How To Break Anything

Thoughts and insights on culture and human behavior, living blissfully at the intersection of rationality and irrationality (but mostly irrationality) 
Filed under

perspective

 

Profit, value, and the entrepreneur's ability to take advantage of opportunity

via ted.com

The above talk is by Cameron Herold, titled "Let's raise kids to be entrepreneurs." Like most I find the entrepreneurial spirit valuable and inspiring.

Though, watching the above actually left me with the following idea: what all entrepreneurs are good at is taking advantage of opportunity. But almost no entrepreneurs are good at taking advantage of opportunity to do anything besides make money.

A rare few people know how to take advantage of opportunity as a means to do something valuable. It requires being comfortable with seeing feedback from one's actions not in immediate "if, then" terms, but in nebulous, extended terms. This is in direct opposition to the comfort of seeing feedback from one's actions immediately and being able to immediately draw causal inferences from them. It requires an understanding of long-term value. These are not skills that are natural for humans, thus they are not skills that most people have. It's an idea that's been sitting on my mind lately, something that seems appropriate to share now having just run into the following:

"The people who run our cities don’t understand graffiti bc they think nothing has the right to exist unless it makes a profit." -Banksy

Some people truly argue that that short-term gain - immediate return - is the only real measure of value. What an unfortunate perspective to have developed. 

Loading mentions Retweet
Filed under  //   Entrepreneur   perspective   value  

Comments [0]

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

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.

Loading mentions Retweet
Filed under  //   causality   irrationality   optimization   perspective   time   value  

Comments [1]

The "cultural attaché," and exploring the idea that "under no condition can you teach curiosity"

The other day I was talking with the interesting Brad Grossman, who shared a bit of his experience as a "cultural attaché" for producer Brian Grazer, described in this New Yorker article as the following:

This person would be responsible for keeping Brian abreast of everything that’s going on in the world; politically, culturally, musically. . . . They’re also responsible for finding an interesting person for Brian to meet with every week . . . an astronaut, a journalist, a philosopher, a buddhist monk. . . . There is LOTS of reading for this position! Grazer may ask you to read any book he’s interested in. You’ll probably get to read about 4 or 5 books a week and you may be required to travel with him on his private plane to Hawaii, New York, Europe—teaching him anything he asks you about along the way. . . . You will also be provided with an assistant. . . . Salary is around $150,000 a year. . . . You will be to Grazer what Karl Rove was to Bush. 

There's an interesting bit of the history around those kinds of roles in the article, but the below in particular caught my attention:

Grazer has had one bad attaché experience. “A few years ago, I hired this really smarty-pants Harvard guy,” he said. “He was just remarkably lazy. If he didn’t get the Wall Street Journal on his desk, it was like it didn’t exist.” Still, he said, the experience came with a lesson: “Under no condition can you teach curiosity.”

The thought that "under no circumstances can you teach curiosity" is particularly interesting to me. It's something I've thought on quite a bit, ever since first being a part of this world of planners/strategists - all my best conversations about what it means to be insightful in these kinds of roles ultimately end on the idea of curiosity. 

 
I too tend to get to the point where I feel it cannot be taught; I sometimes think that this is in part because it requires the willingness to expose oneself to things that critically invalidate one's own (present) worldview. I think of this as a spectrum ranging from having a solid identity and perspective of how things should be, to being curious and understanding of the world but without any solid, unchanging core perspective.

The reason curiosity cannot be taught is because this is a tradeoff not everyone is willing to make.

I drew a quick sketch of this once, come to think of it:
 
That said, I think it might be better to say that curiosity cannot be taught, but it can in fact be fostered. This would be something like fostering the idea that there are lots of ideas out there in the world (lots of perspectives), and they don't so much hold objective right or wrongness as much as they hold measures of value in terms of how they impact other people. 
 
Perhaps that counts as "teaching." 

 

Loading mentions Retweet
Filed under  //   exposure   perspective   value  
Posted from New York, NY

Comments [0]

Ideas in long-term pattern recognition and analysis

There's one particular and notable step in the path that has led me here to the world of analysis and pattern recognition that I always look back and kind of laugh at. Once upon a time I had a university class assignment centered around selecting & analyzing a "self-help" book. While browsing the bookstore I couldn't help but pick out Reading People: How to Understand People and Predict Their Behavior - Anytime, Anyplace, primarily because of it's absurdly ridiculous title. 

As it turns out, the book is very much in the same camp as the "building layers and layers of understanding from thin slices of experience" idea from Malcom Gladwell's Blink. So it makes sense that a detailed analysis of the book and how it applies to pattern recognition has popped up on LessWrong.org, calling attention to the author's primary charge:
 
If this book could deliver but one message, it would be that to read people effectively you must gather enough information about them to establish a consistent pattern. Without that pattern, your conclusions will be about as reliable as a tarot card reading.
 
The author of the article relates the key points of the book to an earlier post of theirs, What is Bayesianism?. I've selected some highlights below that you might find helpful when thinking about identifying patterns; they are primarily written through the lens of observing individuals, but for the most part the ideas behind them apply to larger trends as well. 

1. Start with the person's most striking traits, and as you gather more information see if his other traits are consistent or inconsistent.

As computationally bounded agents, we can't simply take in all the available data at once: we have to start off some particularly striking traits and start building a picture from there. However, humans are notorious about anchoring too much (Anchoring and Adjustment), so we are reminded to actively seek disconfirmation to any initial theory we have.

2. Consider each characteristic in light of the circumstances, not in isolation.

The second core tenet in What is What is Bayesianism was "How we interpret any event, and the new information we get from anything, depends on information we already had."

A Bayesian translation of this might read roughly as follows. "Suppose you told me simply that a young man wears a large hoop earring. You are asking me to suggest some personality trait that's causing him to wear them, but there is not enough evidence to locate a hypothesis. If we knew that the man is from a culture where most young men wear large earrings, we might know that conformists would be even more likely to wear earrings. If the number of conformists was sufficiently large, then a young man from that culture, chosen randomly on the basis of wearing earrings, might very likely be a conformist, simply because conformist earring-wearers make up such a large part of the earring-wearer population.

3. Look for extremes. The importance of a trait or characteristic may be a matter of degree.

4. Identify deviations from the pattern.

5. Ask yourself if what you're seeing reflects a temporary state or a permanent quality.

6. Distinguish between elective and nonelective traits [events]. Some things you control; other things control you.

7. Give special attention to certain highly predictive traits.

 

Loading mentions Retweet
Filed under  //   behavior   human insight   observe everything   perspective  

Comments [0]

"___ was the logical thing to do": Control versus decentralization as it relates to human-interest vs self-interest

Russell Kirsch says he’s sorry.

More than 50 years ago, Kirsch took a picture of his infant son and scanned it into a computer. It was the first digital image: a grainy, black-and-white baby picture that literally changed the way we view the world. With it, the smoothness of images captured on film was shattered to bits.

The square pixel became the norm, thanks in part to Kirsch, and the world got a little bit rougher around the edges.

Yet science is still grappling with the limits set by the square pixel.

“Squares was the logical thing to do,” Kirsch says. “Of course, the logical thing was not the only possibility … but we used squares. It was something very foolish that everyone in the world has been suffering from ever since.”

I read this as “____ was the logical thing to do. Of course, the logical thing was not the only possibility … but we used _____."

I'll elaborate on how the idea of "the logical thing to do" relates to control/decentralization/self vs human interest by beginning with an excerpt from TechCrunch's take on the potential implications of/reactions to Google Me:

This obviously has the potential to be huge, and Facebook needs a strong competitor. But even if Google has an amazing site in the pipeline, creating the next Facebook is going to be easier said than done — nearly 500 million people already have their content stored on Facebook, and despite what Facebook has claimed about being open, I doubt they’ll make it easy for anyone to jump into the arms of a competitor.

The logical business move for an organization like Facebook, facing the threat of a competitor drawing from their user base, is to implement measures that make it less worthwhile for users to switch. Or, more directly, make it difficult for other competitors to draw followers in.

(This happens all the time in the tech/digital/social world, of course; while grabbing the above link from TechCrunch, I saw the following in their "Featured Articles" section: Twitpic Blocks Posterous’ Import Tool; Out Come The Lawyers)

What Kirsch above is apologizing for is that in the human-wide interest of future development, a standard was set without the foresight of understanding how that standard would actually impact future development.

I'm of the mind that given our limited capacity for calculating that impact, there's really nothing to apologize for in this case. Contrast this to the tech control battles, which are a matter of self-interest. Tim O'Reilly comments on this below, in a discussion of the Internet of Things:

"You see increasingly the giants of the internet are trading for their own account, they are building a platform in which all roads lead back to themselves. Now there is a contervailing force for openess, but we have to wary, we have to be aware of that, we have to work for openess in that web."

It's an expression of our natural human short-sightededness, to measure 'success' as a reflection of 'control'; that is to say it's natural for us to think that if your platform controls more users, your platform is 'successful'. This notion of "success through control" has of course been reflected time and again ever since humans began fighting each other over the control of resources.

The key question to ask has always been that of the degree of efficiency allowed by centralized control versus the degree of efficiency allowed by distributed openness.

Returning to the "___ is the logical thing to do": centralizing resources is not the only possibility, but it is the one that makes logical sense in the immediate-term. In fact, for a good amount of human history, going to war in an attempt to centralize resources could be argued as the better of the two options in the key question just highlighted. But in a new world where advanced communication networks allow for an exponentially greater degree of efficiency allowed by decentralization (especially in the long-term), I'm not so sure control is the right answer anymore.

 

Loading mentions Retweet
Filed under  //   control   metasocioculture   perspective  

Comments [0]

A simple list to determine how old your are - thoughts on technology, perspective, Internet of Things etc

1) everything that’s already in the world when you’re born is just normal;

2) anything that gets invented between then and before you turn thirty is incredibly exciting and creative and with any luck you can make a career out of it;

3) anything that gets invented after you’re thirty is against the natural order of things and the beginning of the end of civilisation as we know it until it’s been around for about ten years when it gradually turns out to be alright really.

Apply this list to movies, rock music, word processors and mobile phones to work out how old you are.

The rest of the article is even better. (How to Stop Worrying and Learn to Love the Internet)

"Another problem with the net is that it’s still ‘technology’, and ‘technology’, as the computer scientist Bran Ferren memorably defined it, is ‘stuff that doesn’t work yet.’ We no longer think of chairs as technology, we just think of them as chairs. But there was a time when we hadn’t worked out how many legs chairs should have, how tall they should be, and they would often ‘crash’ when we tried to use them. Before long, computers will be as trivial and plentiful as chairs (and a couple of decades or so after that, as sheets of paper or grains of sand) and we will cease to be aware of the things."

Or in other words, the Internet of Things will be as invisible as the things themselves are.

Loading mentions Retweet
Filed under  //   metasocioculture   perspective   time-orientation  

Comments [4]

On why exposure and experience are so important; "you don't know what you don't know," etc

All you need to know...

is that it's possible.

Mike sent me a great story about an ultra-lightweight backpacker:

"Wolf was carrying a super-small pack which weighed 14 pounds including food and water. When asked how he got his pack weight so low, Wolf would reply, 'All you need to know is that it’s possible.'"

One of the under-reported stories of the internet is this: it constantly reports on what's possible. Somewhere in the world, someone is doing something that you decided couldn't be done. By calling your bluff and by pointing out the possibilities, this reporting of possibility changes everything.

The statement "all you need to know is that it's possible" might sound a bit sugary or idealistic.

But it's precisely why I'm so big on exposure and experience. It's about worldview, perspective, etc.

The age old idea is that you don't know what you don't know; you only like or hate what you've been exposed to. On some level its a simple idea but on another level it completely explains to me why the kids I grew up believe completely in the Mormon faith and all it comes along with, when across the world others believe completely in something completely different and neither can seem to figure out why when they think about the other.

In fact, I drew a chart recently that I originally considered for #makeachartday:

To me, "all you need to know is that it's possible" captures why it's so important to understand that you're entirely blinded to what you don't think exists - whether physical things, declarative facts, procedural knowledge or abstract concepts.

The only cure is exposure.

Loading mentions Retweet
Filed under  //   culture   experience   perspective  
Posted from New York, NY

Comments [0]

What time travel might look like - perception, relativity, etc

A bit of abstract thinking out loud, since there's been a good amount of buzz on time travel floating around lately with Stephen Hawking's most recent comments.

The thing about time travel is that because we humans are naturally blinded to see things only from our own individual perspectives, I suspect our natural assumptions about distorting time are a bit backwards.

That is to say: we think about "time travel" as a phenomenon primarily concerned about how we would be seeing the world through time.

This phenomenon might better be described as the way the rest of the world sees us.

This isn't too profound on some level - special relativity and general relativity is precisely about the perception of others.

A way to clarify this is to think about the event horizon, which is the point in space at which light can no longer escape the gravity of a black hole. As a primer:

Special relativity illustrates that because 'time' is intrinsically interwoven with perception, that perception (particularly what we 'see' on a watch) will change at very high speeds and within high gravitational fields - as we approach the speed of light (either through our moving fast enough or it's moving slow enough thanks to gravity), the perception of what it 'shows' us changes completely. This is why time slows down at high speeds and in high gravitational fields, measured by the comparison of two watches that have moved through different conditions. 

One key point about relativity is that you don't notice this, others do. In fact, that's precisely why the term 'relativity' is used. 

Back to the event horizon: 

If you were able to observe someone moving towards a black hole, what you would be observing is the light reflecting off them. At some point - just past the event horizon - this light would never be able to escape the gravity of the black hole. At this point in the gravitational field, their watch would slow down to the point that it has actually stopped. The light that you perceive would be frozen. They of course would continue moving towards the black hole, and would perceive all the grisly experiences that come along with things like being ripped apart by gravity, but for you, they have been frozen in time. 

I'm wondering if this is what we will discover "time travel" to be: not our own individual selves moving through space-time, but the relative perception of the world moving around us.

In other words, when we "travel through time," we won't notice - others will. 

[img/meaningful metaphor via fernando]

Loading mentions Retweet
Filed under  //   perception   perspective   philosophy   time  

Comments [0]

"I make, therefore I am": historical evolution, philosophical/scientific/entrepreneurial/artistic revolutions

 

[via situated urbanism]

The above speaks to something I think about when I wonder about the Philosopher/Scientist/Entrepreneur/Artist balance: how does this balance shift back and forth (or alternatively: in one direction) over time?

To me it hints at the idea that throughout history cultural sentiment has shifted from "the Philosopher is the most important figure of our time" (circa 1350 - 17th century?) to "the Scientist is the most important figure of our time" (circa 1473 - late 19th century?) to "the Entrepreneur is the most important figure of our time" (early 18th century - present??). (obviously these overlap in time, much like they overlap in individuals)

I should take a second to distinguish between what the statement in the image means to me and (my impression of) what the individual is trying to express because there's an important point to be made here about perspective: the statement in the image expresses the assertion that "the Entreprenuer is the most important figure ever, because Entrepreneur actually makes things."

Not so sure I would go as far as to say "____ is obviously the best thing to be." Making things is obviously important; it's why I've devoted a full half of the PSAE model to it (the 'popular' half). But one of the reasons I started building this framework is to answer the question of how 'making things' fits into a larger scheme of what things are valuable and why. 

One last thought, that if people like Hugh MacLeod, Lewis Hyde, Seth Godin, et al are right we'll be entering the age of the Artist soon enough as well.

Loading mentions Retweet
Filed under  //   culture   evolution   perspective   timeline  

Comments [0]

Drivers vs cyclists vs pedestrians, my favorite chart from #makeachartday

My favorite chart from #makeachartday. Generally expresses what I sometimes try to capture when I tag something with 'perspective' here.

Loading mentions Retweet
Filed under  //   perspective  

Comments [0]

My Blogroll: