin Lersch, who reported on his presentation at Khymos, previous studies of fine dining had suggested that there was an optimum level of complexity for maximum enjoyment. In other words, both too simple or too intricate a dish would be equally disappointing.

      Obviously, defining complexity is not a simple task in itself. Lersch notes that, despite the term's inherent subjectivity and the potential gap between intended and perceived complexity, "the term is often invoked by chefs, both as something to strive for and something to avoid."

      Statements such as "primary flavors often depend on secret ingredients to make them more interesting and complex" (Michael Roberts), "less is more" (Gordon Ramsey in a comment on an over-complicated dish in one of his TV shows) and "simplicity" (the term used in the Manifesto for the New Nordic Kitchen) all allude to different levels of complexity.

      Nonetheless, Frøst and his graduate students set out to test how complexity affected dining enjoyment at Noma, named best restaurant in the world in 2010, making sure that their research group included people who were used to avant-garde cuisine and others who wouldn't have recognized a Parmesan foam if it hit them in the eye. The results, writes Lersch, were surprising:

      To make a long story short, the real complexity-liking curve was not a U-shaped curve, but rather a steadily increasing curve which flattens out as shown below. "Maybe we really like complex dishes," says Michael Bom Frøst. The results also showed that experience level of the diners had no influence on the curiosity, surprise, novelty, or complexity responses. However, hedonic/liking and familiarity received higher scores from the this test group. One further conclusion was that novelty is a better predictor of liking than complexity in high end dining.

      Based on these findings, as well as his previous studies, Frøst proposed a "Recipe for the Best Meal Experience," combining the perfect ratios of familiarity to surprise (20 to 1), complexity and novelty (30 to 1), and even meal length (not too long!) for maximum enjoyment. Something to bear in mind for your next dinner party?

      Images: Frøst's "Recipe for the Best Meal Experience" slide, photo by Martin Lersch; a U-curve showing the expected correlation between complexity and liking; and the real complexity-liking curve. All images via Khymos, where you can read a full report on the seminar.

      via good.is, linked by @spicybiscotti

      A lot could be tied into the above, but for now all I'll add is that there's something nice about the subtle shift from the slightly-more-linear U-curve representation of "optimality of optimality" to the slightly-more-exponential/power-law representation of optimality.

      • views
      • Tweet
      • Tweet
    • 0
      8 Jan 2011

      A brief thought on the efficient use of data

      • Edit
      • Delete
      • Tags
      • Autopost

      I'm presently setting up a number of rules and triggers for various automated web actions on If This Then That. 

      Anyone who thinks about information flows becomes quickly aware that you can be more or less efficient at programming rules and automating tasks. Usually this is defined by the number of steps taken; a program is more efficient if you can to a 10-step task in 5 instead. 

      One measure of efficiency struck me a moment ago, not concerning the efficiency of number of steps taken to complete an action, but the amount of data required. For example, I can choose to set the trigger for the automatic posting of an article to be a Google Reader share, or an email instead. 

      For a brief instant I felt a twinge of guilt when using email as a trigger, capturing the entire text of an article instead of just the small bit of code that makes up a Reader share. Like I was wasting data space, no matter how small. It felt like leaving the water running when brushing. 

      It may not matter for x number of years, but since data takes up physical server space it's not inconceivable that we start treating tangible data like a precious resource at some point in human history.  

      (PS I have one of two invites left for the ifttt beta. For what it's worth I haven't been this excited about a platform in a long time. Lego-block internet APIs, just the way people like Bruce Sterling always imagined.)  
      • views
      • Tweet
      • Tweet
    • 1
      25 Jul 2010

      Comparing two methods of assigning value to actions - direct causality vs "irreplaceable" causality

      • Edit
      • Delete
      • Tags
      • Autopost
      The following describes part of a challenge of spending time efficiently, as posed in an essay titled "The Hidden Costs (in Time) of Spending Time":

      Any given goal that I have tends to require an enormous amount of "administrative support" in the form of homeostasis, chores, transportation, and relationship maintenance. I estimate that the ratio may be as high as 7:1 in favor of what my conscious mind experiences as administrative bullshit, even for relatively simple tasks.

      For example, suppose I want to go kayaking with friends. My desire to go kayaking is not strong enough to override my desire for food, water, or comfortable clothing, so I will usually make sure to acquire and pack enough of these things to keep me in good supply while I'm out and about. I might be out of snack bars, so I bike to the store to get more. Some of the clothing I want is probably dirty, so I have to clean it. I have to drive to the nearest river; this means I have to book a Zipcar and walk to the Zipcar first. If I didn't rent, I'd have to spend some time on car maintenance. When I get to the river, I have to rent a kayak; again, if I didn't rent, I'd have to spend some time loading and unloading and cleaning the kayak. After I wait in line and rent the kayak, I have to ride upstream in a bus to get to the drop-off point.

      Of course, I don't want to go alone; I want to go with friends. So I have to call or e-mail people till I find someone who likes kayaking and has some free time that matches up with mine and isn't on crutches or sick at the moment. Knowing who likes kayaking and who has free time when -- or at least knowing it well enough to do an intelligent search that doesn't take all day -- requires checking in with lots of acquaintances on a regular basis to see how they're doing.

      There are certainly moments of pleasure involved in all of these tasks; clean water tastes good; it feels nice to check in on a friend's health; there might be a pretty view from the bumpy bus ride upstream. But what I wanted to do, mostly, was go kayaking with friends. It might take me 4-7 hours to get ready to kayak for 1-2 hours.

      My take on the challenge here is that the above advocates a method of assigning value to actions based on the causal relationship between performing it and the direct impact of that action on the desired goal. To simplify, I'll reference the above elements as processes of 1) assigning value to individual actions based on causal relationships, and 2) determining a causal relationship between performing an action and its direct impact on the world.

      In the above model, an efficient action is one where we can clearly determine that its rationally causal relationship with impact on the world contributes to our desired goal. More importantly, in this model it is critical that the action contributes to our desired goal directly.

      Consider an action that is homeostatic in nature - buying food. Spending time buying food does not directly contribute to our desired goal of "engaging in the act of kayaking"; as such, it isn't valued as efficient in the above model.

      We do recognize however, that buying food is an irreplaceable step in the system of actions required to "engage in the act of kayaking." To the extent that an individual action is irreplaceable in a system of actions required to accomplish a goal, that action is important and valuable [this is a premise I'll call the irreplaceability premise]. With this premise in mind, it is easier to see that the act of buying food has an impact on "engaging in the act of kayaking" that is just as important as the act of pushing the kayak into the water - both are equally irreplaceable. 

      Using the directness model, we consider buying food as less valuable because it is less directly related to the happiness we experience from kayaking. If the irreplaceability premise is well-founded, then the directness model is a weak method of assigning value to actions - and thinking about irreplaceability may help resolve some of the concerns that arise with how to most optimally spend one's time, as described below.

      [It's important to note as an aside that this particular application of the irreplaceability premise is founded on the notion that if the act of eating is removed, the act of pushing the kayak into the water will never take place. We can easily imagine an alternative scenario - you push the kayak into the water while hungry - so I'm supporting this irreplaceability with the sentiment contained within the statement "my desire to go kayaking is not strong enough to override my desire for food." It is in fact worth considering the function of time and our ability to delay homeostatic actions in this notion of "irreplaceability," but as an absolute definition, homeostatic actions will always be necessary and ultimately irreplaceable - it is equally easy to imagine an alternative, lengthier goal where delaying homeostatic behaviors ultimately do not reduce their necessity.]

      To help make the irreplaceability premise more clear, consider also actions that are not homeostatic. As an undergraduate, I would often be conflicted about the directness of my actions and how to assess their value - most notably when the desired goal was something like "delivering a presentation for a class final." At some point it occurs to you that you're spending hours or even days preparing for a goal defined as a 20 minute task, and this seems like the same kind of waste mentioned above in the expression "it might take me 4-7 hours to get ready to kayak for 1-2 hours." But it is relatively easy for one to intuitively see a causal relationship between preparing slides and organizing sources as important to the end goal, so operating under the directness model our worries of wasted time are at least somewhat assuaged.

      The problem is that the directness model again breaks down over lengths of time, where irreplaceable actions are not intuitively direct actors in the causal relationship between action and goal. 30 seconds of the presentation may come from ideas fostered over hours and hours of time going to class - and worse yet for directness, they may reflect the synthesis of disparate ideas captured across various chunks of time spent in lecture.

      I'm not necessarily sure that the irreplaceability model is any better a tool for assigning value in our attempts to calculate efficiency (in a complex enough system it quickly becomes easy to identify every action as irreplaceable), but the above examples help illustrate the challenges of assigning value based on direct causality.

      • views
      • Tweet
      • Tweet
    • 0
      19 Jun 2010

      Technology as "a repository for utopian energies"

      • Edit
      • Delete
      • Tags
      • Autopost

      Photo

      [from The Oxford Encyclopedia of The Modern World]

      Two interesting things to consider:

      1) This can refer to "technology" not only as electronics, but as any tool that humans have employed to capture some desired value more efficiently.
       
       2) The use of "in some capacity" to describe utopia seems to indicate that the concept is fundamentally unacheivable (and rightly so) - even through platforms like the Internet work to shift social organization entirely.

      It's worth noting that key technologies have always shifted social organization entirely, and we're no closer to utopia for it. One cant help but wonder if there's an optimal alternative to utopia (an amusing thought, given our standard definitions of 'optimal' and 'utopia'). In fact, I say "rightly so" because of the reactive nature of human culture - it is impossible to escape the shifting of what 'optimal' means when the social structure it is trying to define shifts as well (think of this somewhat similar to Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle).

      • views
      • Tweet
      • Tweet
    • 4
      3 Jun 2010

      The 'optimal' city: thoughts on gaming, optimization strategies, and utopia

      • Edit
      • Delete
      • Tags
      • Autopost

      A 22-yo architecture student from The Philippines has "beaten" Sim City 3000 by building a city with the largest possible population that sustains itself for 50,000 years. The city, called Manasanti, is not somewhere you would want to live.

       

      There are a lot of other problems in the city hidden under the illusion of order and greatness: Suffocating air pollution, high unemployment, no fire stations, schools, or hospitals, a regimented lifestyle -- this is the price that these sims pay for living in the city with the highest population. It's a sick and twisted goal to strive towards. The ironic thing about it is the sims in Magnasanti tolerate it. They don't rebel, or cause revolutions and social chaos. No one considers challenging the system by physical means since a hyper-efficient police state keeps them in line. They have all been successfully dumbed down, sickened with poor health, enslaved and mind-controlled just enough to keep this system going for thousands of years. 50,000 years to be exact. They are all imprisoned in space and time.

      via kottke.org

      This is absolutely fascinating to me, and precisely the reason I've been reading so much on utopianism lately (latest great find: Historical Dictionary of Utopianism, which has pointed me to my next - Utopia & Anti-Utopia in Modern Times).

      Also precisely why I'm so bullish on the idea that even optimization strategies need optimization strategies - they require a definition of what you're calling optimal, and the act of definition is itself an exercise in optimization. And of course, outside of all the inherent problems surrounding determining what 'optimal/want' is, it requires an additional (perhaps impossible) grasp of who's doing the wanting.

      One of my favorite lines from the creator reflects the post I made earlier on gaming: "Many people say, 'Oh, it’s just a game!' But they are mistaken."

      • views
      • Tweet
      • Tweet
    • 2
      25 May 2010

      One possible heuristic for optimizing decisions

      • Edit
      • Delete
      • Tags
      • Autopost

      Yesterday at my Brooklyn Brainery class on decisionmaking, the discussion got to the point where people were asking about optimization. The question here is primarily: "given that when making a decisions, too short of a time perspective is meaningless (caring only about petty things), and too long of one is equally meaningless (caring only about 300 years in the future), is there some optimal time perspective (or shifting of time perspective) that will lead to the best decisions? What heuristics do people use?"


      I essentially answered "there are none." I later got to thinking that this isn't entirely true. 

      The temptation to answer that way comes from the too-simple and too-common perspective that every decision is the best decision. That is to say, no decision is better than any other.

      That is to say, deciding to sit on the couch all day is just as much as "right" decision as deciding to go out and change someone's life.

      I think when it comes to thinking about value, and what experiences are valuable, the "every decision is right" approach is plainly absurd.

      The right heuristic might be: if it's something you don't want to do because it makes you uncomfortable, it's definitely the better decision. 

      (There's actually a lot deeper thinking available on the matter, that makes the above look like the perspective of a 3rd grader: What Is Wei Dai's Updateless Decision Theory?)
       
      • views
      • Tweet
      • Tweet
    • Search

    • Tags

      • perspective
      • value
      • metasocioculture
      • culture
      • long-term thinking
      • decisionmaking
      • offline inspiration
      • cognitive fallacies
      • future
      • time-orientation
      • limitation
      • perception
      • causality
      • definition
      • irrationality
      • art
      • behavioral economics
      • game mechanics
      • emergence
      • experience
      • exposure
      • observe everything
      • philosophy
      • programming
      • human insight
      • illusion
      • paradox
      • privacy
      • reactionary
      • want
      • worry
      • adaptation
      • advertising
      • behavior
      • design strategy
      • evolution
      • identity
      • metaphors
      • networks
      • shortsightedness
      • social interactions
      • weak signals
      • connections
      • counterintuitive
      • doomsday
      • feedback loops
      • indirect
      • meaning
      • tangible data
      • context
      • glanceable
      • memory
      • motivation
      • seeming
      • trends
      • utopia
      • chronological proportionality
      • cognitive environments
      • complexity
      • control
      • cyborg anthropology
      • gaming
      • happiness
      • human programming
      • information art
      • nostalgia
      • rationality
      • scarcity
      • technosocial
      • time
      • timeline
      • Entrepreneur
      • PSEA
      • asking the right questions
      • classification
      • cultural narratives
      • data
      • deception
      • design thinking
      • filter theory
      • games
      • habitat media
      • historical context
      • information theory
      • intelligence
      • levels of abstraction
      • linguistic programming
      • metaphysics
      • nonlinear
      • optimaization
      • organization
      • patina
      • pattern recognition
      • reactive culture
      • serendipity filters
      • truth
      • wisdom
      • wonder
      • youth
    • Archive

      • 2012 (60)
        • May (11)
        • April (14)
        • March (9)
        • February (13)
        • January (13)
      • 2011 (188)
        • December (14)
        • November (6)
        • October (6)
        • September (9)
        • August (9)
        • July (26)
        • June (21)
        • May (12)
        • April (17)
        • March (21)
        • February (25)
        • January (22)
      • 2010 (214)
        • December (22)
        • November (14)
        • October (8)
        • September (7)
        • August (13)
        • July (17)
        • June (16)
        • May (16)
        • April (22)
        • March (36)
        • February (31)
        • January (12)
      • 2009 (95)
        • December (6)
        • November (9)
        • October (9)
        • September (8)
        • August (6)
        • July (2)
        • June (9)
        • May (17)
        • April (7)
        • March (8)
        • February (7)
        • January (7)
      • 2008 (47)
        • December (10)
        • November (12)
        • October (7)
        • September (7)
        • August (4)
        • July (3)
        • May (1)
        • April (1)
        • March (1)
        • January (1)
      • 2007 (4)
        • October (1)
        • September (3)
    • Contributors

      Kyle Cameron Studstill
    • Obox Design
  • How To Break Anything

    Hello friends and collaborators. I deal in innovation, working to build fantastic experiences enabled by the digital world. As part of this I track cultural change, primarily through observations guided by models and filters calibrated over years to sort out the cream.

    These pieces of thoughts here reflect concepts that are elements of those models: ecosystem thinking, long-term value, information filters, and pattern recognition.

    ("How to break anything" is an abstract notion that reflects my background in observation and analysis. Rules are meant to be broken, but only through understanding the rules - observing them with an empathetic eye - can they be broken constructively.

    So how to break anything? Observe everything.

    [You can't observe everything so how do you know what to observe? That's another project that I call Filter Theory - see the About link above.])

    268055 Views
  • Get Updates

    Follow this Space »
    You're following this Space (Edit)
    You're a contributor here (Edit)
    This is your Space (Edit)
    Follow by email »
    Get the latest updates in your email box automatically.
    Loading...
    Subscribe via RSS
    TwitterFacebook