82,976
edits
Something for the weekend, sir?: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|devil|}}Newsletter cribnotes | {{a|devil|}}Newsletter cribnotes | ||
==[[Modernism]], [[formalism]] versus [[pragmatism]]== | |||
*Vertex versus edge | *Vertex versus edge | ||
*Text versus meaning | *Text versus meaning | ||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
The [[JC]] is a crusty old refusenik, and while that is in great part a function of self-interest — he ''is'' an irrational, costly, inconstant, error-prone [[meatsack]] — there are broader metaphysical considerations at play. Before we mortgage our futures to the machine, it is worth nutting through them. | The [[JC]] is a crusty old refusenik, and while that is in great part a function of self-interest — he ''is'' an irrational, costly, inconstant, error-prone [[meatsack]] — there are broader metaphysical considerations at play. Before we mortgage our futures to the machine, it is worth nutting through them. | ||
===[[Modernism]]=== | |||
The top down models are basically “[[modernist]]” in the sense of Le Corbusier’s urban planning. They view organisations as [[complicated]] machines, ultimately directed and controlled by a homunculus sitting at the bridge in a kind of [[Cartesian theatre]]. [[Form]]al design is important, and follows (centrally determined) function; the better regimented the parts of your contraption and the more efficient it is, the better it will navigate the crises and opportunities presented by the environment in which it operates — the market. Modernism regards the market — for all practical purposes — as an infinitely complicated mathematical problem: hard, but ultimately calculable. Modellable. So when the model turns out not to work, the answer is to develop it. | The top down models are basically “[[modernist]]” in the sense of Le Corbusier’s urban planning. They view organisations as [[complicated]] machines, ultimately directed and controlled by a homunculus sitting at the bridge in a kind of [[Cartesian theatre]]. [[Form]]al design is important, and follows (centrally determined) function; the better regimented the parts of your contraption and the more efficient it is, the better it will navigate the crises and opportunities presented by the environment in which it operates — the market. Modernism regards the market — for all practical purposes — as an infinitely complicated mathematical problem: hard, but ultimately calculable. Modellable. So when the model turns out not to work, the answer is to develop it. | ||
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
In Newton’s theory, acceleration equals mass times force. In the practical world, acceleration is inevitably less than mass x force. We know that friction, gravity, heat, entropic energy loss means in the real world, observed A will never be quite amount to M*F. Engineering and environmental control move real A closer to theoretical A, but it is practically impossible for real A to equal theoretical A, and ''theoretically'' impossible to exceed it. Engineering is there for a negative sum game: no amount of engineering, efficiency or insight can on yield an acceleration equal to or greater than M*A. | In Newton’s theory, acceleration equals mass times force. In the practical world, acceleration is inevitably less than mass x force. We know that friction, gravity, heat, entropic energy loss means in the real world, observed A will never be quite amount to M*F. Engineering and environmental control move real A closer to theoretical A, but it is practically impossible for real A to equal theoretical A, and ''theoretically'' impossible to exceed it. Engineering is there for a negative sum game: no amount of engineering, efficiency or insight can on yield an acceleration equal to or greater than M*A. | ||
The modernist disposition holds that the same is true in an organisation. | The [[modernist]] disposition holds that the same is true in an organisation. | ||
Human operators create a great deal more entropy than machines. If the only measurement is flawless performance of an algorithm, humans must be worse at it then machines. There is no credit given to insight, diagnosis, creation of alternative models or narratives comma because in the the modernist framework, there is no such thing as a valid alternative model. Economics is a kind of applied physics. There is no room for alternative facts. | Human operators create a great deal more [[entropy]] than machines. If the only measurement is flawless performance of an [[algorithm]], humans must be worse at it then machines. There is no credit given to insight, diagnosis, creation of alternative models or narratives comma because in the the modernist framework, there is no such thing as a valid alternative model. Economics is a kind of applied physics. There is no room for alternative facts. | ||
{{Quote|“Economists have a kind of physics envy.” | {{Quote|“Economists have a kind of physics envy.” | ||
:—{{author|Rory Sutherland}} | :—{{author|Rory Sutherland}}}} | ||
If it is true that | If it is true that bettering an algorithm is impossible then it stands to reason: [[meatware]] is expensive and inconstant: the largest risk to the organisation is [[human error]], thus the strategic direction of an organisation’s development is to eliminate where possible the need for human intervention. Where that is not possible, human activity should be constrained by rigid guidelines and policies to reduce the probability of mishap, and monitored and audited to record and correct those errors that do happen top prevent them happening again. To the modernist, malfunction and [[human error]] are overarching business risks. | ||
This worldview is one that appeals to many people in business management. Personally I find it it desolate. But desolation, of course, is no | This worldview is one that appeals to many people in business management. Personally I find it it desolate. But desolation, of course, is no argument against it if it is correct. | ||
===[[Pragmatism]]=== | |||
Richard Dawkins and the differential equations | Richard Dawkins and the differential equations | ||
| Line 61: | Line 61: | ||
Getting down amongst the [[elephants and turtles]] is not to everyone’s taste, but if you do it helps to see the planet on top of it more clearly. Here’s a distinction to draw: between things and interactions between things. ''[[Noun|Nouns]]'' versus ''[[verb]]s''. | Getting down amongst the [[elephants and turtles]] is not to everyone’s taste, but if you do it helps to see the planet on top of it more clearly. Here’s a distinction to draw: between things and interactions between things. ''[[Noun|Nouns]]'' versus ''[[verb]]s''. | ||
===The illusion of permanence and the Ship of Theseus=== | |||
We see that even many of the markers we treat as formal, fixed and permanent are really temporary: the Dread Pirate Roberts effect: the personnel comprising a corporation ''change'' over time. Likewise institutions: corporations merge, change business models, change locations, move into different markets. IBM of 2021 is very different from the IBM of 1971. | We see that even many of the markers we treat as formal, fixed and permanent are really temporary: the Dread Pirate Roberts effect: the personnel comprising a corporation ''change'' over time. Likewise institutions: corporations merge, change business models, change locations, move into different markets. IBM of 2021 is very different from the IBM of 1971. | ||
But the individuals may be fleeting and transitory; the residue they leave behind is not: The corporation’s devotion to the [[Form|formal]] means that successive individuals become progressively constrained by their predecessors actions and decisions — even if, in the mean time the dynamic considerations that led to the decision no longer prevail. A rule that has been there for a long time, but that no-one knows the provenance of, acquires a kind of mystical quality. I think this is the inverse of the “Lindy effect”. | But the individuals may be fleeting and transitory; the residue they leave behind is not: The corporation’s devotion to the [[Form|formal]] means that successive individuals become progressively constrained by their predecessors actions and decisions — even if, in the mean time the dynamic considerations that led to the decision no longer prevail. A rule that has been there for a long time, but that no-one knows the provenance of, acquires a kind of mystical quality. I think this is the inverse of the “Lindy effect”. | ||
===The illusion of significance=== | |||
Because we can see the formal structures easily we tend to imbue them with significance, and assume the static connections between the formal structures are what matters. For example the [[org chart]]: this places every person in a firm in a logical, hierarchical relationship to everyone else, and can be neatly and easily controlled, that’s not to say many organisation charts become positively Byzantine. | Because we can see the formal structures easily we tend to imbue them with significance, and assume the static connections between the formal structures are what matters. For example the [[org chart]]: this places every person in a firm in a logical, hierarchical relationship to everyone else, and can be neatly and easily controlled, that’s not to say many organisation charts become positively Byzantine. | ||
| Line 103: | Line 103: | ||
So to understand a business one needs not understand its formal structure, but its ''informal'' structure: not the roles but the people who fill them: who are the key people whom others go to to help get things done; to break through logjams, to ensure the management is on side? These lines will not show up in any organisational structure. They are not what {{author|James C. Scott}} would describe as legible. They are hard to see: they are the beaten tracks through the jungle: the neural pathways that light up when the machine is thinking. They show up in email traffic, phone records, swipecode data. | So to understand a business one needs not understand its formal structure, but its ''informal'' structure: not the roles but the people who fill them: who are the key people whom others go to to help get things done; to break through logjams, to ensure the management is on side? These lines will not show up in any organisational structure. They are not what {{author|James C. Scott}} would describe as legible. They are hard to see: they are the beaten tracks through the jungle: the neural pathways that light up when the machine is thinking. They show up in email traffic, phone records, swipecode data. | ||
==Turtles== | |||
Talking Politics with Adam Curtis | Talking Politics with Adam Curtis | ||