Undeniably, we are now living in a world that is exceptionally complex. Although the world may not be any more complex and dynamic than it was a few centuries or millenia ago from a physical perspective, it seems clear that from a social perspective the world has skyrocketed in its complexity, especially since the industrial evolution and the process of "globalization." It also seems clear that this trend will almost certainly continue exponentially in every sector of life. From the personal and social connections we make to financial markets and international governance, the world is getting bigger and more interconnected.
In general, I find this to be a pretty hopeful and beautiful thing: knowledge is being democratized (by the internet, as well as big-minded projects like PLOS and One Laptop Per Child) and I think for the first time we are really able to actually imagine the solutions to problems that are fundamentally international in nature (e.g. the drug trade, hunger, poverty, and especially global environmental issues).
This new kind of world, though, is also going to bring about a whole new set of problems. This was highlighted for me recently during the beginning of the economic shitstorm when I was listening to an NPR interview, which was actually about artificial intelligence. What stuck with me about the interview was the discussion of the computer programs that determine what happens in the financial markets. Obviously, the financial markets are too complex for anyone to predict in their specifics. And so, lots and lots of shareholders (which i think include private, small-time investors, although I could be wrong about this, I know embarrasingly little about the world of money) put sort of preset "sell" mechanisms on their holding. So, if the values of certain stocks fall below these setpoints, it can start a sort of wave of selling, which then can sort of reveberate out through the market. What was amazing, and sort of shocking to me, was to hear that not only is this very complicated (and apparently important) system being run at least in part by a bunch of computers, but that the effects were so complicated that nobody could figure out what happened, so that they had to write other computer programs to figure out what the other computer programs were doing!
So, this is scary because (a) the machines are taking over (huge vindication for all the sci-fi nerds), but also because (b) it represents how we've created mechanisms in the world that can themselves gain complexity and then sort of go beyond our ability to easily understand and control.
So, long introduction, but this got me thinking about how things like innovation, regulation, and control are going to have to change in this new way-too-complex future. In particular, I think we're going to have to come up with "smart" systems for understanding and controlling these very complex global systems.
One model for this that I find very intriguing is called "evolutionary computation," from computer science. From what I understand, evolutonary computation is a name for lots of different styles of computation that involve creating iterative programs that will progress slowly towards a "fitter" solution through many generations of calculation.
One example is from architecture. Imagine there is some leeway in how you can arrange some structural elements (maybe "struts") spatially in a building, but you want to find the best arrangement. And you know that you want to maximize some aspect of the building, let's say "toughness." People are creating programs that will randomly generate a whole variety of different arrangements of struts (the parallel of mutations in a natural population), and then they test all these different arrangements for "toughness." The specific arrangements of struts that perform best get to have "offspring," or new arrangments that are roughly like them but with some more mutations, and then the whole process is repeated. The result is basically that the program roughly imitates the smart processes of evolution and designs something all on its own.
Although this is a rough example, I think it still points to a useful direction in how we can sort of "decentralize" the analytical thought process. I think the same kind of thing can apply to societies. If we can figure out ways to bring innovation and analysis away from central "brains," such as centralized policies or governments, and out into the rest of the world, this opens up tons of new possibilities. And, it may even be the only way to move forward as the mechanisms of the world (such as financial markets and the internet) become too gigantic for a centralized brain to handle easily.
So, as a final endpoint, I want to bring this around to what I've been getting really interested in recently: local farms. I've recently started volunteering at a local organic farm, and I've been incredibly impressed with the innovative and dedicated work that is being done with basically no resources and very little overhead support from either a government or an academic institution. They're working on projects to build a solar-powered kitchen, expanding the visibility of good food by bringing it to impoverished communities for very cheap, having a roving biodiesel delivery system for their crops, and tons of other stuff. My point is that this is what we need more of: small-scale, decentralized innovation and problem-solving. In the spirit of Thomas Friedman, I think the best way for us to stay competitive in the modern world is to decentralize the system of innovation and encourage people to make change on the grassroots level (something that would seem especially appropriate in the age of Obama). There's lots of smart people out there with ideas that could make swift and effective change. Let them do their thing.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Rhythm and synchronicity
This excellent TED lecture by Cornell mathematician Steven Strogatz has really gotten me thinking about the role of rhythm in life, biological, human, and otherwise, and I highly recommend it. The lecture covers some really interesting examples of how rhythms, or what he calls examples of "sync" arise spontaneously in everyday situations.
One familiar example from the biological world is schooling (in fish and birds, etc), where are all of the movements of tons of individuals are coordinated to give the impression of choreographed action. As it turns out, schooling works on some pretty straightforward principles. He shows a mathematical model of schooling each individual's behavior is determined by some exceptionally simple rules: each individual is only aware of those nearest to it, all individuals tend to line up in the same direction, and that all of the individuals are attracted to each other, but keep a set distance between them.
Strogatz also goes over some less animate examples of spontaneous sync. He shows that two metronomes will sync up if you give them a way of "communicating" with each other mechanically, which in this case was a mobile platform that he put both on. Also pretty cool was the example of how people's footsteps tended to get into rhythm at the opening of the Millenium Bridge in London in 2000, which caused the entire massive bridge to start wobbling and had to be temporarily shut down.
Pretty cool examples of how rhythms can arise between individuals spontanteouly, and they all seem to really interesting example of the larger idea of emergence. Since watching the lecture I've been thinking about the pervasive rhythms are in life that I don't really notice most of the time (traffic patterns, cadence of conversation, moods, everything seems to have its own rhythm on some scale).
More than anything though, it reminded me of all of the old church, gospel, country, and other "americana" music I've bene listening. Especially in the old gospel stuff (especially Goodbye, Babylon and Classic Southern Gospel), there's some really energetic in so many of the songs that's hard to put my finger on, and I can't help connecting it in my mind to this sort of spontaneous development of alignment and rhythm between people. Many of the recordings are field recordings, so the recording quality is often poor, but the blistering energy and rhythms come through clear, and it's kind of amazing that people would so frequently and so universally get together to make music. I mean, it sounds like a silly question, but why does it make so much sense for people who are thinking something (about God, or poverty, or teen angst, or love, or whatever) to get together and make sounds in rhythm together, from the church choir to the transcendent drum circle to the dance club? It would make a lot of sense to me that people are expressing something really fundamental and instinctive that comes out in music, something that stretches way beyond human life into the rest of the living and even non-living world. Well, in addition to it just being fun...
One familiar example from the biological world is schooling (in fish and birds, etc), where are all of the movements of tons of individuals are coordinated to give the impression of choreographed action. As it turns out, schooling works on some pretty straightforward principles. He shows a mathematical model of schooling each individual's behavior is determined by some exceptionally simple rules: each individual is only aware of those nearest to it, all individuals tend to line up in the same direction, and that all of the individuals are attracted to each other, but keep a set distance between them.
Strogatz also goes over some less animate examples of spontaneous sync. He shows that two metronomes will sync up if you give them a way of "communicating" with each other mechanically, which in this case was a mobile platform that he put both on. Also pretty cool was the example of how people's footsteps tended to get into rhythm at the opening of the Millenium Bridge in London in 2000, which caused the entire massive bridge to start wobbling and had to be temporarily shut down.
Pretty cool examples of how rhythms can arise between individuals spontanteouly, and they all seem to really interesting example of the larger idea of emergence. Since watching the lecture I've been thinking about the pervasive rhythms are in life that I don't really notice most of the time (traffic patterns, cadence of conversation, moods, everything seems to have its own rhythm on some scale).
More than anything though, it reminded me of all of the old church, gospel, country, and other "americana" music I've bene listening. Especially in the old gospel stuff (especially Goodbye, Babylon and Classic Southern Gospel), there's some really energetic in so many of the songs that's hard to put my finger on, and I can't help connecting it in my mind to this sort of spontaneous development of alignment and rhythm between people. Many of the recordings are field recordings, so the recording quality is often poor, but the blistering energy and rhythms come through clear, and it's kind of amazing that people would so frequently and so universally get together to make music. I mean, it sounds like a silly question, but why does it make so much sense for people who are thinking something (about God, or poverty, or teen angst, or love, or whatever) to get together and make sounds in rhythm together, from the church choir to the transcendent drum circle to the dance club? It would make a lot of sense to me that people are expressing something really fundamental and instinctive that comes out in music, something that stretches way beyond human life into the rest of the living and even non-living world. Well, in addition to it just being fun...
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
With a wave of his (very long) finger...
...the trader made lots of money.
Apparently, according to a new study in PNAS, the size of men's fingers might be to blame for the financial crisis (sort of). The study found that there was a direct correlation between the relative size of a male trader's ring finger and how much money he made in the market. Specifically, the research measured the ratio between index finger length and ring finger length, so that a low ratio means you have a relatively long ring finger.
Even cooler is that there is a potential mechanism for explaining this relationship. Previously, it's been shown that having a low index:ring ratio (and therefore a long ring finger) means that a man will be more sensitive to changes in testosterone levels. This means quicker reactions and more willingness to take aggressive risks, which are also apparently useful in trading. I wonder if a hand print will now become part of the application for i-banking.
Apparently, according to a new study in PNAS, the size of men's fingers might be to blame for the financial crisis (sort of). The study found that there was a direct correlation between the relative size of a male trader's ring finger and how much money he made in the market. Specifically, the research measured the ratio between index finger length and ring finger length, so that a low ratio means you have a relatively long ring finger.
Even cooler is that there is a potential mechanism for explaining this relationship. Previously, it's been shown that having a low index:ring ratio (and therefore a long ring finger) means that a man will be more sensitive to changes in testosterone levels. This means quicker reactions and more willingness to take aggressive risks, which are also apparently useful in trading. I wonder if a hand print will now become part of the application for i-banking.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
