82,903
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
(7 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
{{Quote|“I should explain that in the Soviet scientific community in those days, mechanistic determinism held sway over all other approaches. Researchers believed that the natural world was governed by the iron law of cause and effect. This mentality was a product of the political environment.” | {{Quote|“I should explain that in the Soviet scientific community in those days, mechanistic determinism held sway over all other approaches. Researchers believed that the natural world was governed by the iron law of cause and effect. This mentality was a product of the political environment.” | ||
:— Cixin Liu, ''Ball Lightning''}} | :— Cixin Liu, ''Ball Lightning''}} | ||
A running theme in the [[JC]] is the distinction between top-down and bottom-up of organisation models. | A running theme in the [[JC]] is the distinction between top-down and bottom-up of organisation models, particularly where it comes to dealing with existential risk. | ||
We are in the swoon of | We are in the swoon of an obsession with [[data]], [[technology]] and the [[algorithm]]. [[Thought leader]]s perceive an inevitable, short, path to a [[singularity]] where everything can be calculated, everything planned and we will no longer have to rely on irrational, costly, inconstant, error-prone [[meatsacks]]. Only crusty old refuseniks can’t see it. | ||
Now I am a crusty old refusenik, and while that is largely borne of self-interest — I ''am'' an irrational, costly, inconstant, error-prone [[meatsack]], after all — before mortgaging our futures to the machine, | Now I am just such a crusty old refusenik, and while that is largely borne of self-interest — I ''am'' an irrational, costly, inconstant, error-prone [[meatsack]], after all — before mortgaging our futures to the machine, it is worth nutting through the [[Digital prophet|digital prophecies]] to see if they hold water. | ||
We start with a fundamental, philosophical divide between, on on hand, ''[[modernism]]'': in a [[Deterministic|deterministic]] world wherein the [[Causation|causal]] principle holds it follows that, in theory, we can calculate all outcomes from first principles. In this world the main challenge is outright data processing capacity and the sophistication of our model. Encouraged by the success of [[artificial intelligence]] in solving problems not long ago considered intractable — [[chess]], [[alpha go]], self-driving cars, facial recognition, [[chatbot]]s and so on — modernists extrapolate to a world where risk is atomised and calculated out of existence. | |||
[[ | On the other hand is ''[[pragmatism]]'': whether or not the causal principle holds, and however good [[robot]]s may get at [[chess]], they cannot manage non-linear interactions and dynamic environments which present “wicked problems” and complex systems. Not only can formal logical tools not deal with rapidly emerging risk situations, they can’t even ''[[Legibility|see]]'' them. It’s better to live with uncertainty, deploy experts, proceed with caution, keep slack in the system and use practical rules of thumb to which we have no great metaphysical attachment to address contingencies. We should live on our wits and figure things out as we go. There is no certainty, but humility is no bad defence. | ||
[[Pragmatism]] begets [[systems thinking]] and aspires to ''decentralisation'': the world is fundamentally unpredictable; it is best dealt with by experienced experts; management’s main function is to empower and equip experts and optimise their ability to communicate. | [[Determinism]] begets [[modernism]] and sees ''centralisation'' and automation as the highest good. We should aggregate and optimise processing power. The main role of the executive is orderly administration and maintenance of a machine which, by cold operation of logic, will dispense optimal outcomes by itself. The less we interfere the better. | ||
[[Pragmatism]] begets [[systems thinking]] and aspires to ''decentralisation'': the world is fundamentally unpredictable; it is best dealt with by experienced experts; management’s main function is to empower and equip experts and optimise their ability to communicate. Pragmatists prioritise relationships and interactions and over equipment and structure. | |||
So; centralised [[algorithm]]s versus distributed [[heuristic]]s. | So; centralised [[algorithm]]s versus distributed [[heuristic]]s. | ||
[[Perfection is the enemy of good enough|''Perfection'' versus ''good enough'']]. | [[Perfection is the enemy of good enough|''Perfection'' versus ''good enough'']]. | ||
Determinists are from Mars; pragmatists from Venus. | |||
===[[Modernism]]=== | ===[[Modernism]]=== | ||
“[[Modernist]]s” view organisations, and [[system]]s, as [[complicated]] machines. [[Form]]al design is important, and follows (centrally-determined) function; the more efficient your contraption is, the better it will navigate the crises and opportunities presented by its environment — the market. [[Modernism]] regards the market as an extremely [[complicated]] mathematical problem: hard, but— theoretically — calculable. ''Modellable''. Should a model not work, one must refine it. | |||
Shortcomings in current [[technology]] mean we cannot — ''yet'' — fully solve that problem. We still need humans to make sure the machine operates as best it can, but the further humans are from that central executive function, and the better the algorithm gets, the more humans resemble a maintenance crew | Shortcomings in current [[technology]] mean we cannot — ''yet'' — fully solve that problem. We still need humans to make sure the machine operates as best it can, but the further humans are from that central executive function, and the better the [[algorithm]] gets, the more humans resemble a maintenance crew. Their task is to ensure the orderly functioning of the plant. As technology advances, human [[agency]] can be progressively decommissioned. | ||
The modernist narrative focusses on [[Legibility|what it can see]], which is necessarily limited to the ''formal'' inputs and outputs of its own model. There are at least two consequences of this. | {{physics envy quote}} | ||
The modernist [[narrative]] focusses on [[Legibility|what it can see]], which is necessarily limited to the ''formal'' inputs and outputs of its own model. There are at least two consequences of this. | |||
Firstly, | ====[[Modernism]] only sees what it can see==== | ||
Firstly, [[modernism]] cannot “see” ''informal'', but vital, interactions between components of the system that are not in its model: random acts of kindness, the star seller’s sales technique, the time every staff member spends building lateral relationships, the value of those relationships, the necessary work beyond the [[service catalogue]], the [[work-around]]s that the machine going; the ad-hoc tricks that make up the difference between meaningful performance and work-to-rule. The critical call that clinched the deal. | |||
Theory: it is not an organisation’s ''[[form]]'' or ''structure'', but its ''interactions'' that determine its outcomes. A badly organised firm that interacts well with its customers will perform better than a perfectly organised firm that interacts poorly: | |||
{{quote|''“You are in a queue. an operator will be with you shortly. Your call is important to us.”''}} | |||
An organisation is a system. Systems are comprised of stocks, flows and feedback loops. Key are their interactions: components that don’t interact ''are not in a [[system]]''. A system’s behaviour [[emergent|emerges]] from ''how its components interact'', not ''what it is made of'' or ''how it is arranged''. In other words, a system is defined by its “flows”, not its “stocks”. Flows create feedback loops. Feedback loops create, or deplete stocks. Stocks — formal, structural capacities — only ''facilitate'' flows. But formal structures are easier to see than interactions. Yet modernism focuses on formal structure, organisation lines — mostly vertical — not functional communications, which are mostly horizontal. | |||
====Modernism as a [[negative sum game]]==== | |||
Secondly, thanks to its [[physics envy]], [[modernism]] is a ''[[negative sum game]]'': its baseline is immediate, costless, faultless performance. Positive variance from this baseline ''is not possible'': the goal is ''to lose as little energy as you can''. But friction, gravity, heat, [[entropic]] energy loss means in the real world, the system loses energy. We can minimise entropic loss with engineering and environmental control but it remains practically impossible to conserve energy, and ''theoretically'' impossible to create it. | |||
Human operators create a great deal more [[entropy|entropic loss]] than unattended [[algorithm]]s. If the only gauge is accurate, efficient execution of instructions, humans ''must'' be worse at that than machines. Modernism cannot give credit to insight, diagnosis, model revision or reimagination because ''there is nothing to reimagine''. There is no such thing as a valid alternative model. Economics is a kind of physics. There are no “alternative facts”. | |||
Now, if bettering an [[algorithm]] is impossible, 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 it where possible. 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. Others might find it it rather desolate. But desolation is no argument against it if it is correct. | This worldview is one that appeals to many people in business management. Others might find it it rather desolate. But desolation is no argument against it if it is correct. | ||
Line 62: | Line 67: | ||
===[[Pragmatism]]=== | ===[[Pragmatism]]=== | ||
{{dawkins differential equations quote}} | {{dawkins differential equations quote}} | ||
When you get too close to your material, sometimes you can’t see an absurdity even if it pinches you on the nose. Not only does a person catching a cricket ball not solve differential equations, or anything | When you get too close to your material, sometimes you can’t see an absurdity even if it pinches you on the nose. Not only does a person catching a cricket ball not solve differential equations, or anything “functionally equivalent”, but she ''can’t''. She would need the inputs for every differential equation in play. Just to determine a trajectory is: ''Y = H + X * tan(α) - G * X² / 2 * V₀² * cos²(α)''. | ||
To be clear: it is’t simply that she is doing this subconsciously, somehow, in a way she can’t apprehend: she doesn’t ''know'', even subconsciously, the velocity, angle, vector, or starting coordinates of the ball. She would need all of these just to perform that differential equation. She is doing something else: she’s using a subconscious heuristic: keep your eye on the ball, run towards it, and keep the angle of your gaze as constant as you can. It is called the “[[gaze heuristic]]”. No cosines or tangents required. | |||
Bottom-up models are, for want of a better world, “[[Pragmatism|pragmatic]]”. They see the organisation as a constantly changing organism operating with incomplete, ambiguous information in an environment that is also constantly in flux. To survive, firms must respond dynamically and imaginatively to unpredictable, non-linear interactions in the environment which is constantly shape-shifting into new configurations in unexpected, and unexpectable, ways. For a pragmatist, practical control must be exercised at the points where the organisation interacts with its environment. A firm should have talented, empowered, well-equipped people — [[subject matter expert]]s — to handle those interactions. Those in the central management function have a holistic view of the environment and can provide aspiration and tools to the [[subject matter expert]]s, but real decision making is done by those experts at the edges, not the the [[management function in the middle]]. | Bottom-up models are, for want of a better world, “[[Pragmatism|pragmatic]]”. They see the organisation as a constantly changing organism operating with incomplete, ambiguous information in an environment that is also constantly in flux. To survive, firms must respond dynamically and imaginatively to unpredictable, non-linear interactions in the environment which is constantly shape-shifting into new configurations in unexpected, and unexpectable, ways. For a pragmatist, practical control must be exercised at the points where the organisation interacts with its environment. A firm should have talented, empowered, well-equipped people — [[subject matter expert]]s — to handle those interactions. Those in the central management function have a holistic view of the environment and can provide aspiration and tools to the [[subject matter expert]]s, but real decision making is done by those experts at the edges, not the the [[management function in the middle]]. | ||
Line 78: | Line 83: | ||
===The illusion of significance=== | ===The illusion of significance=== | ||