Territory and map

To re-look at an earlier discussion about abstraction's appeal, in which there were references to things and quasi-empiricism, we can use a slightly different terminology (territory, map) that lends itself to both concrete and metaphoric phrasings. Let's use 'territory' and 'map' and look at the problem of confusing the map for the territory. Generally, we don't see the other problem, though it will come into play to boot.

This may seem like a simple approach but hang on while we expand this theme through a few posts here and in the truth engineering thread.

Territory will be used in the sense of things, such as we can walk around our office or manipulate the keyboard. Now, map will be used for the abstractions, of very many types, that we encounter or use daily. An earlier things post mentioned how models and things could be recursively related.

This applies, as well, to territory and map. For instance, a map could be consider part of the things within a territory (say, a Rand McNally book, sitting on a table). As well, a territory could be within a map (say, within a virtual environment [Second Life, etc.] where some operation (mouse) on a graph embedded within the space starts a subprocess).

Hey, wait! What just happened? Well, we'll have to get used to the idea that a map might enclose territory. You see, it can become problematic real quickly to distinguish between territory (in the traditional sense [more below]) of things and territory within maps of things. You see, the computer is (or you could say contains) a map of things, though it, itself, is a thing. 'Second Life' was used in that a virtual experience can be very visceral (look at advanced simulators).

Actually, think of a vivid dream. So, where are the demarcations between the thing and the map. We have been building maps as territory for a long time. What has changed is that now we have this thing called the computer upon which we can build these in a persistent and public manner.

To go way back, we were mostly territory roamers (over nature's terrain) who learned how to have mental maps. As we progressed and extended the natural, we had maps passed through generations via media (books, etc.) and tradition (and, perhaps, other ways - think memes). Along with our progression was increased facility in mathematics (hence the quasi-empirical link) which for the most part relied upon human talent to both apply and to extend.

Ah yes. Since the mid-1900s, there has been another element added: computation and all its abilities (too numerous to go into here, but we'll be looking at this). Now, we have people thinking that their map-based territory/map on the computer may actually be equivalent to the thing-based territory/map. Get the drift.

Well, they are not equivalent in many ways. Can they be? It's interesting how well the effectiveness plays, in some cases. Simulators are used for training in lieu of actual flight time in the thing that is simulated (the airplane). But, one could ask the question, since simulation for re-training is the most common: could the entire education of the pilot be done via simulation?

Obviously not, for the same reason that medicine requires internship and residency for the MD.

Well, it could, but the knowledge of the pilot would be limited by what the simulator experience could show; that, of course, begs the question of whether the perfect simulator could be built.

Ah, that is related to one of the issues in the quasi-empirical discussions.

So, you see, territory and map are not so simple; these, and their relationships, will recur in future posts. (12/18/2008 -- These may be more of a problem in the ungrounded world of finance than in the naturally-based world of engineering and science)

Remarks:

04/19/2011 -- We have to get back to the basics.

09/14/2009 -- We'll need to look at UUUN, as a framework.

08/18/2009 -- Applies for both macro and micro views.

07/05/2009 -- It's taken awhile, but this message is becoming more apropos all the time.

12/18/2008 -- Well, things really fell apart in the 3rd Quarter of 2008. Of course, a technique called the tranche was one factor. Others include the players and the games. Now, games include using mathematics erroneously, as in getting an aura from the use of derivatives (to be discussed further). We'll have to re-address this map/territory issue.

08/01/2008 -- One place where the territory/map dynamic plays (many times with dire consequences) is in the realm of busyness and the market. So, to further the discussion, we will look at money and what it is.

Modified: 04/19/2011

Open and honest ...

Ethics training talks about this subject a lot. As we know, our world isn't just black and white; how the grays (and other colors) are handled speak a lot to the interests of truth engineering.

A quote from today's telecon (a paraphrase (flightblogger notes from 9/5/07, 787 Status teleconference (9/22/07, will be offline until further notice)), of course): "Tell the world exactly what's going on with the program. You won't know what you have to deal with until you have to deal with it. We'll get this airplane in the air, and we'll get to flight test."

First, there is no doubt about the seriousness of the effort and probably little doubt about the eventual outcome. How the eventuality will map to time has gripped our minds. Some postmortem analysis could be done now (if one has the time and energy). At some future point (probably not too far out), there definitely will be more data.

It's the journey and details thereof that seem to have everyone's attention (as it should). Yet, we on the outside can only surmise (isn't that a normal human endeavor). How 'exact' any report may be deals with several issues that will be discussed further as we go along.

Naturally, as on any journey, there is discovery, except perhaps when one is retracing steps in a cow pasture ad infinitum. Yet, the thing-in-itself way of the world would suggest that even something so mundane as that retracing could be considered new (think of Blake).

There was discussion that going through the processes that were defined in the abstract (a necessity, since they were before the fact) causes one to adjust. Perhaps, our wonder is that process seems to change in every way except as movement of the EIS (first delivery).

We'll stay with the polls and try to make them more objective. As of 6:30 EDT on 9/5/2007, of 43 votes on the EIS, 34 (78%) say that most likely (or stronger) that there will be a slide. It might be interesting to ask how far the slide is expected. Only 3 are positive definite (6 are wishing, as most of us are, that things work).

Expect more polls as we go along. Hopefully, they'll contribute to the discussion.

Remarks:

01/27/2009 -- At the time of this post, engineering was the main focus. Then, other areas become of interest due to overlaps in the problems: map-territory, computation and being, and much more. There will be more integrating posts to bring some cohesion, such as leveraging and fiction.

Modified: 01/27/2009

That seductive abstract

As mentioned in the earlier list, abstraction has a lot of modern appeal thanks, in part, to computation. It's also very seductive in the drive for minimum costs or for the most lean effort or any other quest for the optimal.

Yet, an experienced engineer will tell you that no amount of modeling prowess replaces the thing-in-itself. That is, even an advanced 'second world' (or call it holodeck) experience is not reality. Just like a simulator experience is not the real thing.

So, how does this problem play in the stacked deck that we see with CAD and CAE (CAx to some) in the context of a complicated product? Well, given a product with new material, process, and configuration, are we to believe that the analytics are so strong so as to push us to think that we can ignore risks that may be inherent (will be discussed further)?

One thing of importance here will be quasi-empiricism versus a focus on foundations. The latter seems to take hold when the less 'hard' come to fore (finance, etc.).

Stay tuned, as this topic will keep reappearing.

Slogan: a new product, even though engineered by computer, is a hypothesis that needs to be proven (not hyped).

Remarks:

01/17/2013 -- Grounding due to fire.

11/02/2010 -- This post is 3 years old. Originally, the context dealt with engineering. But, finance soon came to fore with its importance to capitalism. We need to redo money, essentially.

09/02/2009 -- Lean assumes a current framework which can be improved. That the process is still effective during the change can be checked easily. However, if it is not still effective or we do not have a stable framework, then we were, by necessity, in the undecidable state.

05/27/2009 -- That we have topsy-turvy needs to be addressed more fully in both an epistemologic and an operational sense.

01/23/2009 -- At the time of this post, engineering was the main focus. Then, other areas become of interest due to overlaps in the problems: map-territory, computation and being, and much more. There will be more integrating posts to bring some cohesion, such as leveraging and fiction.

Modified: 01/17/2013

Here we go again, II

So, now we're hearing some tales, out of school, by Jon at flightblogger. Out of school? Yes, he is quoting anonymous sources at Boeing. Those who know that they ought not talk, yet do. Not real whistle blowers, as that would require them to come out into the light.

Well, before continuing here, the content of Here we go again still apply. What is necessary is an update. That will take some time, but we can look at a couple of issues, for now.

Firstly, from the beginning, I wondered about the leaks (the recent clamor in relation to WikiLeaks is very much apropos to the discussion) that Jon used. Were they ringers? How did he get such good pictures that would obviously belong to Boeing smuggled out? So many questions relate to that theme.

Along the same vein, there is the whole issue of how a company can manipulate information in order to influence investors. Of course, the legal positions on the subject continue to flux, yet that we're dealing with a near-zero game (which could be seen as patently illegal in other contexts) seems to never take any appreciable awareness in our collective minds. Many comments to Jon's blog posts have wondered about this.

Secondly, a grand and world-wide system is hugely appealing. But, it is so for different reasons for different folks. We can enumerate but will defer that to a later date. Let's look at three of those folks, for now. 1) We have the engineers and others who can do. Yes, the WWW (thanks to DOD for letting this little genie out of the bottle - I'm still amazed that we let loose that US taxpayer funded technology for the idiots to exploit) portends a whole lot of things that even scifi hasn't fully described. However, the old issue of map-territory (plus, being seduced by the allure of the abstract; the so intriguing notions related to computational ubiquity (to the limit of the universal computing device - why else the wizardry related to mathematics?); and a whole lot more). More power (pun, for the IEEE folks) to these pioneers, from whom has arisen all the marvels around us.

2) We have poor people who would like to better their situation. Unfortunately, for more than is necessary, many get trapped into unconscionable exploitation by the next group. Imagine: being tied into something so atrociously bad that is related to Apple (sheesh, Steve) and its new products, that one kills oneself (the solution was to wire, and make inaccessible, the jump points?). We'll be going into discussing the people, and not from a classist view either, at large.

3) Now, for the real as***es of the world. Yes, the best and brightest. Now, these types (can't live without them) are in 787 program, to boot; we'll not name names. They want to out-house (no apologies needed for the use) in order to exploit group number 2 while putting it to group number 1 who have been a pain in their rears. Yes. Just look at Wichita. Harry (yes, guy, I have your number) wanted it gone since the workers dared to boo him at a meeting where he and lil Jefe offered pop (as in soda - oh yes, it was iced) and the opportunity for them to tell the workers why they didn't need the union. This is another story to tell. Basically, when the opportunity arose, black-booted thuggery was let loose for several months that terrorized a whole bunch of workers. One has to wonder what would be the state of the program if Wichita was till within the folds of the company.

But, that's minor. Who the heck cares about a little city in the middle of the US? What is more of a concern is that there were many good talkers, using all sorts of lures, who pulled sane people into an untenable position that was more risky than not. But, hey, did we not just see the financial folks do the same thing? Despite recent mania (read Dow, et al -- on the backs of the savers, thanks Ben, big guy), there is more hurt than not (big bonuses for the fat cats does not cover up the crap).

What went wrong here? The plane did fly and for a long while. Now, ought there have been those pre-production crafts sitting there as if wishes were reality? Would one not think that the better method may have been to test the thing first and then work production? Cart before horse?

---

So much to look at. We'll continue to plod along. But, the basics need some attention: how do we know?, who the h*l tells the truth? (see Remarks, 'truth wears off' indeed), why CEOs? (as in, my ancestors did not come here, away from those arses, for me to have to continue the kissing mode), and much more.

Remarks:

07/15/2013 -- A fire late last week bring an opportunity to see what goes into determining whether to do composite repair or to undergo a section replacement.

03/11/2011 -- Wired asks, ought we care? About I-Phone suicides

.01/01/2011 -- This theme? We're done. Engineering is a shining example of human effort. Finance? Ah, cannot be said by a civilized tongue!

Modified: 07/15/2013

Avatars

An older person, intellectual and college educated (very good school), asked about avatars. Its use by the gamesters was confusing the person, since the contexts were modern and computational. You see, 'avatar' is older than the hills (well, almost - and, implicit in this is that yo has been into that mindset since the early 60s); too, the world view behind the concept may seem strange to some western minds; and, as we see a whole lot, young minds took an older thing and used it to be something somewhat like, but really different from, the age-old usages (bringing angst forward, as well, each time -- until we get inured (or is it indoctrinated?)) .

---

We probably ought to enumerate these types of idea morphs from the past 1/2 century; I've been involved with the development of computational techniques using mathematics and modeling for a long time and will start getting together a list if I don't find that it has already been done; development meaning, of course, the evolution of our artificially oriented prowess.

---

Now, concepts found in abstract mathematics can relate to the 'avatar' theme. Mainly, the lift and the projection. We'll go on about that, to boot. Sufficient for now is this: many times what seems like a lift is actually a projection. And the confusion arises from a 'virtual' vertigo, so to speak.

Take the avatar, for instance. It can be embedded in a space that 'lifts' (no, not a change of usage, let me explain - at some point). However, what we see is that its usage is involved with a projection (implying into a lower-order affair - again, will explain) many times. Let this slogan suffice, for now: lifts can trample while projections squish 'being' (unfortunately, we'll have to pause to consider some t-issues - but, as said before, PTIME may apply).

---

And, folks, that type of thing (see Remarks 05/28/2011, below, on vertigo) is behind a whole bunch of 'oops' that we see in life. Mind you, this discussion, in no way, is meant to imply that 'gaming' is never the 'lift' that it appears to be. Rather, we want 'computational being-ness' to be more uplifting than it has been to date.

---

Aside: the avatar concept may have more applicability than not; in fact, it allows another way to look at several problems that might be effective; too, why limit 'avatar' to being a glorified icon (even if it exhibits behavior -- hint: think duck test against an embodiment)?

Remarks:

09/16/2012 -- Avatar (movie's tale) as parable.

05/01/2012 -- We'll need to talk singularity in the context of Alan. The computer has as many holes as do we; however, we can cut out of the fog. 

06/22/2011 -- IEEE has a nice overview of social media and related issues.

05/28/2011 -- In what situations will an 'avatar' be confused (as in befuddled)? What? Yes, in the traditional sense, one would think never (except for those whose role might include the possibility). Because we have the quasi-empirical issues to resolve since we like to push the envelope, there is a 'vertigo' state that is possible computationally (or cyber-ally). The recent re-look at the Air France event (of 2009) that was made possible with the recovery of the flight data recorder can allow us an analog. One commenter talked about how the bucking of the plane, and it being night, did not allow any basis to determine appropriate action. That state has many more possible occurrences than we have admitted (for many reasons) to be likely in computational frameworks. We'll continue to try to explain why. The article on the Lemons problem touched on one possible avenue of expression of this phenomenon - implying, yes, that the cyber-based (without confusing map-territory) is what we know as the reality (think sensors and their increasingly electronic basis) many, many times. Aside: what the heck is money except for bits within the FED's (and its cohorts worldwide) cyber-realm, though all sorts of first-world expectations fill in its 'avatar' (if I'm allowed that stretch)?

Modified: 09/16/2012

Caveat Emptor

A few words are apropos in the context of truth and lemons.

---

We've all know about, or heard of, buyer's remorse. That is, you spend your hard-earned money on something and then wonder if it was junk that you bought. There have been ways to help with this: consumer protection laws, etc.

You see, though, the bankers did just that. That is, bought junk. Actually, sold junk, too. And, got away with it, almost. Why almost? They did crash the economy for which we are still paying while they have, essentially, been playing (with our money).

Any remorse on their part? Not that I can see. At the ex ante time, they were rolling the dough with glee. Luxury was almost synonymous with banking (investment type). In the ex post time, they've spent oodles of money (on lobbyists, for instance) and time on avoiding any notion of blame.

Now, the article mentioned in 'lemons' and 'truth' (both above) somewhat offers bankers an out. You see, they were moving the shells in an indiscernible manner while only being human. We should all know that bankers wallow; have you ever seen one that might be considered angelic?

Aside: talking those best-and-brightest who have been allowed to lead the old farts astray, not the laboring clerks, and lowly managers, who work to help the customer base.

Yes, all the while, gaming our beans and trying to appear, to the public, as if they knew about due diligence, fiduciary duty, and the like. Yet, behind the scenes, the depths of idiocy were being explored.

---

Aside: I agree with the FED dude in KC who wants to clamp down on banks and to put banking back into its utility framework. Too, I saw banking 'fraud' up close. Was actually thrown out of a bank since I could do mathematical modeling, noticed slight perturbations on their returns that suggested chicanery, brought it to the attention of management. The government? They said to take the banking company to court. What? An individual trying to do what ought to have been done by the OCC, the FDIC, or such? Too, the state banking association told me categorically that they were for the banks, not the customers. What, again? And, there were never any repercussions for the potential losses to that bank's customers who were not aware of the 'thumb on the scale' tactic. How much did the bank take in with their little scheme?

Aside: It's funny that the bank responded by throwing me, and my money, out; too, they did some character assassinations (or tried to) as if I were a harasser. When the machinations of Made-off (my ordeal was prior to this -- in summary: depositor, mainly - no debts) were revealed, what was brought out? Many had tried to tell the tale of his misdeeds. One even depicted the state of being alone and fearing legal repercussions. My motivations for 'truth engineering' are deep (long association with computing) and wide (everywhere dense).

Aside: Not anti-banking. I deal with several. Financial advisers? That's another story.

Aside: The bank also got back at me by taking TARP money which, we all know, came out of the taxpayers' pockets. Why did not TARP have strings?

---

Essentially, there are serious issues to resolve with computing and finance. To date, those in charge have let the young people run, almost without restraint, after riches and glories. Some have hit things big time (and, we get freebies, like blogger, for instance). Many more (a very many more) have become impoverished with the new types of 'gaming' that resulted in the ca-pital-sino.

Now, the authorities can blubber all they want about legalities, and such, and the law-makers can listen to as many of the lobbyists as they want (by the way, these people do not want us to think about these underlying, systemic, problems), but malfeasance seems to have become an acceptable mode (what did one headline say today? John Edwards, mis-used campaign money and hid it -- the adage? mis-use was not the issue, covering up is -- what a state of affairs!).

So, to make this short, for now, here are some things with which we will need to concern ourselves:

• -- mathematization does not equate to truth - nor, does computation -- we will have to work to build a framework that is sustainable, and does not do harm (nod to those behind this medium). We cannot let those who can spawn off all of these awful instruments that have unknown consequences to continue to do so willy nilly. A sandbox would help. But, what exactly is that?
• -- just as the prior bullet suggests, we cannot let pseudo-science reign in finance, and economics. We need to make it real. Of course, many have said that. For one thing, we could expect some type of 'testing' (no, not what Timmy did last year) within our money realm that is more solid than what we have now. Of course, that has implications on the bean counting, to boot.
• -- following up on the prior bullet requires me to note that the 'pseudo' is partly tongue-in-cheek, due to the dismal nature of the domains. Oh, of course, those who roll in the dough (a very small percentage) may not be dismal. The reality is, folks, that for the most, the dire situation does not have to be, in many cases. True, there are natural disasters, accidents, and such. Yet, the type of things where a few, because they can, risk the livelihood, and the health, of the many need to scrutinized. Where that is not being done is with those things computational, for a variety of reasons. Some of it is pure laziness (ah, it's too difficult) and hubris (what? you expect me to dirty my hands?).
• -- ..., doing what might be consider a flip-flop, we ought to encourage 'open' methods in computing and software. However, there is a big potential for hidden 'snakes' (find the article about this - that is, altered electronics that can be controlled remotely, embedded within something that is widely distributed) on the hardware/firmware side. Too, even with open software, there are issues, such as understanding how code works, is executed, and such. Then, algorithms are not necessarily grasped correctly.
• -- So, we will be back to using computing, and networks, to found the truth, albeit augmented with devices everywhere in the hands of trained minds who are not afraid to recognize the importance, and use, of intuition (what? - being mindful of the map-territory silliness).
• -- And, we'll have to put insurance back into its proper state -- not where some dude, at the top, pulls in 100+ million, for himself, in one year, by not doing things: paying claims, etc. After all, 'lemons' can be insured against, AIG's little (actually large) turmoils notwithstanding.
• -- ...

Remarks:

05/29/2011 -- Fair dealing, can that be brought back? Was it ever?

05/26/2011 -- Quoted 'fraud' as will carry this discussion over to Fedaerated in a continuing discussion of banking, money, etc. Along the line of truth & lemons (context of the post), how do we discern the truth when mathematics/computation are involved? There are serious issues that have not been given enough attention, probably due to the operational effectiveness that we have seen. Too, there are human issues. Auditors are cut from the same cloth as the bankers, in many cases. Politicos are limited many ways. Somehow, we need to introduce independent reviews, beyond the oversight attempts by regulators. We'll closely look at this case of a bank throwing me out after I had been a good customer for 10 years. What changed? New management came in, an expansive mode went into effect (buying banks at other locales), and some operational changes were put into place to put the balance toward the bank (this is a key issue). At that time, returns started to diverge from the expected. Another factor is that it was not just me computing and checking one bank. I was comparing this bank's results against three others. Of the four, one bank's results were right on target with my expected return calculations (as in, mind you, zero deviation). The other two had slight residues, but that is to be expected given that one can interpret regulations several ways and still remain compliant. The bank out of which I was catapulted had deltas, in their favor, that were significant. We'll explain why and discuss why this was so. And, do it all in a nice manner despite a growing awareness that bankers are not upright (to wit, dead peasant - classy, indeed).

Modified: 05/29/2011

Not back I

Earlier, it was said: we're gone. That did not mean interminable silence; no, any appropriate situation can raise issues.

Like this one with the skin. Notice that it's a technical guy saying that they don't know. And, you know that they've modeled this stuff to the point of exhaustion. Guess what? How well are other areas modeled? Folks, did you know that skins are made lighter by reduction of material? Too, that the notions behind this minimization are not dissimilar?

One theme here, and in truth engineering, has been that the advances in systems thinking, despite the successes that we experience everyday, do not (will not) ever get us to where the model is more 'real' than matter itself.

As the economic messes are from a similar type of hubris (not picking on engineers, as they do have to match wits with nature), this theme will (is expected to) continue.

It'll be fun to look at these things. Perhaps, this event indicates that discussion on this theme ought to have parallel tracks between the three views. That is, the oops factor, aerated thoughts of the set with the money and power, and what can we do to help the folks live happily and travel safely.

Remarks:

07/15/2013 -- A fire late last week bring an opportunity to see what goes into determining whether to do composite repair or to undergo a section replacement.

04/07/2012 -- Flightblogger ends, as least, Jon's watch. Some issues raised five years ago are still apropos. The context may have changed a little, yet, perhaps now is time to re-address the themes which are beyond aviation, only one of a whole bunch of domains.

04/26/2011 -- As said, we're paying attention from afar. Yesterday, there was a report that rivets may be a contributing factor to the skin problem. But, process steps (this was a popular piece today), such as inspection, loom large, to boot. And, of course, any analysis (that is mathematically framed) assumes certain (a lot of) things (has to) about that being modeled; a weak point is always that there may be discrepancies between the model and the object (remember, the former is the map, the latter the territory, in this context) for whatever reason, such as pieces not being made to spec, or assembly steps not being followed, ....

04/19/2011 -- It was said that engineering has science behind it. What the hell is behind all of the gaming by the idiots in best-and-brightest clothing? That an insanity goes on daily is not seen (from whence, the blindness?); those in power (with their suits, suntans, ...) act with such grace. Somewhat vacuously, do you not think?

The prime characteristic: mutual admiration society! Almost like the 'royal' courts of old.

Modified 07/15/2013

Fairy dust

Fairy dust, like its sib Happy Talk, has been part of the run up in business from a shaky start to a very flimsy structure. That the stock markets are dropping severely today (before the open of the US markets) indicates that the recent dust has not worked; that it sometimes catches into a frenzy is very much suitable for study.

Part of the dust influenced Alan's (he of the Congressional query, yesterday) long-time belief that banks (and other capitalistic organizations) could police themselves, that derivatives were magical (did not need scrutiny), and that bubbles could not be seen.

Yes, Alan, we cannot see the future. Science, therefore, has ex post facto eyes, for the most part. Any forward looking is highly constrained. It is mainly the business types who go out on the limb, extrapolating like there is no tomorrow, carrying with them the rest of us into perdition.

Until economics and business is more empirically (actually quasi-empirically) based, these burstings will continue.

Gosh, even the quants started to believe in their magic and led the financial engineers astray.

How to stop this, as WFB asked? Well, there are several ways. Expect these to be addressed in an incremental manner, including more technical analysis of the mathematical problems.

Remarks:

07/31/2013 -- Ben cannot unwind or taper down; he has too many Doves.

03/23/2012 -- Ben is doing a series of four lectures on his, and the FED's, role.

10/10/2011 -- The public is recognizing that we've been 'fairy dusted' the past few years. Was it meant to be a means of cover-up? Hopefully, Big Ben is seen to be as much of a culprit.

04/19/2011 -- On territory and its map.

01/19/2011 -- The quirks of capitalism are rank, not by necessity.

11/04/2010 -- Big Ben is still putting us at risk and trashing the savers.

09/15/2009 -- Lessons, one year after Lehman. Also, Time on culprits. Ben is happy-talking, again.

09/09/2009 -- Alan's reign will be looked at, in time.

08/31/2009 -- Go to FEDaerated to see Quant series that will expand to cover topics both theoretical and technical.

08/10/2009 -- As promised, FEDaerated is here.

05/18/2009 -- Oh yes, got us in a mess and still wants the bonus.

04/17/2009 -- Minsky and the facts of ephemeral value are a couple of topics on the list.

12/17/2008 -- Shoes continue to drop, but they are of several types.

11/20/2008 -- Boon and bust, the way of fairy dust.

Modified: 07/31/2013

Happy talk

There was an Op-Ed in the WSJ recently with this title. One message is that business might be looked at as a "center of magical thinking" for several reasons. Some talk about group think, and how some type of convergence goes on in a collective's mentality. In business many times, those who might ask questions are suppressed (or, those who do are thought of as mere commodity, beyond the glamor and allure of the game). Ah, guy, you're not a team player, the questioner is told. We've seen that a lot.

This issue essentially was addressed earlier in a slightly different framework. But, that these issues might get the attention of psychology can be thought of as encouraging.

One might ask how this could be handled operationally, since management has the power and the authority to control thoughts. Well, some type of structure that allows critical thinking would be a start, not unlike some attempts at a technical excellence fellowship.

This applies as well to the gaming of the Wall Street and Chicago, but there are many culprits related to the latest bubble's creation.

But, sales is of this ilk. What salesman is truthful about quirks? So, too, those who were caught in the house ownership mania were no doubt happy talked.

Happy talk has sibs, fairy dust and happy thinking (to be defined).

Remarks:

07/31/2013 -- Ben cannot unwind or taper down; he has too many Doves.

03/23/2012 -- Ben is doing a series of four lectures on his, and the FED's, role.

10/10/2011 -- The public is recognizing that we've been 'fairy dusted' the past few years. Was it meant to be a means of cover-up? Hopefully, Big Ben is seen to be as much of a culprit.

04/19/2011 -- On territory and its map.

09/15/2009 -- Lessons, one year after Lehman. Also, Time on culprits. Ben is happy-talking, again.

Modified: 07/31/2013

Potemkin and more

On this day (and, perhaps, at other times, to boot), we'll always pause to think of Steve's contributions.

Discussions about 'reality distortion' are interesting. Many have charisma, of various types. Salesmen, in general, wouldn't be successful without something of this type of nature. Managers can motivate this way; is it better than using the stick?

We'll have to look at this further since Mr. Jobs was such a good example, given those with whom he worked, their particular domain of interest, and what has unfolded over the decades. You know, issues of computability are still open-ended, in many senses.

---

But, that's all for another day. Let's just reflect on potemkin type of things. The term was mentioned here as being used within a context related to wishes. That is, there was an enormous thrust, evidently, sustained by belief in modern systems (ah yes, we know how the finance people a mere four years ago, or so, were claiming to have conquered risk? Do you then recall what happened?).

People get into their heads that their rose-colored (whatever other color might be used) glasses do not have an effect on their perception, thereby influencing their cognition. Heck, they don't even know they have glasses on. But, hey, even the brilliants (yes, yes) have the same problem. We'll touch upon that theme quite a bit.

So, however these mis-perceptions are characterized, or emerge, and more, we can usually see the thing ex post facto. But, not always, since the effect is very strong. Certain worldviews seem to continue despite seeming lack of evidence (left purposely vague, think of it as a Rorschach test for yourself), and these have been around for oodles and eons of time. Yet, they do have some usefulness (if we can only get these things to settle into some type of peaceful - peace-able - mode).

---

Now, having said all that, reality distortion and potemkin'ism are two peas in a pod (not the only ones, mind you). Unfortunately, we're seeing this up-close during the muck-raking season (yet, are we learning anything therefrom?).

We could change context a little and talk about the issues related to determining value. We would also look at expectations' influence on outcome and measuring such. Going back to Steve, he noted that there were hard problems being worked by all sorts of people. How the interchange methods, and understanding of such, have emerged over the decades was not foreseen.

---

One main problem, folks? Too much effort at trying to pin down the future. Yes, there are a multitude of things to discuss here. In effect, though, look at nature. If you're following Darwin, are you going to propose that evolution is doing a design of experiments expansion? Well, there may be loose analogs, but, in actuality, we see myriads of proposed changes being filtered through some type of mechanism (we can use the notion of the most fit surviving - as, it can be modeled fairly well). And, please, be aware that those things being filtered are ex post facto realizations, not mere thoughtful entities.

Yes, territory-map problems can be one way to think of this. It is not TRUE, in any case, that foreknowledge (say, via computational modeling, visualization) is the same as the phenomenal existence (redundancy noted). Now, mental (loose sense) states can overlap that which is real. But, they are not the same (unless, ..., in certain events, we may have congruence of more than space-time, yet, science has steered from even considering such, except indirectly).

Remarks:

01/17/2013 -- Grounding due to fire.

11/09/2012 -- Engineering memes. Nice.

Modified: 11/09/2013