We need an improved "invisible hand", Adam

David Brooks wrote a piece in the NY Times this morning on regulation of the financial industry.

Incidentally, there is essentially no engine today in any product that does not have a "controller" as part of the design, to increase stability, response time, etc. No elevator would stop at the floor without an abrupt "jerk" without a controller. The design of such controllers is in the field called "Control System Engineering."

A sample text book is this one: Feedback Control of Dynamic Systems, by Franklin, Powell, and Emami-Naeini. These are the concepts we need for a "governance" or "regulatory" system that actually works as advertised.

Control system engineering is to complex systems what "civil engineering" is to automobile bridges across rivers -- it is completely general and non-political, it won't tell you where to build or what to build with, but it WILL tell you the required properties of the materials and that some things will simply not work. You can't build the Brooklyn Bridge out of plastic, for example, regardless how cheap it is. You can't design a regulatory system that depends on feedback, for another example, and then blind the sensors that are supposed to determine the feedback.

The advantage of such engineering is that it focuses on issues such as "stability" (a big one right now) and gives power to insight, such as that blinding the eyes of a system will make it drive off the road for sure.\

Search "feedback" or "system thinking" in this weblog for other posts on such matters!
====================================================


One obstacle to a good solution is the incorrect assumption that a process "under control" equates to a small group of people doing "the controlling." Let's keep those separate.
The question of whether we need more "governance" should be distinct from who, or what, should be the active agent. For much of the US History, many have favored Adam Smith's "invisible hand" of the marketplace to do this controlling.
The classic debate over more or less "government" desperately needs this distinction.
The question should be whether there is an improvement on the class of "invisible controllers" that (a) do a better job and (b) are even less corruptable by those who would hijack the process.
There is no question that we have very complex processes running out of control, and that this is not the preferred state. Fine.
The question is how to achieve the "under control" part. The institution called "government" has typically decayed to "a few people" who, regardless of wisdom and intent, have been unable to grasp the com
plexity of the beast or improve on its operation and results.

The deep cynicism resulting from such failure seems related to the abandonment of a goal of prosperity for all and replacement with a goal of "prosperity for me and my friends at everyone else's expense" which turns out to be a short-term illusion, given how interconnected everything is.
These are problems in the area of "control system engineering" and "complex adaptive systems" and the necessary insights are probably in those fields.

Bees, infection, lean, and emergent immune systems

"What's good for the hive is good for the bees." That's one of the posters near the cafe at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, in Baltimore. I recall it's described as an "African saying."

I've gone on at great length looking for the right way to describe and convey the difference between multi-level organization and, well, "heaps."

There seems to be an extremely strong bias in the US against anything that has to do with higher organizational levels of humans - unless it's man-made, centrally-planned, top-down business organizations. Anything "bottom up" has a cultural repellent overtone of collectivism or labor-movements or community-organizers ( read "troublemakers") or socialism or communism or Star Trek's ultimate bogeyman - "The Borg."

It's puzzling. It's as if there's a conviction on the one hand that the country has passed through its entire need for "social and economic development" and is trying to forget that awkward, teenager stage when things didn't work out well, now that ... um ... we have everything perfectly under control?

That's pretty much a "theory X" model, where all the expertise is concentrated at the top, and the only thing everyone below that level is good for is blind obedient labor or paying taxes. And maybe that did work in the middle ages or for running plantations or companies where the labor was just an extension of the company's founder.

But, that model also ran out of steam a few decades ago, as more companies started being "knowledge based" with "knowledge workers," all of which meant that the center of mass of the expertise was moving from the executive wing to the shop floor. In hospitals, for example, there was a traumatic transition, that's still happening, where the main administrator of the hospital would now be a professional administrator, who was not even a medical doctor. The expertise in medical matters was shifting out to the floor, and the expertise in central administration was becoming, gasp, "administration" -- which previously had been sort of a dirty "four-letter word", the kind of thing that only worn out doctors would do when they couldn't keep up with "real work."

All this is morphing slowly, and with loud shrieks and moans and strenuous objections, towards "theory Y" where the laborers are assumed to be highly competent experts and in touch with reality on the floor or "ground truth" or "in country" or whatever the context is. Central "management's" role became less to "direct" or "manage" the operation than to "orchestrate" it. There' s no way the new "conductors" could even begin to grasp how to operate one of the "instruments" out there in the orchestra, let alone be the fount of all wisdom on every one of the sub-sub-sub-specialties and stay current on every relevant journal and attend every important conference.

So, it's a new "paradigm." The "chain of command" doesn't go away, but the nature of the command is distinguished very carefully from "information flow".

Now, if you look at this through the high-magnification lens, it doesn't look very different from the old model. (see picture below).


To see the difference, you need to rotate the microscope lenses around to a lower-power, broader field-of-view lens, and you can see what's changed, or what has to change, to make this new model work as advertised.

The big changes are that:

• News about the outside world comes in at the bottom (the front, the ground troops), and loops up to the top, where it has an effect, altering the new, revised orders that come back down the chain. That loop is travelled many times, but is still relatively slow.
• There is a very fast local loop, where feedback about performance comes right into the low level team, which responds to it on the spot, with no involvement of management. This is akin to your hand retracting from a hot stove without having to check in with the brain first. Or equivalent to the Coast Guard in Katrina, where they were pre-authorized to make decisions on their own without bothering headquarters.
• In Theory X, the news comes in the top, which has limited bandwidth or a small 1-person pipe, then only some of it goes down and some is lost at each level, depending on upper managers to recognize what lower employees care about. Finally a dribble of news makes it to the front. The troops report what they see and differences with what the orders seem to imply, but at each level going back up the chain, half of that is deleted by managers who think they know what the boss actually cares about. By the time the internal news gets up to the boss, 3 months later,
• it's unrecognizable.
• TheoryX is very hard to steer with. The Boss is effectively blind to what's going on inside, the troops are essentially blind to what the boss sees outside, and the whole thing feels like "pushing" on a rope.
• Theory Y is very easy to steer with. Most of the heavy lifting is done at each level with fast feedback that never has to go up to the brain and back down to the hand. Because the loop upwards is fast and phase-locked, news at the front actually makes it up to the top, which can change the mental model and the marching orders. The troops effectively control the boss, the same way the water-level controls the hand when filling a glass of water.
• Carrying on the "rope" analogy, it's like PULLING on a rope that goes out to a pulley and comes back to a pulley and goes in a big loop. You can accomplish "pushing" your clothes out to dry by "pulling" on the rope. The LOOP does the magic. You need the loop.

Well, I came in to talk about bees and emergent immune systems, and I've headed off in what seems a different direction, so now let's stop, turn around, and look a the "bee problem" from the top of this mountain we just climbed.

What's the problem? As the Los Angeles Times put it this morning,
Suddenly, the bees are simply vanishing.

by Jia-Rui Chong and Thomas H. Maugh II
June 10, 2007

The puzzling phenomenon, known as Colony Collapse Disorder, or CCD, has been reported in 35 states, five Canadian provinces and several European countries. The die-off has cost U.S. beekeepers about $150 million in losses and an uncertain amount for farmers scrambling to find bees to pollinate their crops.

Scientists have scoured the country, finding eerily abandoned hives in which the bees seem to have simply left their honey and broods of baby bees.

"We've never experienced bees going off and leaving brood behind," said Pennsylvania-based beekeeper Dave Hackenberg. "It was like a mother going off and leaving her kids."

Researchers have picked through the abandoned hives, dissected thousands of bees, and tested for viruses, bacteria, pesticides and mites.

So far, they are stumped.

The problem seems to be both a parasite (that can be killed by irradiating the hive), and a simultaneous breakdown in the bee's immune systems. The article states:

Several researchers, including entomologist Diana Cox-Foster of Penn State and Dr. W. Ian Lipkin, a virologist at Columbia University, have been sifting through bees that have been ground up, looking for viruses and bacteria.

"We were shocked by the huge number of pathogens present in each adult bee," Cox-Foster said at a recent meeting of bee researchers convened by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The large number of pathogens suggested, she said, that the bees' immune systems had been suppressed, allowing the proliferation of infections.

The article goes on looking at parasites, but I want to hit the brakes here, get off the highway, and go up the side road of looking at the question of suppression of immune systems. This is pure speculation, but possibly important speculation.

What catches my attention here is that there is a natural, multi-level beastie here - and that is that honeybees don't exist as individuals, they exist as parts-of-a-hive. Increasingly research is showing that humans have lot of the same tendencies, but for bees this is extreme. If you remove a honeybee from its hive, I suspect it will simply die - as will a human cell if you remove it from a human body. (That's why it's so hard to cultivate human "cell-lines".)

The latest literature on humans shows that it's not just that a person's immune system reflects the "health" of their own body, but it also reflects whether the person has become isolated and fragmented from society. One of the most painful things for a person, that is sort of surprising in the "rational actor" model, is that the imprisonment in "solitary confinement" is extremely draining, even to prisoners. The need for daily interaction with other humans is tangible.

Chimps, if removed from their herd, have been shown to sacrifice a chance for food for a chance to open a window and see what the other chimps are doing. This is a deep, biological need, not confined to one species, or, as the human cell example shows, not confined to a single "level" of organizational hierarchy.

The point is this. If you forget what your eyes see, and look at what the mathematics show, human beings, or bees, or cells, are not the shape your eye sees. They have parts of their physiological control and regulatory systems that extend out into their larger social structure. Those are important parts, and if those parts are not well, or damaged, the damage is quickly manifested in the local physiology of the individual as well.

For tax or legal purposes, or buying a train ticket, we are separate "individuals". For purposes of computing how regulatory processes operate, and how they fail, we are not nearly so "separate". Because our eyes don't show us these invisible (but very real) connections, we tend to discount them, or ignore them. We do so at our peril.

These tendrils of our "meta-bodies" are like having our blood diverted from our bodies in tubes in a dialysis unit, run out to some other place, processed and cleaned up, and returned to our bodies through some other tube. We can say that is not "me", but in the sense that a breakdown in that system can directly cause you to be sick or die, it really is "you".

Apparently, cells, chimps, bees, humans, whatever, develop many such external loops in their interactions with each other. These can be so great that it is common to hear a person say that when a loved one abandons them or dies, "it is as if a part of me died."

Alternatively, it's been shown that cells with even damaged DNA's can be supported by a "field effect" from neighboring healthy cells, and not become cancerous. [ I'll track down the reference.] Notice that the "life sciences" spend a huge amount of effort on "signal transduction" and ways signals are communicated between cells, or between genes with "genetic circuits", but there's little use of a model that this low-level communication, if it persists, really has to be part of a high-level closed feedback control loops with a mind of its own, and the key thing to do is to find that loop. As I showed a few days ago, tracing out the loop is a challenge, because control information leaps happily from medium to medium, now in neurons, now in voice, now in electromagnetic waves, now in liquid flow, etc. The point is if you know there MUST be a closed loop, so that the cells can PULL on the ROPE (discussed above), then you are encouraged to find the rest of the pieces.

And, then, of course, if you're a drug company, you have a whole new set of intervention points at the meta-loop level.

In extreme cases, when the culture and society collapses, the impact can be dramatic. I suspect that collapse of cultural integrity is part of what is going on in the huge rise in suicide rates among native Americans right now. The history of the Pima Indians, in the USA, shows a dramatic collapse of physical and social health, going from a tribe with almost no diabetes and one with a reputation for being extremely cordial in 1800, to one with something like 80% diabetes rates and a high rate of suicide and interpersonal violence. Many factors are put forward to explain this, but I'm biased to looking at multi-level models for this kind of effect.

So, if something is killing off the honeybees, and the something is enabled by an apparent collapse of the individuals "immune systems", then other people will start looking at what's wrong with "this bee" (the "clinical medicine" model), and I'd prefer to start the investigation at the other end and ask "Is something wrong with the hive?"

In other words, what's "broken" for each bee may not be "inside the box" of that bee's "body", but may be out in the external part of the control-system-body that is connected into and through the "hive." In the analogy, the "dialysis machine" is broken, or the tubes running to it are clogged or kinked, or something like that.

I think this can be a very powerful model, to think that there are TWO life-forms involved that may need medical attention. One is a lot of individual cells, or bees, or people. The other is a much larger scale emergent thingie, that we'd call "our body", or "the hive" or "society" respectively.

To date, we've considered emergent thingies as if they would evaporate if you took away the tiny things that make up the big thingie.

But I've presented many cases where the emergent thingie suddenly transitions, becomes self aware, and takes on "a life of its own" and even acts as if it has "a mind of its own."

For humans, the emergent thingie is very familiar - it's "us". Cells may have formed the substrate in which our spirit was formed (or placed, if you prefer that model), but now that spirit has definitely taken on a life and identity and mind of its own that is only remotely related to the lives of the cells that once made it up, but now are subordinate to it.

We see the same pattern in many other places. Mental images in human or machine vision start by being made up of many small patches of data or patterns, but once they combine into an overall "vision" or "percept", that thingie takes on a life of its own and even if we remove the source data it persists. In fact, even if the data now refute it, it can continue to persist, and defend itself, and change what we look at in order to sustain itself. Wow.

So, I think it is safe to say that everyone recognizes that bees have a very strong social component to their daily activity and identity. And, like corporations that continue to exist long after the founders have died or left, "hives" tend to persist even if individual bees die off.

But, OK, say the hive is a living thing that has a "meta-body" and has something that is appropriately called "health" that is a mostly-independent factor from the health of the individuals within it. I say "mostly" because it's only in the short term that they may appear to be separate -- in the long term, they are tightly coupled because feedback loops have compounded the "weak interactions" and "loose coupling" into dominant factors.

So, if the bees are dying, it may be because the hive-scale-thingie is dying first. As with any feedback loop, causal "directions" become a meaningless concept. The hive and the individuals rise or fall as one, in a upward or downward spiral feedback loop pattern.

But, it still can make sense for humans to talk about "psychological problems" or "immune system problems" that are defined at the large-scale, meta-body level and may not even make sense at the individual cell level.

The point is, things can "break" or "be wrong" at that large scale.

That's why I keep on flashing that M.C. Esher picture of the waterfall -- everything is healthy locally, but it's broken globally. The two are completely distinct, in the short run. (but coupled in the long run in any living thing.)

Is this what's going on with the bees? I have no idea. But I am pretty certain that very few people who aren't systems analysts would even start with that approach and look there for signs of something wrong at that level. So, it would be "baffling."

This is exactly what many social and corporate organizational problems are. At a local level, we see the equivalent of "bees dying" or "employees burning out" or "employees quitting" and we are baffled as to what's wrong with them. Sometimes, the problem isn't at that level. Sometimes it's a structural problem, a "systems" problem. Those are hard to see to begin with, and impossible to see if you don't look for them on purpose and methodically.

A great deal of management literature these days, including The Toyota Way by Jeffrey Liker, describe problems and solutions at the meta-level, without ever springing, in my mind, to the overall pattern they are pointing to. This is an emergent-organism that has a meta-body. It acts like its alive, and it can have disorders and dysfunctions and "health" and often needs "medical attention" at its own scale. (But save us from most "consultants"!)

If you look at all the emphasis on "vision" or "spirit" or "direction" or "identity" in the management literature, you can simplify it all to an effort to create a self-aware, self-sustaining, emergent beastie at the meta-level -- a beastie that will then turn around and form a nurturing context and reshape and empower the people that just gave it life.

So, it's one thing if you push up emergent life, and when you let go it falls down again. That's one case. In this other case, it's more like a radio antenna or something -- you push up emergent life and push so hard or well that the life breaks loose and is radiated out and takes on an existence of its own outside the antenna. Then, you can shut down the transmitter or dismantle the antenna, and the radiated wave just keeps on propagating outward.

Except in this case, it's more like a ring-vortex wave that just sits in place, like a little donut-shaped "halo" above us. It doesn't shoot off a the speed of light, but instead turns around and comes back and embraces the parts that just created it.

I think this is what we're trying to do with corporate management these days, effectively.
I think that's what "lean" and "six-sigma" and "Toyota Production System" are about. They're about creating a culture that is vital, and self-sustaining and that reaches around people and becomes the sea they swim in and draw life from, while they complete the cycle and return the favor.

That requires a lot of complete loops to work, and they have to be vertically oriented. We need to have the vertical donut model, not the open-ended "tree" model of management to bring all the pieces into "phase-lock" and allow a laser-beam output, not incoherent light.

And, when it breaks, we need "doctors" of the corporate spirit to bring it into alignment with a pattern that works again.

But it's not "the Borg" and it's not scary and it's not homogenization and it's not domination and it's not an abandonment of a social hierarchy -- but it is a different use of those pathways, a transforming use, that uses vertical close-paths to make the top the bottom and bring vertical unity to the compound-level beast. Then, it works. Then, it's great!

Note: All closed paths are "loops", so any causal loop diagram will have lots of "loops".

Most of those loops aren't dominant. What will be dominant will be the FEEDBACK CONTROL LOOPS. These will be self-aware, self-repairing, persistent, goal-seeking loops. THOSE are the key players over any long period of time in living systems. Those are where things break, or never got formed in the first place. And those are the intervention points for a sustainable intervention.

Gentle primer on feedback control loops

Here's yet another pass at the basic concepts using mostly pictures. Let me know if this works better for you or your students! I can adjust what I'm putting here to your needs and interests, but only if I get feedback!

The first picture shows rising and falling output. This is often what people mean or think of when they talk about "positive" and "negative" feedback.

Unfortunately, it's also their concept of where the "feedback" concept stops, so they missed all the good stuff.

The next picture shows converging output as a result of a simple control ("goal seeking") feedback loop.

The output rises or falls to some present value or "goal".

Then, the system can be "tweaked" a little so it converges faster on the goal, but that often will result in overshooting and coming back with a little bit (or a lot) of bouncing.

The next picture, of the car getting to a hill from the flatland below, is supposed to show how a speed control system should do a good job of maintaining the same speed, even when the outside world changes a lot.

Then the picture of the car going up and down the mounntain explains more about that. Without speed "control", the car would slow down going up the hill, and speed up a lot going down the hill. Instead, the speed is almost constant.

But, this whole effect of locking down or "latching" or "clamping" a value, such as speed, to some predetermined value is really confusing to statistical analysis. The effect is that a variation that is expected to be there is not there. There's no trace of it. So far as statistical analysis shows, there is absolutely no relationship between the slope of the hill and the speed of the car. Well, that's true and false. The speed may not be changing, but the speed of the engine has changed a lot.

The same kind of effect could be seen in an anti-smoking campaign. The level of smoking in a region is constant, and then you spend $10,000 to try to reduce smoking. The tobacco companies notice a slight drop and counter by spending $200,000 to increase advertising. The net result is zero change in the smoking rate. Did your intervention have no effect? Well, yes and no.

The output (cigarette sales) has been "clamped" to a set value by a feedback control loop, so it varies much less than you'd expect. Again, this is hard to "see" with statistics that assume there is no feedback loop involved in the process.

For that matter, the fact that the "usual" statistical tests should ONLY be used if there is no feedback loop is often either unknown or dismissed casually, when it's the most important fact on the table.

(The "General Linear Model" only gives you reliable results if the world is, well, "linear" -- and feedback loop relationships are NEVER linear, unless they're FLAT, which also confuses the statistical tests, and sometimes the statisticians or policy makers.

The good news is that there is a transformation of the data that makes it go back to "linear" again, which involves "Laplace Transforms", which I'm not going to get into today. But, stay tuned, we can make this circular world "linear" again so it can be analylzed and you guys can compute your "p-values" and statistical tests of significance and hypothesis testing, etc.)






OK, then, I illustrate INSTABILITY
caused by a "control loop" . In this case, a new driver with a poor set of rules thinks ("If slow, hit the gas. If fast, hit the brake pedal."). Those result in a very jerky ride alternating between going too fast and too slow.

Note, however, that the CAR is not broken. The Pedals are not broken. The only problem is that the mental rules used to transform the news about the speed into pedal action are a poor choice of rules - in this case, they have no "look ahead" built into them.


Then I have a really noisy picture that's really three pictures in one.

The left top side has a red line showing how some variable, say position of a ship in a river, varies over time. The ship stays mostly mid-stream until the boss decides to "help". Say the boss is up in the fog, and needs to get news from the deckhands, who can actually see the river and the river banks.

Unfortunately, the boss gets position reports by a runner, who takes 5 minutes to get up to the cabin.
As a result, using perfectly good RULES, the captain sees that the ship is heading too far to the right. (well, yes, that's PORT or STARBOARD or some nautical term. For now, call it "right").

So, she uses a good rule - if the ship is heading too far to the right, turn it more to the LEFT, and issues that command.

The problem is that the crew had already adjusted for the too much to the right problem, but too recently for the captain to know about, given the 5 minute delay. So, the captain tells them to turn even MORE to the left, which only makes the problem worse.

The resulting control loop has become unstable, and the ship will crash onto one or the other shores - not because any person is doing the wrong thing, but because the wrongness is extremely subtle. There is a LAG TIME between where the ship WAS and where the captain thinks it is NOW, based on her "dashboard".

That "little" change makes a stable system suddenly become unstable and deadly.

People who are familiar with the ways of control systems will be on the lookout for such effects, and take steps to counteract them. People who skipped this lesson are more likely to drive the ship onto the rocks, while complaining about baffling incompetency, either above or below their own level in the organization.



The last picture shows some of the things that "control system engineers" think about.

These are terms such as "rise time", "overshoot", "settling time", and "stability". And Cost.

These terms deal with how the system will respond to an external change, if one happened.

But a lot of the effort and tools are dedicated to being sure that the system, as built, will be STABLE, and won't cause reasonable components, doing reasonable things, to crash into something.

This kind of stability is a "system variable" in a very real sense that is lost when any heap of parts that interact is called "a system." It is something that has a very real physical meaning It is something that can be measured, directly or indirectly. It is something that can be managed and controlled, by very small changes such as reducing lag times for data to get from person A to person B.

And, my whole point, is that this is something people analyzing and designing organizational behavior and public health regulatory interventions should understand and use on a daily basis.

Maybe we need a simulator, or game, that is fun to play and gets people into situations where they have to understand these concepts, on a gut level, in order to "win" the game.

These are not "alien" concepts. Most of our lives we are in one or another kind of feedback control loop, and we have LOTS of experience with what goes right and wrong in them -- we just haven't categorized it into these buckets and recognized what's going on yet.

One thing I will confidently assert, is that once you understand what a feedback control loop looks like, and how to spot them, your eyes will open and the entire world around you will be transformed. Suddenly, you'll be surrounded by feedback loops that weren't there before.

The difficulty in seeing them may be due to the fact that what is flowing around this loop is "control information", and it can ride on any carrier, as I showed yesterday with the person getting a glass of water. The information can travel in liquids, solids, nerve cells, telephone wires, the internet, light rays, etc., and is pretty indifferent as to what it hitches a ride on.

The instruments keep changing, but the song is what matters.

You have to stop focusing on the instruments and listen to the song.

Control System Engineering is about the songs that everything around us is singing. Once we learn to hear them, they're everywhere. Life at every level is dense with them. And, they seem to be a little bit aware of each other, because sometimes they get into echos and harmonies across levels and seem to entrain each other.

It's beautiful to behold. I recommend it!

W.

Controlled by the Blue Gozinta

For those who are following this discussion of feedback loops, we're most of the way through the basic description of the insides of such a loop.

I showed how a microphone and speaker, or getting a glass of water represented kinds of feedback loops, and made a distinction between dumb feedback loops and smart - goal seeking - feedback loops, also known as control loops. And we showed how control loops are everywhere in nature, made up of almost any substance - animal, mineral, vegetable, light, chemicals -- and they don't care because the principles work regardless. Control is to the loop as a song is to the instrument - you can play the "same" song on almost any instrument, or sing it, and the "sameness" is there.

So, I need to give a name to the four parts that I had in the upper left in this picture I drew yesterday:



The basic diagram that Professor Gene Franklin uses in the book "Feedback Control of Dynamic Systems" is similar to that block diagram, except for pulling the "GOAL" out and lumping the three other boxes "comparer", "model", and "decider" into a single blue box that is labelled "?" in his diagram of a car's cruise-control system for maintaining a constant speed.


So, the diagram is from that book, as quoted by me in slide 16 of my Capstone presentation on patient team management of diabetes control. I think you may need to click on the picture to make it zoom up large enough to read the words.



In any case, the only box on that diagram that is blue is the one that the feedback "goes into", so I'm calling it a "blue gozinta" as just a funny name that rhymes and that no one else is using.

Besides, the word "controller" rings all sorts of bells I didn't want to ring, echoing back to parents and school and bosses, etc.

Well I guess I failed in that already, as I gave the example of "negative feedback " of a student getting "graded" by a teacher for performance on an "exam", and receiving a failing grade of zero percent, which could be quite discouraging and dampen enthusiasm for the subject.

Franklin's picture has two other minor differences from mine. First, he adds "sensor noise" to the bottom "speedometer" box, to emphasize that this loop is all built around a perception of reality, not reality, and the thing that does the perceiving may not be perfectly accurate. That's a pretty good model of human beings or any other regulatory agent or agency.

As John Gall would say in his book Systemantics -- inside a "system" the perception IS the reality. The medical chart IS the patient.

That effect is so strong that the patient can be dying in the bed but caregivers are so busy looking at the monitors showing something else that they don't see the problem -- which is part of what went on in the tragic Josie King case, where an 18 month child slowly died of thirst in the middle of one of the best hospitals in the world. So, yes, we better remember on our diagram that what our senses tell us is going on may be very wrong. We'll come back to that in a big way when discussing how human vision and perception get distorted by all sorts of invisible and insidious pressures - especially in groups with very strong beliefs.

The other difference between Franklin's diagram and mine is on the upper right, where he adds an incoming arrow labelled "road grade". This means the slope of the road, and how hilly it is, not what we think of the road. His point is that the behavior of a car and the speed it ends up going after we have set our end and put the gas pedal where we think it should be actually ALSO depends on factors that are outside the car - such as whether it's going up a steep hill.

That will also be a universal pattern. The results of our actions are mixed into the impact of outside actions, which makes it hard to disentangle the two from just looking at the end result. The good news is that there are software programs that can disentangle those two for us.

Anyway, the whole point of this post is to get the "blue gozinta" identified.

This little blue box is the heart of the problem, because "feedback" is really just information, and is not intrinsically "positive" or "negative". In this diagram, the "feedback" is the speed of the car, as measured by the speedometer. That's just a number.

The number becomes "positive" or "negative", leading to "more gas!" or "more brake!" actions, only because the blue box, the controller, the blue-gozinta, compared that number to the desired speed, and saw that it was less than desired. Then the controller had to check a mental model and use some rule like "if we're going too slow, push on the pedal on the right!"
"If we're going too fast, push on the pedal on the left!'

As anyone who has ever taught someone else to drive knows, that turns out NOT to be the actual rule that drivers use to control the gas pedal. The behavior those rules and that simplistic model of the world result in is holding down the gas until the car shoots past the correct speed, then slamming on the brake until the car passes the desired speed slowing down, then overshooting and slamming on the gas until the car passes the right speed on the way up, then slamming on the brake, etc. The car jerks back and forth in an unstable and very unpleasant oscillation forever if that's the only rule in use.

However, we can probably all think of organizational policies or laws that have exactly that behavior, and are either too harsh or too lenient, or something, and keep on going back and forth and never manage to get the right setting.

It has been hard to recognize those problems and go

• Hey, I've seen that behavior before!
• That's a "control loop" behavior.
• The way to fix it is to change what goes on in the blue gozinta box.
• What part of the process / law / policy I have corresponds to that box?
• That's where the problem can be fixed.

It's really important to see that there is nothing wrong with the car. The gas pedal works fine, and does not need to be replaced. The brake pedal works fine. The speedometer (in this case) works fine. What is wrong is inside the blue box, and is subtle - it's the "mental model" or rule that is used to decide what action to take depending on what information is coming into the box from outside.

And, the realization is that a very simple rule, a dumb rule, doesn't accomplish what we want, but a slightly better rule will make the very same parts behave correctly together.

The better rule requires a little more brains inside the box. We have to track more than just how fast we are going and how fast we want to go -- we have to figure out how fast we are converging on the goal, and start letting up on the gas as we get near the target speed, before we even get there.

The controller needs to "plan ahead" or "look ahead" and react to something that hasn't happened yet.

This seems to fly in the face of science and logic. How can a dumb box react to something that hasn't happened yet? We can't afford the "glimpse the future!" add on module, at $53 trillion.

Ahh, but here's another wonderful property of feedback loops. What goes around comes around. We've been here before. Nothing is new under the sun. The past is a guide to the future.

Either putting out the garbage can causes the garbage trucks to come, or we can learn the routine well enough that we can predict when the trucks will come based on past experience. It turns out, in a loop, the past and future become very blurred together.

Being able to recall the past IS being able to predict the future, in a control loop.

We don't just go around a control loop once or twice -- we go around a control loop thousands or millions of times. So, if we have any rudimentary learning capacity at all, we can start to notice certain patterns keep happening. We can detect what always seems to be happening JUST BEFORE the bad thing happens, and use THAT as the trigger event to react to instead.

So, we have a second rule that gets added by experience -- "When you get near the target goal, start easing up on the pressure to change and start increasing the pressure to stay right there and keep on doing exactly what you're doing."

This basic ability to learn from experience is the simplest definition of "intelligence" we can come up with. Do you recall the joke about Sven and Ollie that Garrison Keeler told?

Sven comes by Ollie's house and sees that Ollie has both ears bandaged.
"What happened?" he asks.
"Well", Ollie replies, "I was ironing and the phone rang and I picked up the iron by mistake and held it to my ear!"
"Oh.... So, what happened to your other ear?"
" Ahh.... once I was hurt, I tried to call an ambulance. "

So, the moral of all this post is that the key to the behavior of a system being managed by a feedback control loop is the blue box, the "blue gozinta."

Very simple changes to that box can change a horrible experience into a pleasant ride.

The heart of "Control System Engineering" is figuring out what to put in that box.

For human beings, a second major problem is that little tiny addition of "sensor noise", and figuring out how to prevent, reduce, or account for distortions in perception that can cause the system to be responding to a perception, not a reality.

And, for both, there's another very subtle but very well understood problem, and that is "lag time." I didn't draw "lag time" on the picture but I will in the future.

If we're trying to drive based on the speedometer reading from 5 minutes ago, things will not go well for us. In fact, the more we try to "control" things, the worse they can get.

This is a huge problem. A perfectly stable system that is perfectly controllable becomes a nightmare and unstable and can fly out of control just by there being too much of a lag between collecting the sensor data and presenting the picture to the controller.

Or, in hospitals and business, it's popular now to have a "dashboard" that shows indicators for everything, often exactly in "speedometer" type displays.

The problem is, the data shown may be two months old. We are trying to drive the car using yesterday's speedometer reading at this time of day. When I state it that way, the problem is obvious. But, I can't find any references at all in the Hospital Organization and Management literature about the risks caused by lag times in dashboard-based "control".

At this point, even with just this much understanding of control loops, you, dear reader, should be starting to realize how may places around you these loops are being managed incorrectly.

We're spending a huge amount of effort trying to improve the brakes and gas pedals, when the actual problem is a lag time in the messages to upper management, or that sort of problem.

None of these problems need to be in our face. These are all "Sven and Ollie" problems that we can fix with what we know today.

But that will only work if we're really sure about how control loops work, and how they fail, and can make that case to the right people in the right way at the right time.

Take home message -

Even a very basic understanding of control loops can help us ask the right questions, and realize where the problems may be lurking instead of where they appear to be at first glance, so we don't waste our time barking up the wrong tree.

Especially in complex organizations, the generator of failure is usually not that labor failed or management failed, or that any one person did something "wrong." What is killing us now is that we have a huge collection of "system problems" that are due to things like "lag time" and "feedback". Every piece of the system is correct, but the way they behave when connected is broken. There is a "second level" of existence, above the pieces, in the "emergent" world. Things can break THERE. Most of the systems humans built are broken there, or at least seriously in need of an engine mechanic, because we didn't even realize there WAS a THERE.

Worse, "management" still thinks that discussion of "higher level" problems means that someone is pointing the finger at THEM, and that leads to bad responses.

The problems are subtle. We won't see them unless we spend a little time studying how control systems work, and how they fail. Then, the patterns will be much more obvious, and our efforts will be much more likely to be successful. And, then we can stop blaming innocent people for problems that aren't their fault.

It is, however, in my mind, the fault of the whole enterprise of Public Health if this kind of insight is not taken advantage of when designing regulatory interventions or in helping individuals try to "control" behavior. That, in my mind, would be a clear failure of due diligence.

Or - it would be, if these concepts had been published in the peer-reviewed literature that's the only thing they read and pay attention to.

Which says, it's my fault for not publishing this and your fault, dear reader, if you don't get after me to do so.

After all - I depend on feedback from my readers to control my behavior. So, what I do depends on what you do.

Wow, doesn't that sound familiar?

THIRD kind of feedback discovered!

This just in! They found a third kind of feedback! The third kind is really, really, really important to understand if you want to understand what's going on in society today.




You know about the first kind of feedback, where the technician puts the speaker blasting into the microphone, and the result is a terrible sound, a rising squeal: e-e-e-e-e-EEEEE.

It's called "feedback" because the sound coming out of the speakers is fed back into the microphone, where it goes around again and the even louder sound comes out of the speakers and is fed back into the microphone where it is amplified and gets even LOUDER, etc.

Even though the result is unpleasant, this is called "positive feedback" because the signal is being reinforced and encouraged to grow stronger and stronger. Mathematically, with each loop more volume is being added in, so the equation, if we wrote it out, would need a PLUS SIGN.

Unfortunately, we are all familiar with the second kind of feedback, "negative feedback", which is what out best ideas or songs usually receive from friends and teachers.


You can see the "minus sign" on my second clever picture where a music student has just gotten his music test back with 0% correct, and is thinking of throwing his guitar, and his musical career, in the trash can.

This is "discouraging" feedback.

So, with positive feedback being "encouraging" and negative feedback being "discouraging", it's hard to see where there's room for a third kind.

I mean, what would it be? "Neutral" feedback, neither positive or negative?

The third kind of feedback can be called "goal-seeking" feedback, or "intelligent feedback" or "smart feedback" or "cybernetic feedback" or "regulatory feedback" or "feedback control."

Rather than blindly being always POSITIVE or always NEGATIVE, this kind of feedback varies depending on whether the news coming in that second should be encouraging or discouraging.



That concept implies that this is both "feedback with eyes" to see what the news is, and "feedback with brains" to decide how to interpret the news.

 

 

 

 

If we start at the glass being filled with water, the information flows from the glass into the person's eyes, then to their brain, where it is compared to a desired goal - a glass filled up to some mark or point. Since the water is not up to that level yet, the brain decides that the spigot could be opened wider to let more water flow, so this message is sent down to the hand, which carries out the message. That action causes more of the water in the 55-gallon drum to flow out of the spigot into the glass, raising the level of water in the glass. That information flows into the eyes, which ... goes around the loop again and again.

But, each time the information goes around the loop, the result may vary, depending on how full the glass is. The same kind of loop happens in a car, where the driver has some speed they want to go, looks at the speedometer, reads how fast they are going now, and decides whether more gas or more brake pedal is the right thing to do next, does that, and the control information goes around the loop again.

Now, this is a different kind of animal, this feedback control loop. But it is a very very popular design pattern. You'll find it everywhere, once you look, because it is a key building block for anything that's alive, and even for many things that are not alive, but act sort of alive, - like robots or automatic-speed-controls on your car.

Notice that I drew a closed path, a loop, but

what is flowing around the loop is actually control INFORMATION.

The information doesn't really care what carries it - whether it is an electrical wire or knots in a piece of string like the Inca's used, or a handful of pebbles or a piece of paper or flow of water or movement of a muscle. Information is cool - it will hitch a ride on anything it can get.

In our loop, the information starts as level of water in a glass, then it changes to light rays, then it goes in the eyeball and changes to nerve impulses, and goes around the brain comparing itself to some mental goal or image then gets goes through some kind of "decider" mechanism to decide whether the glass is full yet or not, then gets resolved to nerve impulses down a motor nerve, then gets resolved to muscle movement in the hand, then changes to spigot movement, then changes back into the water in the drum moving down to the glass.

The loop is a picture of "control information flow", and the math doesn't care what physical thing is used to implement different parts of the flow. The concept is both very real, and at the same time very abstract.

But, this is the tremendous power of this concept. Nothing depends on whether the process being described is physical, or solid, or liquid, or light or electrical impulses, or thoughts, or images, or muscle tissue.

The only thing that matters is whether the CONTROL loop exists, and has some kind of SENSOR (the eyeball), some kind of GOAL (how full I want the glass), Some kind of COMPARER (is the glass that full yet or not?), Some kind of mental model of what changes what ("To get MORE water, PULL the spigot lever forward towards me"), and some kind of ACTION-TAKER (to make that happen, move my hand towards me, and to make that happen, send a pulse down, let's see. ... oh yeah, down THIS nerve. )

The PATTERN is like a song, and the song doesn't care whether it is sung, or played on a piano, or played on a guitar, or played on bottles filled with different amounts of beer being hit by a stick -- it's still the "same song."

In our case, here's the song that Nature sings over and over again, everywhere inside our bodies and outside our bodies. When I write it out, it looks boring, like sheet music compared to actually playing the music. So, don't expect it to LOOK exciting. What matters is what happens when the music is PLAYED.

The other truly good news is that, once you understand how this kind of loop operates, and what you can do with it, and what you cannot do with it, that insight will carry over to thousands of different parts of life where the same loop operates - a different musician singing the same song.

So, here's the loop, that looks, as I promised, boring on paper.



Well, you wouldn't ask but I will, what about the first two kinds of feedback? Do we need a different picture of what "song" those are singing?

No, more good news is that one picture will do. Those loops are really boring songs, that essentially involve going up one key on the piano at a time, or going down one key on the piano at a time. Yawn.

Positive feedback is the same loop with stunted growth. It has no comparer, no goal, no mental model, and a single decider which is "ADD MORE".

Negative feedback is the same stunted loop with a simple decider rule "WHATEVER
you give me, I'll give you back less."

But, oh boy, control feedback can play a symphony with 8 voices and harmony. To think of "positive" feedback and "control feedback" being in the same family is like comparing a clock to a fancy BMW sports-car -- yes, they are both machines. Yes, one has a really boring song ("whatever time you showed last, add one second and show that next.") and the other has an "open-ended" song: "Wherever the driver wants to go and however fast she wants to go ... make it so!"

So, this is the background I wish my audience had when I did my Capstone presentation on how small teams of regular people (not doctors) could help each other get diabetes under control. There's that word again - "control", and, yes, there's a "regulatory feedback loop" involved with actions, looking to see if the actions worked, deciding what to to next, trying to do that, and around the loop again.

In any case, I will end with the same thought I put into that Capstone -- If we want to get things "Under control" and we want to use "regulations" in a loop and "monitor" how successful they are, and "modify" them based on that information, then we are playing in the "control loop" ballpark and it seems a minimum of due diligence to read the literature in that field and not reinvent the wheel, let alone get it wrong.

Feedback control theory is over 100 years old, and is very well developed, and has really neat toys and calculators to do all the hard stuff and make it easy to use. Probably any engineering college in the US has at least a course in "Control System Engineering". There are textbooks and journals and conferences, etc.

I found "Feedback Control of Dynamic Systems" to be the most readable, for the first two chapters, coming into the area from the outside.

There's a lot of interest lately in another 50 year old field - System Dynamics, where one of the goals is to try to capture, even qualitatively, the LOOPS in whatever system or organization or process you're trying to change, and then, if you can, the DIRECTION of push , be it "positive" or "negative". The Systems Dynamics Society has a whole literature and set of publications on how to do that and there's a graduate program at Worcester Polytechnic Institute in that field.

But, I have to note with some dismay, those analyses do not tease apart CONTROL loops from "positive feedback" and "negative feedback" loops. As I argue above, these are very different animals. Getting the connectivity and loops mapped out is a big part of the task. But I think the modeling of what happens next when you simulate this would be greatly improved if "control loops" were then distinguished from "dumb loops".

Just a suggestion for any SDS members who happen to be reading this. :)

(For more on Systems Dynamics and links, see my post "The Law of Unintended Consequences")

Oh, yes, I kind of lied a little bit when I titled this "Third kind of feedback discovered!" because it's only been discovered in the engineering literature, and has not been officially noted yet in the Public Health literature, and therefore, lacking "judicial notice" it currently does not exist so far as Public Health practice is concerned.

Again, my suggestion for due diligence applies.

And, no, it doesn't matter that human beings and possibly corporations and cultures and even lawyers are part of the system being studied in public health -- the theory and operation of control systems is identical. It doesn't matter whether it's animal, vegetable, mineral, light, people, chemicals, water -- the same control system laws control what can happen, can predict what might happen if you changed something, and can guide your intervention along pathways that are even conceptually feasible.

Should the FDA regulate tobacco?

According to the New York Times today, "Report Seeks FDA regulation of Tobacco",

A report from the Institute of Medicine, part of the National Academy of Sciences, urged Congress and the president to give the Food and Drug administration the authority to regulate tobacco.

Use of tobacco is recognized in Public Health as the second largest cause of premature death in the world today. The World Health Organization estimates that half of the smokers will be eventually killed by that habit, with the death toll 5 million people per year now, and rising.

So, this is a surprising thing. The USA launches a whole occupation army and spent over a trillion dollars because 3000 people were killed. But the same country sits by and watches the tobacco industry kill 5 million people a year, every year, and that's no big deal.

We really need to pause and make sense of these observed facts, and what they can teach us about ourselves.

There is a very long history of attempts to regulate tobacco, which has a specific exemption put in place by our very own Congress, specifically to prevent such regulation. Any consideration of that kind of regulation also has to look at the dismal results when the US tried to regulate the sale of alcohol during "prohibition" with a constitutional amendment.

The Times story continues:

The report said cigarettes contained carcinogens and other dangerous toxins and would be banned if federal laws did not exempt tobacco. A bill before Congress would give the F.D.A. regulatory authority, but the agency’s commissioner, Dr. Andrew C. von Eschenbach, expressed skepticism, saying that if nicotine levels were reduced, smokers would change their habits to maintain current levels. The report also called for higher tobacco taxes and a national ban on indoor smoking.

The Johns Hopkins Institute for Tobacco Control estimates that 1 billion people will die prematurely, in the 21st century, from use of tobacco. According to that site, "The Institute for Global Tobacco Control works to prevent death and disease from tobacco use through research, education and policy development."

Apparently, "research, education, and policy development" have not been very successful and solving this problem.

In fact, while non-smoking areas are now commonplace in places wealthy Americans hang out, the companies have only moved operations abroad and expanded them tremendously. The death toll is expected by WHO to double in by 2020, to 10,000,000 people - a year, each year.

I would like to suggest that "research, education, and policy development", while helpful locally, will never solve this problem.

There are two reasons I think that, related to the whole theme of this weblog.

First, our ability to reason about such things is poor. The fixation on numbers in much of Science, and explicit belief by many that only numeric results are meaningful, has short-circuited our ability, as a society, to reason correctly about things that cannot be measured with numbers. Even for things that can be measured with numbers, the fixation on linear statistical models has short-circuited our exploration of feedback models.

In the perverse way of complex systems, our biggest problem is now of our own making. Like the blades of a helicopter, we must travel in our own wake. The very success of the mechanical view of the universe, of Science and technology, and of linear statistical models have made it almost impossible to now move forward from there. These techniques have, effectively, become religions, defended with blind religious zeal against perceived enemies at the gates.

So, when we are confronted with a problem which shimmers and changes with the size and scale of the observer, we are effectively paralyzed. Do tobacco companies kill people? On the scale of populations, the cause and effect is clear and unambiguous, and satisfies all the requirements of causality, except one we'll get to. Raised marketing efforts by tobacco companies precede and have a dose-response relation to the number of people smoking and the number of people dying. Etc. The problem is that if we shift lenses, on the scale of individual humans, this relationship is no longer "causal." Individuals have free will. Any particular individual may or may not respond to marketing efforts by the tobacco industry. The solidity dissolves.

It's not that there is no solidity to the causal argument - it's that the solidity depends on scale, which is a concept that is not yet recognized as pervasive and important.

I go on about this at great length in some other posts. ( Search "scale" or "causal" in the search window above to find them. ) See "Ten most important lessons from physics" for a discussion of how even water pipes have this property. From a human scale, there are entities called pipes, and water towers, and faucets and there are measurable factors like pressure and volume and flow-rates. These seem very solid. But if you drill down to the molecular level, this solidity dissolves. Molecules don't think, or act, or respond to any of that. Those words are meaningless to molecules. Molecules just respond to their local environment, and their neighboring molecules. A given molecule may linger at the pipe wall forever, it doesn't matter.

A few more such examples are given in my post: Amazing devices to impress your friends.
These include hollow tubes that cause air to separate into boiling hot air and air so cold it creates frost, pumps that pump water uphill with no power source and essentially no moving parts, hollow spaces that convert battery power to microwaves in one step with no moving parts, etc. These are all commercial, off-the-shelf devices, not my imagination gone wild.
They also all have the property of being globally causal and locally non-causal. Like the photo of Marilyn Monroe or Einstein, depending on how far back you stand from your monitor, they are both at once and fall into a space we are not taught about in school.

The second reason that "research, education, and policy development" have not been very successful and solving this problem of tobacco-related deaths is that this is a spiritual problem, and it will never yield to technology.

As T. S. Eliot noted, in Choruses from The Rock (1934):

They constantly try to escape
From the darkness outside and within
By dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good.
But the man that is shall shadow
The man that pretends to be.

Or, more precisely, the society that is shall shadow the society that pretends to be. Any individual effort to change the situation with respect to tobacco use will fail on two fronts.
First, the industry will fight back, and that is a cross-scale fight that pits corporations against individuals and guess who will win. Second, human weakness will fight back against our best intentions for our own behavior, and we will give in, as we did with alcohol. The latter is what the FDA Commissioner was referring to, in that regulations limiting tobacco per cigarette would only increase the number of cigarettes smoked until the same physiological hit was obtained, making the industry even richer.

In the contest between an individual and a multi-billion dollar corporate marketing campaign, it is not likely the individual will win.

There are exceptions. For instance, the population of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) in Utah has a well-documented life expectancy ten years longer than the average for the US, and one reason is that they prohibit smoking and drinking.

Look what is going on here. It is not the individuals that are fighting off the temptation to smoke or drink, but the larger scale entity, the, gasp, organized religion, that has succeeded where
"research, education, and policy development" have all failed.

One of the youth in our community asked one day "Why do we need organized religion? Why can't we all just worship God on our own?" The answer is visible in Utah -- larger scale entities can do things that smaller scale entities cannot possibly ever, ever, ever do on their own.

This is not a "cognitive" thing. Yielding to temptation and losing ability to deliver on one's own intentions is a function of being disconnected from a larger entity that helps shape and define and support you, and provides you what structural engineers call "active strength." The simple fact is that human beings are heavily influenced by peer pressure, whether they like it or not, or believe it or not, or have IQ's of 200 or 20.

It's not so much a question of which entity to belong to. Pick one that looks good. What matters is belonging to something larger that supports the values you desire your "self" to have.

Life is too complex to go it alone. We've seen to that. The one church that does not work, and will never work, is "rugged individualism." Whether you believe in God or not, or evolution or not, the math is the same - no individual will ever be as strong as a strong group. In the end, strong groups will win. Multi-celluarism always wins out, in the end - it's just a better solution. The fact that you're reading this shows that multi-cellular architecture can work, because that's exactly the operating principle your body uses to orchestrate a trillion cells and get one body. We're swimming in examples of this working.

Wrapping up the social thought - tobacco deaths continue because we accept them. If we, as a society, collectively, decided we didn't want our companies killing 5 million people a year, we could stop that cold. Such an action requires moral conviction and group solidarity of a type that will not come from "research, education, and policy development".

Such an action requires a change of heart.

Change everyone's heart, and the "problem" will dissolve. Suddenly, "we" will be at the same scale as "the problem", and the "problem" will simply evaporate.

So, I'd suggest that focus as the most likely to succeed. It demands that we come to grips with larger questions of society, morality, religion, science, and our own nature. It's not a simple thing to do, but, from the reasoning above, it looks to me like the easiest thing to do that has a chance of working, based on fundamental principles of what's going on here and the evidence at hand of what works and what doesn't.

Religion, like gasoline, is volatile. It releases tremendous energy in people, for good or bad. It can be misused, and it can kill. It can also power our lives with non-polluting ability to cope.

We don't need to throw out religion. We need to understand, when it works, why it works. There is no shorter path to the solution to the problems we've now made for ourselves, and no path that doesn't involve these questions.

When little things matter

This post is a very simple lesson that can give us a profound deeper insight into how things work and why so much around us doesn't.

This arose from a very simple question I asked yesterday, to my daughter who is learning how to teach the concepts of physics to 4th graders. No number-crunching is involved. Relax.

Here's the situation. Some people, who work at the Daily News in New York, between sightings of Elvis, argue that the Earth is a hollow shell, like a tennis ball, and there is a whole world inside it, illustrated by my clever picture #1. Oh, yes, and they would add, there are holes at the poles where the flying saucers go in and out, which of course the military knows about but keeps secret from us all. The aliens from the UFO, shown here as "little green men" live on the inside as shown in the picture.

My question is, "Do you think that would work?" or paraphrased, "What's wrong with this picture?" Of course, there are many things wrong with the picture, but the one I wanted to focus on has to do with gravity. If you could make a hollow earth-sized space ship, unless it was spinning really, really fast, the problem is that the little green men wouldn't be able to stand up as shown. In fact, they would fall "up", towards the center of the earth.

See picture #2 for why that would happen.



So, here's the deal. In your mind, break up the earth into "billions and billions" of basketball sized pieces.

Some of these, "under" the alien's feet, would be close, and would pull on them with a lot of force.

Some of these, "above" the alien's head, would be far away, and would pull on them with just a little force.

So, you think, the close ones will win and the pull will be towards the local "ground".

The problem is that there are way more chunks of earth far away than there are close up. And even a little pull, multipled by billions and billions, adds up to a lot more than a huge pull, multipled by a small number.

As a result, the alien would fall towards the majority of the earth, which is over its head, instead of towards the little bit of earth beneath its feet. "Down" is still towards the center, even if you are inside the hollow shell, for the same reason "down" is towards the center if you are outside the hollow shell.

But, some one would ask, if the earth were spinning at a thousand miles an hour at the equator, which it is, wouldn't the centrigual force hold the aliens "down" onto the shell, just like in the movies of spinning circular spaceships? Yes, Timmy, it would - but, if the earth spun that fast, then the people, rocks, and buildings on the outside of the earth would also be going that fast, and we'd all be flung "upwards" and fly off the earth. We don't need any more math, just logic - because we aren't thrown "upwards", the earth isn't spinning fast enough to hold aliens "upwards" either.

What's the point? The point is that most people think that the first picture is right, and that local effects dominate the world. It's not true in this case - distant effects dominate the world, even though they are tiny, because there are just so many of them.

The conceptual mistake that "big" local things determine the outcome is carried over into our thinking of much of human society and our decisions about what things will "work" and what things won't work. Unfortunately, many of our social decisions, like picture #1, look fine at first glance, and seem fine, and "feel right", but they turn out to be wrong in the same way. That is, we throw the "tiny" effects out of the calculations before we have multiplied by how many places they occur, instead of afterwards. That gives us the wrong answer.

To decide whether an effect is "tiny" or "negligible" or not, we can't just compare it to some other effect locally. We have to multiply it out first, or compound it if there is feedback, and then decide which effect is "tiny" and which one is "big" - and whether our alien will fall "down" or "up".

Many of our social structures, like the alien, are built on the wrong model - and they keep trying to fall apart, and it's baffling to us why that is happening. It "should" work. If that is happening in your world, many the same thing is true there. Maybe, many tiny effects that you think "go away" actually turn out to dominate the answer.

This is true ten times over if there is one of those "feedback loops" I keep going on about. If an effect is "compounded", like interest on your credit card, it turns out to be way more powerful on the outcome than you would think at first glance.

These "feedback" systems that are used to control everything from elevators to airplanes, and the engineers who analyze them use a different lens than an inexperienced person would use, to account for this effect, before they do their calculations. They apply something called "The Laplace Transform", named after some guy who lived a long time ago whose name was "Laplace." That "operator" does two nifty things at once. First, it corrects everything for what it will add up to after you take "compounding" into effect. And second, it changes the loop into a straight line, so all our favorite statistics can be used on it again, but this time, giving us the right answer. (Warning -- If you look it up, don't mistake this for the "Laplace Operator", which is a whole different thing, named after the same guy!)

The math behind the Laplace Transform looks scary, but, just like the rest of statistics, that all gets hidden inside the calculator and all you need to do is push the correct button to use this, so it's not a big deal.

Actually, there's a third effect, but it's distant and subtle - the Laplace Transform means that this concept will not put biostatisticans out of a job, so they can stop the torch and pitchfork parade up to the castle to kill the idea. Without some way, like the Laplacian, to counter that distant and subtle effect, we'd expect the small resistance put up by a large number of established researchers to dominate the scene, and squash this idea from being taken seriously.

Anyway, now you have a better idea what I'm talking about when I say such things.

References & further reading
======================
A description of the Laplace Transform, and what it does, in something approaching English,
can be found in any "control system engineering" introductory textbook. I prefer the explanation in this one.

For anyone who enjoys the idea of big things and little things switching roles, stay tuned for a discussion of "Olber's Paradox", or the very serious question of why the sky is dark at night.
Any idiot knows that's because the sun has set. Olber, howerver, raised the point that the sun, where you can see it, will be the same brightness per area, regardless how far away from it you are. If you imagine holding up your thumb and first finger in a circle, and looking at the sun from close, you'd see a small portion of it, and that portion would be very bright. If you were twice as far away, you'd see more of it through that circle of your thumb and finger, but it would be farther away and less bright. Well, it turns out those two effects exactly cancel out.
The amount you see goes up as the square of the distance, and the brightness goes down by the square of the distance, so the total amout of light coming through that circle remains constant.

Sooner or later, you get far enough away that the sun doesn't fill the circle. But, no matter, because if there are an infinite number of stars scattered evenly around the universe, sooner or later any line you draw will run into one. And the little section of sky that one covers will also be as bright as the sun.

Which means, the entire sky should be as bright as the sun, and we should all be cooked.

The math, it turns out is correct. Which means, one of our other assumptions about what's out there is wrong. Fascinating...