We never talk anymore

Actually, it's not that we never talk anymore, it's that we never ever learned how to talk in the first place.

Like the old tale of the blind men stumbling into an elephant and arguing that it is "like a rope" or "like a tree" or "like a huge leaf", the whole planet is stumbling into new territory without a way to compare notes and rise above voting whether the elephant is "a tree" or not, based on a 51% cutoff of votes.

There is, indeed, a "unity" higher than the "diversity" of views, that is not reached by everyone giving in to the majority view.

The New York Times had an op-ed piece on global warming, with 120 or so comments. Nicholas Kristoff had a piece, Nov 13, 2007, "Avoiding Climate Change: Why Americans Prevaricate and Delay on Taking Action." I read all the comments carefully, then posted this reply:

I think Abraham Lincoln once said that if he had ten minutes to chop down a tree he'd spend the first five sharpening the axe.

For all our high-tech at assembling machine parts and getting them to work together, we are in the dark ages at assembling each other's views of knowledge and coming up with a Big Picture we can all trust.

Sequentially speaking our own views is fascinating, but underpowered, and isn't leading to an informed consensus that has transparency and improves with time. Instead we're still back at trying to find the 51% of the votes to suppress the other 49% of us.

Lots of people want to "educate" me, but fewer want to listen to what I'm trying to say in return.

I agree we need research, but before we research some scientific thing, let's get serious work at how to compare notes, get past hysteria, and figure out which way is actually up -- in general, not just about one issue like climate change.

Sure, it's important. So is poverty. So is pollution. So are governance and human values. So are all sorts of public health issues. So are tyranny and exploitation.

We need better ways to pool notes and educate each other that we can trust, that work in 6 months not 3 generations to bring everyone up to speed on what's going on and why, or what we don't know. Something with enough credibility and transparency that even skeptics are willing to come and participate.

That seems to me what's broken or missing here. Without it, it seems we'll just go on forever disagreeing and shouting and never coming up with solutions to anything that are sustainable.

Our process for getting together and combining views of the elephant is broken, or never existed, but, either way, we need to work on that before we simply go on trying to use a broken process to argue in ever shriller and louder voices that our own views and facts have some validity too.

The complex problems will not reduce themselves to "trees" or "leaves" because those are what we understand easily. We need to figure out how to understand "elephant", which means all of us are wrong, or more precisely, right-but-incomplete.

Maybe social networking technology or Wiki's can help. Like a huge space frame used to reassemble fragments of exploded aircraft parts, we need some way to put all these small parts into a huge 3-D space where they can be compared to other parts and let the larger picture emerge.

That's the kind of thing that scientific peer-review is supposed to do, but the issues these days involve huge social issues, feedback, and interdependencies of the type that Science, sadly, hasn't really gotten to yet. Many of these issues do not lend themselves to being measured by numbers (or, as I've discussed, by "scalars" or single numbers that are rankable.)

Electing people who consolidate 51% of the views and squash the other 49% in order to "make progress" doesn't look to me like a viable solution. It doesn't matter that everyone "agree" the elephant is a "tree", if it's wrong.

It's the unity ABOVE diversity we need, not stronger or more strident voices for trees or leaves or ropes. We need to figure out a civilized way to respect each other and consult with each other and learn surprising things from each other without having to "win" the discussion.

And, it's a multi-level world. There are needs at different scales, not just different places. It's not OK if public health tries to solve needs of individuals and neglects needs of corporations, shocking as that seems. It's not ok to solve needs of corporations at the expense of individuals or nations. It's not sufficient to solve people and corporations at the expense of the nation or the planet's biosphere. It's not an "OR" equation ... it's an "AND" equation.

And it's not OK to solve the problems of the wealthy at the expense of the poor, or the problems of the US at the expense of everyone else -- not for moral reasons, however valid, but because in the end the morality is trying to tell us that we only have one lifeboat here, and all our problems are tangled together. We have to fix all the holes in the lifeboat, not just those at our end, or it will still sink. Either the planet has a functioning biosphere or it doesn't, whatever it is that depends on or doesn't. At some point the damage we're doing matters, and it would be really good to know for sure where that point is, or was.

The complexity is more than you or I or any human can grapple with, as individuals. It is not more than we can deal with as the multi-level planetary sized organized thingie that we are. Large groups of people can deal with massive amounts of detail complexity, but what we're dying on here is the other kind of complexity, interactional complexity. It's not just "more of the same", more details than we can track ... it's a more complex shape and interaction called "elephant", not just more trees than we can count.

Large groups can synthesize emergent understanding of that kind of complexity, the same way termites, individually with barely a neuron to work with, can build nests with advanced air-conditioning features built in. But we need to realize that's the problem we're up against so we focus more social energy on it.

Wade

Central planning in a complex world

If the world is too complex to allow for long range planning, what should central management be spending its time doing?

As all the parts of the world, on many scales, start colliding and interacting, we now find ourselves inside what scientists would call a "complex adaptive system."

In that kind of world, nothing works the way you think it will, and everything has "unintended consequences" or "unforeseen side-effects." So, we might think that long-range central planning is impossible.

As usual, we're both right and wrong, and the situation is, well, "complex" and nuanced, and depends on what you mean by "planning."

Certainly "central planning" as practiced by Stalin in the Soviet Union or Mao in China ran into many unintended side effects, of the kind where millions of people died because the plans didn't seem to relate to reality on the ground.

But, today, with advanced supercomputers and high-speed global communications, now we can do central planning, right? Nope. Before the problem was too little information. We zoomed right past the sweet spot of "just the right amount" of information, and now we're deep into "too much information!" and heading deeper at an ever faster rate.

So, yes, we could deliver the equivalent of a moving van full of 3-inch binders to a small leadership committee every day, and ask them to read that, digest it, and plan based on it -- but I think the problem is obvious. That will simply never work. There is not enough "bandwidth," regardless how "smart" those people are , even to read that much new information, let along digest it well enough to grasp the implications in "real-time."

All technology is doing is further swamping the system, and that will never get better.

Actually, it's getting worse, because of the problem I've talked about before that information is "context-sensitive" -- that is, the meaning of some "fact" is really only evident if you understand the context of the observation of that "fact. " You can't just snip a fact out of context, slide it over to a central place, and expect it to mean the same thing there that it meant in context.

We all are familiar with this problem, yet, socially, we keep on pretending that it is some sort of local breakdown and that this is not a universal law. The problem is that it is a universal law. Information is not only context dependent -- it gets worse. Information is basically "fractal", like an evergreen where every branch, if looked at by itself, is the same shape as the tree, and each of its branches is the same shape, etc. There is, in other words, an infinite amount of information buried behind every detail, and under every rock, and in every "can of worms."

To try to "consolidate" this information and avoid the "moving van" of binders, each level of management "condenses" the information and "simplifies it." That process, alas, is "lossy", meaning, frankly, it doesn't work most of the time. What gets lost in translation are the key "details" that seem unimportant but that add up to changing the entire conclusion and outcome.

So, this cannot be fixed by having "even smarter" people at the top of this pyramid of information distortion. By the time information gets to the "war room" all the relevant detail has been stripped out by well-meaning intermediaries. And, you can't skip the middle because the volume of detail is too much to handle, again regardless how smart you are.

So, what to do? The only way to deal with this is to realize that the concept of central planning and central "control" is fatally flawed, and to push decision making outward, and delegate it down to as close to the decision as possible, where it still makes sense.

So, we find in The Toyota Way, an emphasis on Genchi Genbutsu, or "go down and look for yourself, because whatever they told you is going on left out something important that will change your decision once you see it."

This is not because the people "at the top" are not smart -- it's because "smart" doesn't matter if you were handed the wrong problem to work on, and the wrong facts about it to use.

It is what is known as a "system problem" and it is "structural." It will not go away with better information processing. The details cannot always be ignored. In fact, most of the time the details matter. Information is not "compressible" on the huge scale we're trying to operate on these days.

So, again, what to do? If central planners cannot plan actions, there is still one thing they can do, and that is to plan processes that, when distributed out, will result in coherent and successful action.

(Actually I think it's even one more step removed, and the best they can do is to plan processes that will lead to emergence of local processes that when carried out locally, times a billion, will result in correct and coherent action - even in the total absence of a "central plan." )

This is the problem that Computer Science is dealing with today, under the handle "emergent computing" or "evolutionary computing" or "swarm computing" or some such thing. This is the problem IBM has to solve for the "operating system" for their supercomputer (Big Blue?) that is really 860,000 computers consulting with each other about what each of them should do next.

So, the literature and research on this topic is buried in Computer Science, where managers and policy makers seldom tread.

The key take-away message, though, is that the problem for today, as viewed by Complex Systems people and Computer Scientists, is how to develop, discover, or evolve processes that lead to processes that lead to coherent adaptive action of the whole swarm.

Interestingly, as I understand it, that is largely the central focus as well of the Baha'i Faith, which focuses on finding what processes lead to the emergence of locally relevant decision-making processes that still combine and work together instead of fragmenting so that the whole thing hangs together with central unity and yet the power of local eyes dealing with local issues, while percolating larger issues upwards and getting guidance on those downward.

This is the exact same focus that the Institute of Medicine has realized needs to be done to make health care safer, as described in "Crossing the Quality Chasm" -- local teams, which they call "microsystems", have to be realized and empowered to be self-managing based on real-time local information and feedback -- while, at the same time, still participating in larger scale coherence that can follow patients and patient care as it crosses from one such team to the next.

And, this is the same focus that Public Health has, as I learned at Johns Hopkins over the last few years. Aid and support for any group, whether teen-smokers in some rich suburb, or indigenous people in some remote country, has to be "culturally relevant" and rooted in local action, or it will suffer "tissue rejection" and be thrown out as soon as the intervention is over.

Central planning can realize there is, say, a problem with malaria that crosses teams, cultures, and nation-state boundaries - but the action has to be locally meaningful and sensible and fit with what else is going on locally, or it cannot work. Solutions cannot be imposed from above, as those that attempt to do so keep on discovering. Too much information is lost at the top.

I think these seemingly disparate groups need to pool their notes and cross-fertilize each other's thinking, because this is all the same problem surfacing in different places, manifesting itself in different worlds.

I guess if no one else is going to do that, or has already, it's time for me to start a "Wiki" so everyone can hang their fragment of knowledge on that framework and we can start to see what it adds up to, and where someone else has already solved that part of the problem.

Wade
(rainbow photo by me, on Flickr)

Active strength through emergent synthesis

My recent post on "active strength" really isn't complete without a mention of what astronomers are doing now to boost their ability to see farther into space and detect even larger structures.

As the picture shows, many radio telescopes (the satellite dish-shaped things) are often used simultaneously to get a better view.

But, something almost magic is going on here that you can't see from the picture. If you simply collected and added up the signals from each dish, and you had, say 100 dishes, you'd end up with a picture with the same crummy resolution one dish has, but 100 times as bright. So, you could see dim objects you couldn't see before, but you absolutely cannot see any more fine structure than you could before. The picture is, effectively, still blurry. You have, effectively, a pinhole camera where the pinhole is the size of the dish.

A law known as Bracewell's Law says that it doesn't matter how many images you take and add up, you can't get better resolution with many images than you can get with one image. (There's an exception, of course, for "hyper-resolution" that I'll talk about sometime.)

To get a less blurry picture, you need to resolve details. However, Bracewell's law prevents you from resolving details finer than the ratio of the wavelength you are using to the diameter of the dish.

But, there's another sort of exception. If you spread out some dishes as in the picture, and you do the right thing mathematically, you can get as good resolution as if you had a dish with a diameter equal to the distance between the farthest separated dishes. So, with one dish in Arizona, and another in England, the effective diameter is 8,000 kilometers or so.

The process is called "aperture synthesis", and I had a more technical prior post on it here.

The points relevant to active strength and social constructs where people work as one are these:

• If we work together we can see way better than if we work separately
• 
  
• All of us have a larger "diameter" than the largest single one of us, hands down.
• 
  
• The more distance there is between our dishes, the better we can resolve ambiguity in what we're looking at. (Effectively, "diversity" helps, and the more axes and larger distance we can get, the better.)

Working together doesn't mean just working separately and pooling our data. It means, in some very specific sense, "working as one". The difference is the difference between incoherent light (normal light) and a powerful laser beam (coherent light). We humans need to be "coherent" and that's a very special meaning of the concept "united" or "unity."

If we can pull it off, our power goes up from some number "N" which is the number of us, to something like N-squared, a much larger number. And here's the astounding thing - no single molecule in a laser is doing any more work than it did when the light was incoherent -- all that changed is that the radiation is synchronized and coherent. The power results simply from changing the timing of what we do, not from doing something harder.

A small change in synchronization or timing can make an orchestra sound terrible, and a small change can make it sound fantastic. Same instruments, same sounds, just a slight change in how the parts relate to the whole.

Or, for a sports team, it helps to have great individual players, but it helps more to have teamwork that "clicks" so everyone suddenly starts acting as one completely coherent player spread out over many people. That's the few seconds of a 3 hour game that makes the three hours worth while to watch. It's why some coaches don't want "great individuals" but want "great team players." An activated, coherent team will always be more powerful than the "best individual" on it or on the opposing team.

Coherent unity is a winning strategy.

This is basically the magic behind The Toyota Way. By stabilizing what everyone does so it's known by others, visible, and fully predictable, and by forcing everyone to be aware of what everyone else is doing, that last 1 percent can be crossed and everyone can suddenly see with hyper-resolution eyes and think with an aperture-synthesis brain the size of the whole workforce. It only works if individuals are willing to let the team be larger than their own egos, which can be a problem in some cultures.

So, we should set our sights on more than just "working together", and aim for the much more powerful goal of "working as one." This is part of why "unity in diversity" is such a powerful concept, way more so than you'd think.

Mathematically, this is much more powerful than the "invisible hand of Adam Smith" trying to select the "best individual" so that individual can lead the pack or find the way the rest of us can try to emulate. Competition and "survival of the fittest" "rugged individual" strategies result in fragmentation and getting stronger individuals, yes, clearly, but at the cost of weaker teams.

Unfortunately, we're at a point in social evolution where the team matters more than the individual now.

So, we end up with some very fine companies being thwarted by a state government, say, that cannot get its act together and manage the state, or by a county government that cannot get its act together and manage the county.

There is a backlash by some very bright individuals and their families at social obstacles everyone else presents to their brightness being "all it can be." The reality is that unharnessed individuals going off on their own for their own benefit is not the kind of creativity we are most in need of right now. That's not where it's breaking.

I discuss this in my post "Houston, we have another problem!" and showed this diagram. The basic message is this. It doesn't matter how smart we can make one person. One person is like "one dish" in radio telescopes. Take any person and make them a million times smarter, and the complexity of social problems that 6 billion people can produce, in real time, is still vastly larger than that person will ever comprehend. There is only one "algorithm" that keeps up with "everyone" with their N-factorial interactions, and that is "everyone" in a coherent effort to work together.

Compared to the size of the problem, even a person with an IQ of a million is effectively an ant trying to comprehend quantum mechanics. This startling idea really hasn't sunk in yet. This will never "go back" to the way it was, the old days, where one person could "know it all" and "rule the world." We have an educational system trying to produce individual smart people and what we need is an educational system that produces collectively smart teams. The curves have crossed forever:

So, the Arecibo radio telescoe, with a 1000-foot diameter dish, is not being funded because the days of huge single "RAMBO" type solutions are over, replaced by networks of individuals where the network is the key to the power. No single "dish" will ever compete again.

IBM stopped trying to make super "CPU's" years ago, and their new "supercomputer", as everyone's, is really a network of 860,000 smaller cpu's, and the key to it (what a surprise!) is how well the smaller cpu's can figure out for themselves what to do and how to do it, without being programmed or controlled by some "master cpu". The "operating system" is the key.

This isn't theory. This is practice. We have a school system designed to develop leaders for 19th century industry, in a 21st century world. We don't need a 20% fix or even a 50% improvement in "productivity" or "teaching skills" or "scores on the GRE."

What we need is a complete transformation of the whole point and purpose of education. Now that no one can know everything, what few things is it just critical that we all know? I think "how to work together" is in that short list.

The paradox is this. Great individuals aren't of value unless they can work together as one in teams. That requires solving how anyone can work together in teams. Once we solve that, we don't need "supermen" individuals any more, because a network made up of just a lot of regular people cooperating will end up being more powerful.

The power is in the network, not in the individuals in the network. Or, more precisely, the power emerges through the network, but is way more powerful than the network.

But, this is not a "team" like that used by ants or bees or termite communities. Those are built from individuals who are entirely inflexible, and the whole structure is rigid to the point of being brittle. If the world changes outside the range of motion of the hive to adapt, the hive will die. Applied to humans, that's the tyranny model.

Humans are, we hope, a much higher-level creature than ants. What we need to strive for is a higher-order community more like Air-Traffic Control, where we have enough imposed and accepted order that we don't run into or damage each other, but beyond that we have flexibility to adapt locally to whatever is going on. Instead of "rigid strength" we seek "active strength".

That picture describes, once again, something that looks like "unity in diversity", with "independent investigation of the truth". It seeks harmony but not homogeneity, unity but not uniformity. The overall structure is not rigid, but can learn and adapt and change as the environment changes or the problem we are all addressing changes.

So, if we collectively decided that we wanted to get some roots down on other planets around other stars, we might take on one shape that is superbly good for solving interstellar travel. But we would be "transformers" as a society, and could flexibly change our overall shape to meet the needs. The flexibility is crucial, because the creativity of such a structure will be enormous, so we will polish off problems that have been here for millenia, before lunch, and then move on from there. Like an airplane picking up speed, we'd need to start tucking in our wings as we get to the speed of sound, and being air-tight as we got above the atmosphere and switchted to rocket power, etc.

No rigid hierarchy or structure would work for that, but neither would the chaos of anarchy -- we need an adaptive, flexible core network that helps us hold on to a certain shape at a certain time, and then, when it is the right time, to let go of that shape again and move on to something else.

As societies, we've managed to get the "hold on to this shape" part down, but we're not very good yet at "now let go of that and move on." The only "let go" we're generally familiar with is disruptive and revolutionary, or anarchy. Like the ants, we've build some corporate and social structures that were fantastically good solutions to problems we had 200 years ago. Or, like Southeast Michigan, we've build a social structure that worked fine 50 years ago.

Our problem now is that it's not 50 years ago, it's not 200 years ago, it's now. This is a new world, and "the cheese has moved." We don't have very much experience figuring out which parts of our culture are crucial to hang on to , and which parts are in the way and we need to let go of. And, that is made complex because the value of things needs to be assessed over hundreds of years, not over 3 months, or we'll miss the point of some structure and "throw out the baby with the bathwater."

That's where we are today. Disruptive external pressures are demanding that we adapt and transform the way we live and our social structures to new realities, and we have very little personal experience with that magnitude of change, let alone that rate of change. In China, cities like Shanghai have experienced 1000 years of growth in one generation and are a little dizzy from the altitude change and need time to adjust. This is totally new. Change has never come this fast. In 1500, kings could take weeks or years deciding what do to; now the world changes in 12 minutes.

So we are doing what physics does all the time, "searching for invariants of the motion". Amid all the apparent chaos, what are the few things that need to say the same? What can we release our death-grip on, and what should we hold on to even tighter? Where have we mistaken "positions" for "interests" and gotten stuck on some local maximum and missed the big picture?

That's where we need "active strength", and enough trust to let go a little bit and see if things get better or worse, and prepare to be surprised.

For Islam and Christianity and Judaism, the challenge today is to disentangle what is degeneration from what is regeneration, to block the first and embrace the second. These are decisions we need all of us to grapple with, not just a few of us.

As a recent post discussed, evangelical Christianity is struggling with this right now. In the Mideast, everyone is struggling with this right now - modernism versus tradition, chaos versus order, new versus old, what to hang on to and fight to the death to defend, and what it's OK to let go of now, finally, since that storm is over and now the wind is from a different direction and the challenges are different.

As with any active structure or building, the parts may need to shift "positions" in order to keep on doing a good job of the interests of keeping the building upright as the winds shift direction and velocity. It's the same task, the same goal, but new ways of accomplishing it.

It's the task of technology not to replace humans and cultures in this sense-making, but to enable them to do it faster and better, dropping less on the way. Even technology is falling into its own wake, with the support of advanced bookkeeping yielding to support of social collaboration and redefining entirely the purpose and values of "I.T." We've moved from "data processing" to "word processing" to "image processing" and are getting beyond "content processing" into the realm of "context processing". We're getting beyond information and into living and dynamic social wisdom. We're getting beyond what someone said to why they said it and who they are, anyway, and how come they never call anymore?

It's a new day.

Wade

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.

Unity in diversity - the universal problem

If we're going to have a useful discussion on solving our most important common problems, we need to understand the concept of "unity in diversity" at more than a basic level.

I want to stress two features of this design problem of "unity in diversity" as I'm using that term:

• The design problem is very wide-spread. There are instances everywhere in space, time, and scale.
• The processes and principles behind this are not just a little similar, or even very similar - they are identical.

First - the problem is very wide spread, across space, time, and scale.

• Our bodies have muscle tissue, nerve tissue, bone, blood, etc. - each with different jobs to do.
• Companies may have marketing, engineering, and manufacturing departments, each with different orientations and vocabularies.
• Families may have very young, young, middle-age, older, and very old members, each with very different interests and needs and vocabularies.
• A university may have different departments - such as "engineering" and "literature" and "athletics", with very different orientations, priorities, needs, and vocabularies.
• A hospital may have departments, specialties, and sub-specialties - such as medicine versus surgery, emergency medicine, emergency pediatric medicine, emergency pediatric respiratory medicine, etc. -- each with different interests, needs, orientations, and vocabularies.
• Our cells, internally, are not uniform but have specialized subsections for energy production, protein production, effectively library services (DNA), etc. These are all specialized with different structures, orientations, and functions.
• Our planet is not uniform but is divided, somewhat contentiously and fluidly, into "nations" which don't line up exactly with "cultures" or "continents." These may very specifically speak different languages and have different values, needs, and aspirations.
• There are often "classes" of society with differnt values, needs, and use of language, even if it appears at first glance to be "the same language."
• There is, literally, "no end to this." If we look upwards and outwards, it seems that the visible universe is divided into solar-systems surrounding stars, and the stars are clumped in to galaxies, and the galaxies are clumped into clusers.
• If we look at the internet and the world of weblogs and interest groups (the "blogosphere") researchers have found that it too has differentiated and clumped into subgroups that mostly talk within themselves, not across groups. (See Lada Adamic's work.)
• If we look at a high-school cafeteria, sometimes the breakup into groups, cliques, etc. is obvious.
• If we look at our cities, there are "neighborhoods" with local flavors that may be very different from each other.
• Our very concepts of life and knowledge have somewhat dynamic boundaries put into them breaking one world into different "fields of knowledge" with specialized vocabularies and interests and persistent identities.
  

This tendency to break apart a homogeneous population and turn it into specialized sub-groups is everywhere. This is a very basic physical process that always tends to happen.

If you don't believe me, ask any Dean, Director, parent, school-principal, general manager, mayor, governor, president or king. As soon as you get a large group of people together they tend to break apart into "warring factions." over the smallest things. And these people will also confirm that this problem is not just wide-spread and one that absorbs a lot of their time and attention, but is one that has a dramatic, often fatal impact on the survival of the collective enterprise - from productivity to creativity to agility. Everything gets wrecked by this breaking up into silos. So, yes, there is a lot of interest in ways to counteract that tendency, and in design patterns that are "reusable" and can be plugged into your own problem situation.

What's not yet shared, however, is the realization that these problems don't just span space, but they span scale and time. These are all, mathematically, the same problem - and it is the central problem everyone on earth has a vested interest in getting solved right now, if just to "fix" their own little corner that has gone wrong and spends more time fighting itself than it does getting useful chores done.

Without destroying the benefits of specialization, and without homogenizing everyone into "the Borg", how do we overlay something else additional on top of those specialties so that they all also have a common identity, a shared component, and can, when we need to, act as one? That's the engineering design question. What works? What has ever worked?

Second, the processes and principles behind this are not just a little similar, or even very similar - they are identical.

The good news, then, is that anything we can learn about this process in one "field", say sociology, is immediately helpful in understanding another "field", such as "developmental biology", if (and only if) we can distinguish the universal aspects from the accidental local implementation details.

The physical laws and principles behind this tendency to break up into self-sustaining clusters come to us from "control system engineering", not physics or chemistry.

There are only a few stable and simple ways to make a self-sustaining control loop, with certain parts we will always find. More on this tomorrow. We know this can work because we're sitting here reading this, and our bodies are made of trillions of cells that are differentiated and yet integrated. There is a solution to this design problem. We need to understand it better.

If every level and instance of this problem has its own low-resolution sense and view and picture of this problem, limited by the very small size of their receiver, mathematically, we can still assemble all of those low-resolution pictures and process them using "image processing" techniques to come up with a single, high-resolution image of the design issue. That's where I'm going with this, phrased as an "image processing" problem. There are very powerful muscles to do that, if we can rotate this problem around and get it over to those muscles.
===

Looking ahead , in the next few days I'll bring this back to the question of "immune systems" and the defenders of the faith, or at least, defenders of certain specialized substructures that life has rearranged itself into. There are some fascinating problems caused by the difference in scale between "members" and "the whole."

For example, in our own bodies, to function, we want our cells to be specialized into very specific functions and grouped into tissues and organs, and we want blood cells to be good blood cells, not sloppy blood cells. There are standards! Deviations must be rooted out!

But we also don't want "bone" cells to attack "blood cells" as if they were foreign invaders and enemies.

Now, this is a challenging problem, because we love our cells but, like loved birds like parakeets, they are still, well, to put it crudely, bird brains. PhD's have trouble understanding differences between cells - how are single-celled cells supposed to make a better job of it? (And, the astounding reality is that they do!)

Something really, really important is going on here. Somehow, a collection of dim-witted cells (relatively speaking) has managed, between them, to be collectively bright. This may be something some of us could use. How do they do that! Can we use the same principle to become collectively bright?

It's as if they don't have a brain cell between them. Actually, that's because they don't. They're too small to have "a brain". So, huh. How do we craft a design so that low-IQ cells, making only local observations, will correctly tell "good guys" from "bad guys" quickly and reliably - when the concept "good" and "bad" are actually not even meaningful at that level, but are concepts from a higher level of existence, at the organism level?

This kind of cross-level exchange of wisdom, and the relationship between the police of the immune system and the "immune system as a whole" is where we need to go to understand how things work, and therefore, how it can break, and therefore, if we have a broken one, how to fix it.