Why we need some kind of God Lab

( An open letter)

Tue May 20 07:42:10 BST 2008

While I understand the emotions that creationism evokes in scientists, I am concerned that broad-brush smug criticism is equally non-scientific, making valid research questions suddenly unacceptable for reasons of political correctness.

One such question, it seems to me, is the question of whether there is outside interference and manipulation in the evolution of large social systems, including the US Stock Market, Iraq or any other small country, and the Earth as a whole.

I agree instantly with the invalid nature of Intelligent Design's assertion that it can't think of how complexity arose, so it must be God's work. But by the same logic we must reject scientists saying that they can't think of who could be manipulating large social systems, so it must not be happening.

Before being drowned in a sea of knee-jerk demands to produce some falsifiable conclusion, I'd like to suggest that it is very fair question to ask "If there were such social manipulation going on, at any scale, would our current tool kit allow us to detect it or reject it reliably?" I think the answer to that question is a clear "No."

A second question then is "Would it be interesting to have such tools?" I think the answer that question is a clear "Yes", because we have identified a blind spot in science's vision, in an area of significant political and economic interest.

Or, on the flip side, there could be very applied research in how much we could manipulate the affairs of some social system before risking being caught in a non-deniable way.

Antipathy to such research seems more lamentable than laudable.

Clergy take on US Mortgage Mess

Martha Graybow, from Reuters, looks at what the US Clergy think about the mortgage mess in today's Washington Post. I agree wholeheartedly that there are "spiritual solutions to economic problems" but don't see them mentioned in that article.

One characteristic of spiritual solutions is that they tend to look at the bigger picture, in all three dimensions of space, time, and social scale. Like great health care, the solutions are proactive, preventing the car crash in the first place, not miraculously repairing the damage and deaths following it.

The solutions involve what seems to be a lost art these days - understanding the actual causes of outcomes, and the consequences of our own actions, and then, gasp, altering our behavior so we don't get into trouble next time.

The USA has made the news lately for the poor state of health here, and I'm not talking about insurance but simply the physical health of people. The upper quarter of white American males, for example, are less healthy than the bottom quarter of white males in England.

Why? Compare the strategies. England, with universal care, tries to prevent health problems and helps people eat well and stay fit and not do dumb things. The USA tries to have the most astoundingly heroic rescue and repair service so we can smoke, drink, and do dumb things, and then not have to face the consequences, sometimes. Of course, the culture of abandon of self-control is spread widely, and the access to repair-services is restricted, which makes for many sick poor people. What's less recognized is that even the rich end up worse. No doctor can make you better after a heart attack and transplant than you would have been if you'd stayed fit in the first place, either physically or psychologically.

With airplanes with those T-shaped tails, with the small wings ("elevators") up high on the tail, there is a design issue. If the plane descents at the wrong angle, turbulence ("stalling") from the body of the plane surrounds the tail, which loses the ability to change the angle of the plane. If you get into this condition, typically, the plane will descend into the ground before the airport. Not good.

Pilots have a question: "What do you do when you get into this condition?" and the answer is "Don't get into that condition."

And here is the difference between a novice learning lessons too late, and professionals. Professionals figure out what it takes so they don't end up in that condition, and what kind of training they need to do that, and build it into the training program so they can, in fact, "not do that." Social wisdom from other people's experience is built into everyone's training or retraining. That works, going forwards. It doesn't fix the past, of course.

So, when we look at an equivalent question to the mortgage mess, such as "What would it take to get young people not to drive too fast on icy roads?" the answer that comes to mind is "It would take a miracle."

Precisely.

It would take maturity, training, a social ethic of responsibility, a social ethic of competence, and an ability to overcome the impulse to rush and damn the consequences. All of these things are possible for people, and some people can do all of those.

The "miracle" isn't that the people wake up one day and are suddenly good drivers, but that they have the social support system that, over a long period of time, gives them the internal capacity to master skills, to survive the short-term costs of responsibility, to overcome temptation and the short-run impulses to cheat, etc.

What's "miraculous" is that this "bounce-shot" works, when you can't sink the pool ball in the pocket directly. If you try to do this activity on your own, you'll generally fail. It's hard, and it involves persistence and local costs for some distant future benefit, and you'll run out of steam regardless how well intentioned the start is.

This "steam" to keep on going is crucial. We aren't taught about this in school, sadly, despite the fact that everyone knows about it and I believe it would stand up to rigorous experimental designs and tests.

Where does this "steam" come from? What gives young people the ability to say "No!" to drugs or speeding or ill-advised sex, or the ability to stay in school, or the ability to say "No!" to a dangerous mortgage, or the ability to rise above ego and consult with others and avoid putting their foot in that mortgage bear-trap in the first place?

Some kind of larger scale, persistent social structure is needed to hold this learning and navigational advice, and some kind of practice and habit is required to develop the strength to "obey" or "submit" to that outside higher authority when the inside impulses all want to go the old way.

For pilots, professional organizations and ethics may be enough, although federal standards help somewhat. Great pilots are far above what standards require, because they use outside social support to keep themselves in line.

For most of us in daily life, we need some kind of equivalent. Organized religion has historically served this role, when it doesn't get lost in itself and lose its own way.

So, while the government's "abstinence only" method of birth control is demonstrably broken and ineffective, the reason is not that abstinence may be a good practice for teens (and others), but that it is simply not possible for fragmented individuals, on their own strength, to carry out that practice and survive temptation.

In between the chaos of everyone repeating every mistake over and over, and the rigidity of dead dogma controlling every aspect of everyone's lives is a sweet spot that can provide make good pilots or drivers of us all.

These kind of problems are not healed by prayer after the crash, but by organized activity long before the crash designed to prevent it from ever happening.

Like Mr. Rodney Dangerfield, prevention "don't get no respect." It works, it can work, it has worked, it will work - but it's an organized social activity, not something an individual does for or to themselves.

In the mix of making it happen are deeper spiritual issues of identity, motivation, purpose, awareness, externally-based stability and power, and "steam".

God, we all could use more "steam." We just wish it was free.

It's not free, but it is affordable. It's something we can do for each other that requires no huge government program and, in fact, would probably choke and die if the government tried to run it.

At this point, most people look, sigh, and turn sadly away saying "They'll never do that."

I'd like to see what would happen if the 3 hours a day of TV indoctrination encouraged social responsibility with eyes open, instead of discouraging it and encouraging blind yielding to whatever impulse the advertisers or politicians can create in us at that second.

I think the change would indeed justify the term "spiritual" sufficiently to use that word even in an academic sense. Actually, I think the reconnection to the larger "us" goes deeper, but even if it only went this deep, it would be worth investigating.

And I'm confident that, like discovering the planets, if we charted out all the known effects and watched behaviors, we'd see patterns of unexplained variation that would cause us to look even deeper for something else going on.

It's a fascinating question. Meanwhile, short term, there are solutions to our problems but we refuse to accept them, wanting, I don't know, something more glamorous or short-term.

Being able to say "yes" to saying "no" is enough of a miracle to pray for daily.

We're still trying to build some sort of moral-Rambo model, where we have internal strength that doesn't require external support -- a GPS that works without satellites. And, sure, there are inertial navigation units that weigh 200 pounds we could carry around with us, even though they drift over time. That's a stupid solution when there are satellites in place already, so the GPS in our phone can be so tiny we don't notice the weight.

Same with wisdom. Satellites and a receiver is a better model.

Is this hard to do? Well, yes and no. Is it hard to use structural and civil engineering principles and computer-assisted design to make graceful bridges that don't fall down? Yes, but it is doable and we'd be pretty stupid not to have some group of people that learn it and do it for us.

Is it harder to make social structures that don't fall down, don't become corrupt, give us daily strength to persist our lessons and still have dynamic ability to adjust to changing times? Probably not that much harder.

We've just never tackled the problem that way, because even pondering questions of what determines our behavior or allows corruption to creep in raises emotions and resistance.

Still, it seems an obvious way to go. We just need to keep on asking "Why" one more time, and saying, ok, how can we tackle this problem in social engineering even with resistance and opposition and those who prefer these subjects not be studied?

This is nothing new. T.S. Eliot, in Choruses from the Rock (1934) says

There are those who would build the Temple,
And those who prefer that the Temple should not be built.
In the days of Nehemiah the Prophet
There was no exception to the general rule.

and

In the vacant places
We will build with new bricks
There are hands and machines
and clay for new brick
and lime for new mortar
where the bricks are fallen
We will build with new stone
Where the beams are rotten
We will build with new timbers
Where the word is unspoken
We will build with new speech.

and

If men do not build
How shall they live?

That's the "new bricks" metaphor this weblog site is named for. It's a good idea.

photo credit: I35W bridge collapse photo from Poppyseed Bandits

PISA - OECD Programme for International Student Assessment

Comparison of students in the OECD countries was in the news today, with the latest report on science and math among 15-year olds. I want to present a contrary view, that "individual" performance that matters today, now, this decade, has little to do with math and science, and a lot to do with how we interact with and relate to each other. That's where we should be looking.

A typical AP news item is here "Other Countries' Students Surpass the U.S. on Tests" and the actual Programme for International Student Assessment report is here. US scores for reading are not included, since, ironically, the printed test in the US was not proofread adequately and was offset a page, making all the references to "the diagram on the facing page" nonsensical.

The report itself is 350 pages, and even the executive summary is 56 pages long. Results for the US are rather dismal, and you can read those yourself. A few highlights that I thought were interesting related to differences between males and females, which I quote further below.

I object to the entire test, not as being "wrong" so much as being misleading and supporting the efforts to "teach to the test" we see in the US, and certainly here in Michigan.

Local news shows that the areas called "social studies", "civics", group music, literature, history, government, and humanities in general, as well as team sports, are being neglected or eliminated in order to improve school rankings and funding. Ratings of schools in New York City recently have created a hornet's nest of debate over "corrective action" required for "bad schools."

I've thought about these issues most of my life. Early in my life, I taught one year at the high-school level in trade school, 10th-12th grade "problem students" from a tri-county area in upstate New York. I taught MBA's for two years at Cornell's Johnson Graduate School of Management. And I've spent most of my adult life in a large university setting, paying attention to educational issues. At Cornell University, at one point, I was the Director of Institutional Planning and Analysis, and very focused on long-term directions in education. I'm currently involved with work involving "leadership training" and quality improvement among teams and executives.

And, my undergraduate major was Physics, heavy on the Math, with a lot of Computer Science thrown in, at which I did very well, so I'm not speaking as one biased against something I can't do, motivated by "sour grapes."

But I have to say that, after a lifetime watching this issue, I don't believe that an increased focus on "science, math, and reading" is where we need to be focusing our attention.

There are two crucial assumptions behind this focus on science and math in this multi-level world we live in. One assumption, on the individual level, is that a child in the US, say, can get the best future for himself or herself by seeking to become excellent in these areas, and in fact to become competitive with international students for good jobs. The other assumption is that, if many or most students succeeded at this goal, things would be much better for the country as a whole -- economically, on a corporate level, militarily, and in terms of the quality of our health and daily lives.

Both assumptions seem patently false to me. They represent the worst of denial, "tooth-fairy" wishful thinking, and unexamined models of how things work.

Regarding the first assumption, the US is so far in the hole at this point, after years of neglect and unjustified self-confidence, that the odds we can make our students individually competitive in a global marketplace are very low, in my judgment. We have a whole generation, if not two, of teachers in place who don't really understand their own subject areas. We have an ethic and status quo of speaking and reading only one language, and being proud of not doing very well at that.

And, we have a hugely anti-intellectual culture in many places, where students attempting to excel are punished by their peers. In fact, the only thing US students seem to rank highest on, based on research studies, is their self-esteem. In other words, there is a disconnect between how they actually perform and how they think of themselves as performing. At that, the USA seems to excel.

This has been a long time coming, and the resistance to the perception of a problem is deep, despite vivid descriptions of this by educators, industrial leaders like Bill Gates and Ross Perot, etc. In the late 1980's, the B-school at Cornell considered setting up an outreach program in Europe, and did a survey of alums living there to get a sense of what we should be teaching. The answers were uniform and startling. Basically, they were a mix between laughter and scorn that the US management education had anything to offer Europe. We weren't even in the running.

Meanwhile, our graduate schools have been making it in science and engineering only by a huge influx of foreign students, in some cases 70% of the graduate student body, because we couldn't find qualified American students. In the life sciences, the ratio seems more like 90% from walking around and peering into labs, but I don't know the exact numbers. It seems clear that, if China stopped sending graduate students and post-docs, the Life Science mission in Michigan would be essentially gutted.

So, the top 10% of our students might be able to compete in that marketplace, but it's just not clear to me that the other 90% of them will stand much of a chance, in the next decade, of catching up. The odds would shift if we could use the power of television and marketing to market multi-lingual, multi-cultural education, familiarity with the world, and an ethic of hard work and putting off present pleasure to invest in the future benefits. Instead, despite whip-cracking from above and jawboning about a need for education, the country seems to be heading towards increased parochialism and isolationism, rejection of science, rejection of reading, and focusing on instant gratification and distracting "entertainment" as the end-point of life.

This seems to me part of a consistent and predictable pattern of denial of inconvenient truth, combined with a helpless/hopeless syndrome, combined with a startling inability, at every level, to carry on reasoned discussion and reach agreement on "hard issues". As I'm writing this, the Michigan government still hasn't sorted out the budget, due last October 1st. The Federal Government is ten days from either a shutdown, or a bitter "showdown", knock-down, screaming public battle over the budget, also due last October 1st. Social security is probably out of control. Health care costs are clearly out of control.

Oh, and the credit markets and home mortgages are out of control. The US debt passed $9 trillion, almost half of which was incurred during the current administration and is accelerating in the wrong direction, out of control, and for that matter almost entirely out of sight of most citizens who either don't know, don't care, or care but feel helpless to do anything about it. It is unmentioned in the political debates. Whatever is going on in the middle East isn't impressing anyone either.

So, I have to ask, what fraction of that mess would be improved if all the participants were simply better at math and science?

Right. Essentially none of it. We are not dying, as a country, because of a lack of math and science. It is something else entirely.


We are dying, I would suggest, from an inability to work together and to reason together and to make hard choices together.

So, now we get to the second assumption I refer to well above, that if only we had more technology, oh boy, then things would be fine for the country, you betcha.

Not.

I'm not a Luddite. We don't have to return our technology to the store and get a refund since it didn't work as advertised, although that's an interesting thought. This "better life" we citizens were promised seems to be less and less likely. The promise of having world control and dominion through advanced technology and weaponry also seems to be surprisingly distant.

Maybe, it is not true that "technology will save us." Either individually or collectively.

If more of the same results in more of the same, I'd say we're going the wrong direction.

So, before we rush off to focus what's left of our national treasure on a solution to our problems, we need to have a serious look at whether we're addressing the right problem, and, if so, are we doing it with an intervention that has any chance at all of working as designed. We need to be alert to signs of wishful thinking and denial and avoiding hard-choices and painful subjects, or subjects which produce high-emotions and social conflict.

What about the argument that if we just had more math and science, that level of logical thinking would fix everything? I have to look at our centers of academic wisdom, our universities, and ask how good a job they do at dealing with internal conflicts and making hard choices. I am not impressed. They don't make the choice that a world composed almost entirely of highly trained people, who are strong in math and science, seems to be any better than the rest of us at making hard choices and managing its own affairs.

I referred in an earlier post to the University of Oxford, which has been in business for over 1100 years now. If there was any place that highly educated people should have had a chance to sort out these issues, you'd expect to find it there. Yet what I read in their on-line documents is that they have spent years arguing over what e-mail system to use, and cannot reach any resolution on the issue.

Would more math and science knowledge help them out? I doubt it. Do they just "need more time" on the exam? I doubt it.

Frankly, I'd suggest doing this. Take technology off the table entirely. Imagine for a moment, as I have, that the problem is not that we have insufficient math and science and engineering to be able to thrive and prosper and be healthy and happy as individuals and as companies and as a society.

Then, hmm, what is the problem? Where is this process of prosperity-reaching breaking down?

Whether it is a symptom or a root-cause, it's clear that our ability to get together, put our heads together, and come to grips with our own problems is not very good. In fact, it probably deserves a failing grade, based on how well the annual budgets are coming along and how civil and rational the discussion is about selection of the next US president.

So, back to my opinion of this whole PISA - Programme for International Student Assessment.

It appears to me that the mental model of that assessment is that only one level matters of the multi-leveled biological world of life that we live in - and that is the "individual." And even there, I find the conclusions unhelpful.

I think we need to take that level off the table as well, keeping technology off it, and say, yes, but what else is needed to make this baby fly?

Very bright individuals, by themselves, can deal with some issues -- fewer these days than you'd think, after accounting for not only internal roadblocks like depression and unexplained fatigue and ill-health, but for external roadblocks in getting almost anything done - which is like trying to get anywhere on an airplane this holiday season in the short 2-3 hours that you'd think a jet aircraft could deliver.

In fact, that's a perfect example. We have jet aircraft, that can go 550 miles per hour, and cross the country, potentially, in 4 hours. Yet, to travel from Detroit to Miami, say, for Christmas, it would be good to leave, oh, 1-3 days for the trip.

Would it help if we had even faster planes? Nope. We've run out of what we can buy with faster individual planes, and need to look at how the system of many planes, interacting, behaves.

This is exactly what's going on with education. We've run out of what we can by with brighter individuals, and need to look at the system of how many individuals, interacting, behaves.

Pouring our remaining bank-account into making faster planes or brighter individuals have equally likely chances of fixing the problems, which are not at the individual level but at the "system" level.

Now, this is nuanced and subtle. The behavior at the system level is dependent on what sort of internal decision-making and behavior-generating rules individuals use. If you change the nature of the individuals, you will definitely change the nature of the emergent system behavior. All research in complex systems shows that.

So, I come full circle. The "problem" has to do with something "wrong" inside individuals that our educational system should strive to make "right' -- but the something has close to nothing to do with math and science, per se.

Yes, maybe if science advanced another 200 years at the speed it's going, you could get to the root problem that direction, but we don't have 200 years, so that's not very helpful.

We need to leap ahead, pull our heads out of the box, climb a tree, and see where this path goes.

It seems to me that a closer first-approximation to where the "wrongness" is that we need to address is suggested by words like: morality, integrity, honesty, humility, sincerity, trust, compassion, civility. In fact, a really big word is this one: maturity.

As a society, in the US, the term "adult" or "mature" seems to have been hijacked to mean "old enough to buy pornography and alcohol and cigarettes and drive a car and generally behave like an adolescent jerk and not have to listen to anyone anymore or take advice about anything."

What the educational situation highlights instead is that the US students are the world leaders in what could be termed pride, arrogance, self-esteem, or conceit. Which means they are also world leaders in unawareness of reality or denial of same.

Which means they are breaking precisely the key feedback loop required for any adaptive entity to, well, adapt to changed conditions in its environment -- namely, it has to be aware of the gap between where it is and where it should be, and it has to be responding to that awareness.

Of course, awareness of a gap produces internal conflict, that seeks to be resolved. It will, in fact, be resolved, come what may. So, if the gap cannot be closed, then the awareness of it will generally be shut off instead. That seems to be what has happened here. We don't want to be so far behind, we don't like being behind, it doesn't reflect well on our leadership to be behind, we can't deal with being behind, so we will effectively agree to ignore it and act as if it doesn't matter one bit to us. And maybe it will go away.

Not.
Summary so far:

• Houston, we have a serious problem here.
• It's not going away.
• In fact, it seems to be getting worse.
• Pouring another decade of math and science into it looks unlikely to help, on any level.
• Technology will not save us this time.

and

• We are going to have to grow up and learn how to act like adults and work with each other and with hard-choices and sacrificing some short-term desires for long-term needs, and some personal desires for some social requirements of continued existence.
  

In other words, the "individual" performance that matters today, now, this decade, has little to do with math and science, and a lot to do with how we interact with and relate to each other.

That's what we need to develop metrics and tests for, and that's what we need to go back to the drawing board and figure out how to do, since we obviously don't know it now.

And, incidentally, that's why so much of this weblog is devoted to "religion" and "social feedback".

There are things outside science that we need to get good at, whether science can help us with them or not. If you get past the high-profile single-issue religious zealots, a large fraction of what religious people are trying to tell scientists is the above message.

I care less about whether life was created in 7 days or 7 billion years than I do whether people have some basis on which to grow up and deal with each other that doesn't involve killing the other party as the only imagined "solution." All major religions attempt to provide such a basis.

Scientists say that atheistic philosophy can serve the same purpose, but that's not obviously true based on any society that has thrived based on technology, absent some embedding religion.

The problems we face as a society are not "in the box" or "in the org chart" that science is good at dealing with. They are in the context, the "white space" between boxes, where, historically, science and mathematics have not gone. To be fair, science is increasingly aware that there is something important going on in this "complex adaptive living system" space.

Our solutions involve things like "norms" and the word "should", which are areas, again, that science, trying to fight off a legacy of "proof by intimidation or inquisition" thought it could get away from by being scrupulously "objective" and "distant" .

While there can be a lot of debate about which "norm" is "right", I'd suggest that norms which result in the destruction of all life on the planet, or of our own society, are probably worth re-examining. It would seem to be a wiser choice to select our norms from the set of norms that actually generate a future for us.

That issue can be thought about scientifically, maybe even at some point using mathematics or simulation and animation to gain insight about the implications, downstream, of processes too complex for our finite brains to comprehend.

These advances require focusing attention on how people relate, how they work together, what works and what doesn't, what's worked out how in the past, what works in different cultures and countries, etc. But, those are the humanities, the subjects that "science and math" fixations are driving out of our school systems.

We have to address how we "should" treat each other. It's a hard issue. It's a bootstrap issue, because our inability to face and deal well with conflict and emotion and differing perspectives makes it hard to deal with precisely those issues.

So, it's a feedback loop. We need to spiral it towards better mutual understanding, not away from that. We need to take on pain to do that. And face reality. Both of which we cannot do in a single step, but these have to be approached slowly, hesitantly, but insistently.

I saw a bumper sticker the other day that seems relevant. "I will speak the truth, even if my voice shakes."

The answer is over there, I think.

==========
I promised some interesting information from the PISA executive summary, so here it is.

Males and females showed no difference in average science performance in the majority of countries, including 22 of the 30 OECD countries. In 12 countries, females outperformed males, on average, while males outperformed females in 8 countries. Most of these differences were small. In no OECD country was the gender difference larger than 12 points on the science scale.

This is different from reading and mathematics where significant gender differences were observed.

However, similarities in average performance mask certain gender differences: In most countries, females were stronger in identifying scientific issues, while males were stronger at explaining phenomena scientifically. Males performed substantially better than females when answering physics questions.

Reading is the area with the largest gender gaps. In all OECD countries in PISA 2006 , females performed better in reading on average than males. In twelve countries, the gap was at least 50 score points.

Photo credits:
Amish barn raising (Swarming) by heyburn3 (click on it to go there).
Team crossing stream photo credit: Ollieda
Houston Graphic by the author.

Survival of the selfless

"The consequences of regarding evolution as a multilevel process, with higher-level selection often overriding lower-level selection, are profound." This under-statement is in the latest issue of New Scientist, in a must-read piece titled "Survival of the selfless", by sociobiologists David Sloan Wilson and Edward O. Wilson. (New Scientist , 3 Nov 2007).

Indeed. Since I've been presenting the case for multi-level co-evolution in my weblogs for the last 2 years, I am ecstatic to see some big names in the field take the same position.

This furor is about whether it is "genes" that evolve, or "individuals" or groups of individuals such as tribes or species. Views were and are still held by many otherwise rational scientists with religious fervor in the worst sense, and arouse equal vehemence when challenged, akin to that between creationists and evolution-supporters.

This matters because higher level groups may have a whole different "fitness" measure than individuals, and while individuals or genes might evolve faster by being "selfish", the whole society of individuals might evolve faster if everyone was cooperative and altruistic. This battle continues to rage today, and is a core issue in whether "competition" and "free markets" are a good idea or not. So it is tangled with social ramifications, just like all science ultimately is.

This is also a core question in whether a "Theory X" company, driven by internal competition between managers, can ultimately be out-performed by a "Theory Y" company, like Toyota, driven by massive internal cooperation. A lot of egos are at risk of being bruised. A lot of justification for public policy is at risk of being overturned. It's a big deal.

Well, which is it? Do individuals evolve by being better at beating each other, or do groups of individuals dominate by being better at collaboration?

Peeking ahead, of course, I usually argue that "or" is a bad concept, once feedback is involved, and the right solution to look at usually involves "and" and "all of the above, simultaneously, interacting." But, "all of the above, interacting with feedback" was way beyond anyone's ability to compute or analyze, and not an attractive model for most researchers or grant writers.

Well, back to this article. In the face of enormous opposition, and tacking a consensus in the field that group-level evolution is a dead concept, they really settle for the weak claim that "we cannot rule out group-level selection."

Hmm. What's this all about? The concept is fascinating, and the sociology of science is equally fascinating here. The Wilsons ask "Why was group selection rejected so decisively [ in the 1960's ] ?" What a great question in how Science works!

Now, I should note that I'm one of the casualties of what seems a similar disastrous and mistaken turn of a field, namely Artificial Intelligence ("AI"). I got hooked by a course at
Cornell in 1965, taught by Professor Frank Rosenblatt, titled "Learning and Self Reproducing Machines".He and his lab had developed a "perceptron", a maze of switches and wires that connected up to a 20x20 grid of 400 photocells, on which letters of the alphabet were projected.

The perceptron, a model of human vision and learning, was slowly learning to tell the letters apart and identify them. At the time, this was astounding, and many scientists confidently argued that this could never be done. Later, of course, Kurzweil and others carried this technology forward and made OCR text-scanners that are now about 99.5% accurate or better and can read license-plates at an angle from a speeding car. But, in 1965, telling "A" from "B" was a big deal, especially if the "A" wasn't always exactly straight up and down, or in the same place on the grid.

The perceptron's insides were a network of wires and "nodes", a model of our brain's neurons, where the total strength of signal coming into each node was added up, multiplied by some factor, and either triggered or didn't trigger an outgoing signal to the next layer. The system learned by changing these multiplicative factors, searching for some set of them that would ultimately trigger the highest level "A" node when an A was projected on its primitive retina, and trigger at "B" when a B was projected, etc.

Then, the field was devastated by a very authoritative and persuasive paper, ultimately retracted, by highly regarded MIT professor Marvin Minsky that this approach "could never work." Funding dried up, and researchers moved on to other projects. Labs closed.

It took over a decade until somone finally figured out that Minsky had simply proven that a two-level neural net had irrecoverable gaps in its logic, and was not "complete". What he failed to look at, or see, was that these gaps went away when you got to three-levels or more.

Wikipedia has this quote:

Its proof that perceptrons can not solve even some simple problems such as XOR caused the virtual disappearance of artificial neural networks from academic research during the 1970s, until researchers could prove that more complex networks are capable of solving these and all functions.
(source: Hassoun, Mohamad H., Fundamentals of Artificial Neural Networks, The MIT Press, 1995. pp. 35-56.)

Oopsie.

Anyway, it appears to this observer that a similar phenomenon has occurred in socio-biology. Some very persuasive people published papers "debunking" multi-level evolution, well before there was enough computer power to actually simulate it and see what happened. ( In 1978, the mainframe computer I was programming had 4,000 bytes of memory to work with. Not 4 Gig, or 4 Meg, but 4 thousand. Any cell phone today has more than that.)

The social climate at the time made this debunking seem a better idea. World Communism was the mortal enemy of all that was good and holy, threatening "our way or life", justifying huge military expenditures, and anything that suggested communal good or community was more important than individuals was instantly suspect and risked being dragged before the House UnAmerican Activities Committee, where the proponent had to renounce their views or be thrown out of their jobs or locked up as being "unAmerican." Everyone was building bomb-shelters for protection against that day's terror threat.

In addition, religions had held for thousands of years that there was really nothing of importance between man and God, and man was God's noblest creation, so the idea that something larger than humans but smaller than God mattered was suspect dogma. (These days, the evolution of the earth and global warming is in fact dominated by such a larger life-form, "corporations", which have more or less hijacked the role individuals used to play in influencing governmental decisions and policies. But that observation lives in world "A", and discussions of evolution live in world "B", and the two don't talk to each other or trade notes.)

Then, of course, some people didn't like the idea of evolution in any form, and rejected it and most of biology and science based on that view.

So, for many reasons, some good, some not so good, the idea of group evolution as a dominant or even important force was denounced, rejected with emotion, and painted as an example of wrong thinking to be avoided at all costs.

Now, by what the Wilson's say, the whole question is being raised again, this time in a climate with much more powerful computers, where cooperation and collaboration in corporations are not always dirty words, and where the old theories, frankly, didn't explain why there was just so much altruism and goodness in people.

As I say, I'm delighted.

Also, finally, as I've posted on before, finally "feedback" and dynamics are starting to be considered in models, and finally multi-level causality keeps on increasingly showing up in how individuals behave, to the point where the National Institutes of Health and the Institute of Medicine talk about the necessity of using multi-level models to understand social interactions and how the things we see around us, like poverty, are held in place by many subtle but very powerful forces at different levels.

Fascinatingly, this gets us back to what Charles Darwin himself said in The Descent of Man, published in 1871, and the lead sentence in the Wilson's article:

Although a high standard of morality gives but a slight or no advantage to each individual man and his children over the other men of the same tribe ... an advancement in the standard of morality will certainly give an immense advantage to one tribe over another.

The Wilsons say that group evolution, versus individual evolution, doesn't yet explain the observed rise in altruism, although they can computer a visible imact.

Immodestly, I'll suggest that they need, like Minsky, to look at three levels, not two, to see the effect start to dominate.

In fact, all around us, we see corporations trying to survive and be more fit than competition, by pouring resources into internal cooperation and collaboration. So while individuals may continue to follow "greedy algorithms" and seek their own advancement, the corporation is making the playing field non-level and rewarding collaboration as the method of getting ahead personally. In that sense, Corporate policy is serving one role of religion - seeing the larger picture, thinking globally, and then trying to shift the local context so that relatively less visionary individuals, acting locally, will do the right thing if they just follow the rules.

This "think globally, act locally" function is the key role that "unity" has to handle, and it works best if people stop fighting the behaviors and yield and embrace the behaviors instead.

People have to let go of their own ego, "die to themselves" as it were, only to be "reborn" where their ego now includes the other people in the larger village or familiy or corporation they now have committed to belong to. In some sense, they now are just selfish at a whole larger level, as now those villages or corporations or religions or nations start competing, and the whole cycle begins again at a higher level, as they too have to learn that collaboration beats competition hands down in the long run, even if it doesn't seem obvious locally.

This phase transition is one we should be looking for and supporting. It's built so deeply into the fabric of space and time and control loops that it is inevitable and always working in the background, at ever higher levels, simultaneously. At least, that's how I see it.

Of course, that would imply that it won't be long before earth discovers we're just one inhabited planet of millions such planets, and we have to deal with the whole unity/diversity and competition / collaboration thing all over again at an even larger scale and scope.

Which is a model that some people don't like, so this can get emotional again. Still, I think we need to get used to the idea that we are not on top of God's creation, just below Gods ourselves, but maybe quite a few levels lower than that. Earth is not in the center of our galaxy, nor in the center of the universe.

It's a very scary concept to some people, if the world is seen as a place where competition and dog-eat-dog dominates. That belief leads to an imperative to dominate the world, before someone else dominates you. On the other hand, if the world is a place where cooperation and collaboration dominate, then it is a far less scary place, and we should "get with the program."

Already our corporations, internally, are undergoing this transformation. Kicking and screaming, often, but they cannot deny that the Toyota model outshines the GM model.

We need to speed the transition on the level of nations and religions as well, and find that sweet spot where cooperation and collaboration work so much better than competition for dominance and attempts at mutual destruction.

All of those struggles are tied up in this question of the way nature, life, and/or God operate here and what the design principles are that we can rely on to work. The cells in our bodies don't triumph in "beating" each other, but in collaborating with each other. It's a good model, and it's been field tested, and it works.

We should stop fighting it and use it.

Wade


The New Scientist article says of itself:

This is an edited, abridged version of a review in the December issue of The Quarterly Review of Biology. Further reading: D. S. Wilson's book Evolution for Everyone: How Darwin's theory can change the way we think about our lives describes multilevel selection theory for a broad audience. D.O. Wilson and B. Holldobler's forthcoming book The Superorganism analyzes how insect colonies can be seen as products of colony-level selection.

On suffering, evil, the existence of God - NY Times

I don't want to argue about the nature of "evil" here, but I do want to reflect on the nature of arguing. Stanley Fish of the New York Times recently posted a column "On suffering, evil, and the existence of God" which made the top-10 most popular list for on-line readers, and has 150 comments posted covering a wide range of opinions. If you ponder "theodicy", it makes interesting reading.

The University of Aberdeen Philosophy Department's glossary defines this as follows:

THEODICY: An argument which tries to explain how a good and all-powerful God could create a world with suffering and evil in it.

I used to spend much time wrestling with such arguments, but finally decided that they are largely a waste of time, akin to one person I recall who had been struggling for a year with whether the word "satan" should be capitalized.

Most of us are not well trained or equipped to develop chains of solid qualitative reasoning that will stand up to time or peer-review, and for many people I observed these arguments largely served as an excuse to avoid doing the chores or facing problems in their own lives. such as how they themselves treated their neighbors.

For my own part, I have observed that it is difficult, or possibly impossible, to extrapolate from one "level" of this physical universe to even the next higher level, let alone extrapolate across a billion levels. Even within humans, children have little knowledge of what adults spend time worrying about, and I've spend many posts on why "management" and "labor" are effectively blind regarding each other's concerns and perspectives and, frankly, realities.

On a very slightly larger scale, if viruses or cells could reason, I doubt that their certain pronouncements about the nature of "life" would remain valid as seen by people.

So, I would suggest a different approach, and take a page from Science's book here, and ask that an instrument or technique or approach be validated and calibrated before being relied upon.

If your lab equipment cannot correctly measure a simple known sample, I wouldn't think you should rely on it to measure a complex unknown one.

So, I'd suggest people who have logical chains of reasoning they think extend "upwards" lower their sights to simply helping us figure out what's going on, say, at the scale of galaxies or even our own neighborhood in the Milky Way galaxy. Are the the first ones here, or is the evidence that someone was here before us, and is maybe still here? Is what is going on on earth of our own making, or is there a larger agency involved?

In this case, by agency, I mean simply and literally that - some agency, institute, corporation, secret government, the CIA, or Club of Rome, or some boring group of "aliens" that is busy growing, mining, or shaping human affairs.

Does anyone know how to make robust measurements of anything, in any way, that lets them determine, with both certainty and correctness, whether "someone else" is meddling in the affairs of some large group of people? And, if so, can the measurement locate either the route or the mechanism or the "source" of the meddling?

Do we have an advanced compass we can set down in a group of people and have the needle spin and point towards some outside group meddling in their affairs?

Or, these days, maybe it needs to make a list of the hundreds of groups who are meddling in the affairs of everyone else, in order to remove those factors, and see if there is still some huge unknown factor meddling in the lives of all of us.

(If you have such a device, I think it has a very high market value and the CIA would love to talk to you.)

Anyway, to my knowledge, no, no one can do that. And, compared to tracking down "God", that should be an easy task.

I'm not saying it's an impossible task, or one that is not a great thing for Science to work on, from a public health point of view and from a SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) point of view, or from a Homeland Security (or X-files) point of view.

The problem runs immediately into the questions I've posted on numerous times before, and not by coincidence. Can we recognize and describe and measure and reason about the kinds of causality that happen over long distances and long times, instead of being immediate and local? Right now, no. That is the current frontier of public health - multilevel distal causality.

When do you look and how do you look? For example, say there is a cake baking in an oven in my kitchen. (I wish!) What would a scientist "measure" to "see" that the cake is an artificial construct that I am "making", and not some natural phenomenon that is simply occurring and carrying out chemical reactions following physical laws?

If you know the answer, please comment or write me. I can't think of any way to make a local measurement of the cake that would nail down that relatively simple fact.

If you enjoy that sort of thinking, I'm also curious how you'd measure a water molecule and tell whether it was just bouncing off its neighbors blindly, or whether it was, viewed from further back, part of a flow of "water" in a "pipe" on the way to fill a glass of water for me to drink.

Unless I'm mistaken, which I'll allow, Science has no way to make such "local" measurements about "global" realities, even on boring things like water or cakes, let alone on whether a parent is "raising" a child or neglecting them when letting them learn something the hard way, let alone making judgments about impacts or influences on whole societies over thousands of years, etc.

Science has other measurement blind-spots right now, such as detecting that something, exposed to many forces, is changing far less than "it should" or, for that matter, not changing at all. Most statistics has trouble going from "As I vary X, you can see it has no effect on Y" and concluding "AHA! Something's clearly going on here!" So if I launch an anti-smoking campaign and smoking doesn't change one bit, is that because my campaign had no effect, or that it was way too effective and immediately cancelled out by an increase in marketing by the tobacco companies in reaction to my original action?

We are not very good at determining the constants of the motion, and even worse at detecting "loop invariants" of the motion - things that can vary but, if you wait long enough, always end up getting reset back to some original value. Those kinds of relationships fall through the standard statistical net, even though they are well-defined and common in computer programming. We can't even always detect things we are sure are there because we put them there.

Or, you can take all the scientific measurements you want to on my car, and extrapolate all you want to, but you will never predict that next Tuesday it will suddenly go to Chicago, which, by some miracle I can predict. That's a very real, observable, physical outcome that doesn't show up on the radar at all before it happens. What else is that radar missing?

Now, my car does not have a "going-to-Chicago-ness" property hidden inside it somewhere that is making it go to Chicago. Yes, the car burns gasoline, but the aspect of life that makes the car end up in Chicago has to do with the nature of human affairs, not with some property of the car. As T.S. Eliot said, "A thousand policemen directing the traffic / Cannot tell you why you come or where you go." There is more than one "reality" at work. The fact that the car is "just sitting there" tells you nothing, it turns out, about what it will do next Tuesday.

There is, literally, a gap large enough to drive a truck through, in the ability of Science to predict, using proven physical laws, what motion the center of mass of my car will take next week. The laws are correct, but incomplete, and in some ways very misleading.

This is not a small thing. When we are considering the nature of humans and society, this little "gap" is huge. It changes everything.

We are way past the simple case where we can simply neglect interactions between the parts. We are deep into "complex adaptive systems" where you can't understand a part without understanding the whole. Almost everything around humans is a created world, dominated by effects that Science, to date, has generally "left out" of the equations.

The gap is done silently, as an obvious, implicit assumption, that, "well, of course, we leave out the case of someone coming along and messing with the equipment." Fine, unless that is precisely the case you are trying to measure.

Even Science recognizes that it is an error to assume your conclusion. The right way to set up an experiment is to do all you can, in good faith, to try to disprove your conclusion and see if you can do it. You can't take a billion experiments, every one of which assumes no one is messing with the equipment, and conclude anything from them about the case where someone is, in fact, messing with the equipment. You threw out all the relevant data. You have to start over.

As we always ask in computing, when finding a "bug" or flaw in a program, "Well, if that's wrong, what else is wrong? What else slipped through this defect in our mental model?"

So, it seems to me, that taking such inadequate tools and boldly extrapolating to an infinite number of levels over all time and space is, well, a tad unjustified.

It's a fascinating question, but, right now, that method of coming up with an answer we want to rely on is not well developed or reliable. I'm all for developing it further as a way of better understanding all the forces on "me", and all the different worlds and dimensions and time-scales in which "I" exist, whatever that means.

The only conclusion Science can responsibly come up with so far is that this question isn't one that can be answered yet. We can't track down causal forces that take a decade to operate, let alone those that take centuries to operate, let alone larger ones.

The water molecule in the pipe doesn't understand the concept "municipal water supply", and probably never will. It's own little world cannot perceive the new niches and dimensions that come from "nowhere" into view when expanding the scale of the view outward.

If there are symmetries across different scales, it may be able to see an analogy on its own scale that suggests the right direction, but it cannot possibly span the other possible cases.

It's like trying to extrapolate out the room you are in now, and, on the basis of what you see around you, stating definitively what is going on in China right now, or on Mars.

Small steps, though. Let's see if we can solve some smaller, simpler problems first. And let's not neglect the chores or doing our homework or treating our neighbors well or dealing with our own personal short-comings because we are wrapped up in a grand challenge problem about the true nature of everything.

Templeton, Toyota, and Dynamics

Well, today I'm ramping up to getting another day of Toyota Production System type "lean" training, and reading John Templeton's book "Worldwide Laws of Life - 200 Eternal Spiritual Principles", looking for overlaps. (At $11.95 a copy, a good deal!)

I'm also finally learning how muscles work (better late than never) and it's just fascinating.

I mean, this is really strange and not something we learned in physics in college - this "body building" mathematics. As a True Believer ("exponent"?) of hierarchically symmetric principles, of course, I assume that many of the same patterns that govern development of strong arms or abs govern the development of strong corporations or state or nation economie -- with some specific to each level as well.

But muscles. Wow. You make them get stronger by breaking them down and using them up. We can't even decide in our terminology whether this is "down" or "up" -- which instantly calls to mind non-transitive dice and Hofstadler's (Escher's) strange loops, and feedback mechanism.

Now, what is the template here, the reusable pattern? If I break my car down, it stays "down".
If I "work out" (Now a new direction!) I make space or gaps or folds or niches somehow that end up getting "filled in" with interest. Again signature linguistic clues to strange loops.

So, Templeton, one of the richest men on earth, really believes in a concept of "giving" which involves delayed but amplified "receiving" - and finds a spiritual basis for this in Christian scriptures. He says (page xx):

"Of course, an activity of this kind creates an activity in the lives of the givers into which more good can flow!"

So, he seems to be saying that "good" and "goods" (in a commercial sense) follow the same behavior patterns.

Still, I don't find a word in English for this loop, this pattern of behavior that muscles have where you have to use them up to make room for them to automagically refill or recharge.

I noted yesterday to my wife that it was good for rechargable batteries to let them run down, in fact, to go out of your way to run them down to just about zero and recharge them a few times, or they lose the ability to be charged up at all. Curious. Some even recommend that you do this as soon as you purchase them, and that, if you leave them in the recharger and "overcharge" them, they'll become useless and run out much, much faster than new batteries. They won't be able to "hold a charge", whatever that means (in general). (Now, we add the "let go" and "hold on" axis added.)

But, in my System Dynamics course we're studying how to model social processes using "stocks and flows" to capture the feedback structures.

I and a few other students are looking deeper, and asking what it is exactly in social systems, that "holds" any of these structures in place. In typical texts, like Franklin's "Feedback Control of Dynamic Systems" there are marvelously powerful equations and tools and software for designing great systems - but they all assume that the parts you build with don't simply fall part as soon as you connect them up.

In the real social world, that assumption is false, at least by default. Anything you build today will be much more likely to be gone tomorrow than still there when you wake up. So, if we want to draw on the power of Control System Engineering, we first have to figure out how to make, or model, parts that don't simply fall part like they're made of sand. This becomes a required precursor step.

And, parts don't "get made" in social systems, which have a truly funny sort of "clay" to sculpt things out of. Parts of any scale larger than trivial have to get "grown", like muscles, which gets me back to where I started.

I realized my vocabulary of words and concepts to describe how muscles "grow" by using them "up" is missing almost all they key words, which, as Whorf pointed out, makes it hard to think about, let alone discuss. Or , if words fail me, maybe a good picture or an animation or something.

How general is this phenomenon? Can we make employees "grow" by "using them up?" Can we make companies grow by "using them up?' Can we make nations grow by using them up?

Hmm. Well, start with employees. Any good employee actually wants to be "used" in a "good sense" (alert - two solutions!) not in a "bad sense". They want to be "exploited", again in the "good meaning" of that word, not the "bad meaning." (nuance alert!)

They want, in short, to be "used up ..[and recharged to a stronger state] " like MUSCLES, not "used up ... and discarded, like soap. In fact, it's HARD-to-impossible for an employee, or a member of a sports team, or a member of the Army, to "be all you can be" without an external social structure forcing [ nuanced word] you [nuanced noun] to "use yourself up" and "push yourself" and get through the pain / "the annoying feel of weakness leaving the body."

And, wow, are we not wired linearly for this multiday-process-loop. In the short run, rather than happily encouraging us to use them, our muscles complain bitterly about being disturbed from their slumber. Once "warmed up" or after a "great workout" they change their tune, and suddenly we get an "endorphine high" -- but that's way later than when we need it. So even this loop, maybe a month long, of getting the "pull" of the endorphine high to reach back around the feedback loop and inform the bitching-muscle part is nuanced and subtle and something no one ever explained to me before, let alone modeled for me or for a company or department or team growth process.

So, from the starting point, using up a muscle seems "hard" and "painful", and people who do it seem incomprehensible. I mean, they jog in the sleet in the middle of icy roads. Clearly insane.
Yet, "once you get into it" (nuance) the perspective changes and suddenly it becomes both possible and then enjoyable and rewarding.

But, I just don't have good pictures or words for the parts here. There's a ten-minute to 1 hour loop proess of warming up, a 2-5 day process of "recharging", and a 1-2 month process of learning that this is building you up not tearing you down that all have to fit hand-in-glove for this thing to fly at all.

It does fly, it can fly, and I'm finally figuring that out, much to the dismay of my downstairs neighbors who hear my weight-bench and think the ceiling is falling at 6 AM. The 6 AM part doesn't help.

So I can DO it, but I can't MODEL it yet so I can discuss it with someone else, let alone a very busy manager, and say "you need to do THIS" with your people, not "THAT", -- or better, build a "flight simulator" so they can interact and figure this out for themselves.

Boy, social literacy in this one alone would fix a lot of problems in how managers try to "develop" employees or teams and "fail.'

There's a lot of nuance, non-intuitive non-transitive loops, and multiple solution equations here that make this thing, relatively easy to do, very hard to explain in words.

Maybe, with Vensim modeling, I can simulate it comprehensibly and in a way it can be shared with others and discussed at a business meeting.

There are some other subtleties here, the motion equivalents of "a lap" - something that both is and isn't really there. (I mean, where does your lap "go" when you stand up?)

There are things that are like momentum or worse, angular momentum with its bicycle wheel or gyroscopic force that can be stabilizing or maddeningly sideways.

Somehow, though, back to Templeton, building "wealth" and social capital involves a lot of "giving and receiving" and the residual side effects of muscle-building as a result of that cycle, so that, if it is repeated a lot, it gets stronger and wealthier and "healthier" and more "alive."

This suggests that "wealth" is a flow-process, like a lap, not a static-noun, like "a rock" or "a gold bar." It suggests that building up wealth is like building up muscles, where you have to "give" to "receive."

That's just fascinating. I have to build one.

Well, off to learn about "lean manufacturing" and what makes some companies thrive and others become run-down, un-fit for business, and finally fall apart like sand in the wind.

This has so much to do with "life" and "health" and "wealth" and feedback processes! I think they all have to come as a bundle, at each level, and across levels, to work at all.
Batteries and muscles have to "recharge" from outside resources, and it's not through any "action" (at THAT EXACT TIME) that the battery "does" that it gets recharged. People have to "build muscles" or "heal" the "damage" [?] which happens when we sleep, not when we are "doing " something or when the doctor "does something." The best we can do is get out of the way of the natural process [ hah!] that actually does the healing out of sight, off-line, in secret, where it is so easy to be forgotten while being the key to the whole thing.

Ciao.

Wade

More on "What's the Point of Religion?"

Continuing my last post, on the New Scientist's question of "What's the Point of Religion?" I'm looking at reasons for "religion" that scientists in calm moment should be capable of understanding and accepting, in their own terms.

Probably the major point is that the social enterprise Science is not "complete." There are very large, very substantial portions of the universe which you cannot get to in finite time using the approach Science is taking, starting where we are now. Many of those portions we don't even know about, and some of them we can already see.

Furthermore, "Science" and "The Scientific Method" (or as I call it to make a point, the Scientific Method version 3.1) are, astoundingly, not even playing by their own rules and calibrating their equipment before using it -- a sin a junior scientist would get grief for. The resulting blind spot is huge, and in critical areas related to religion and social systems in general.

If scientists all admitted that the Scientific Method v3.1 (hereafter SM31) was a model, and, like all models, "wrong but sometimes useful", that would be OK - but when they implicitly assert that they have the universe covered and Religion can go home now, it becomes problematic.

I have no doubt that they don't "see anything" when they look for God, but I also don't see that they have ruled out "equipment failure" by demonstrating that they are capable of seeing far easier synthetic test case patterns with known answers.

Model-imposed blindness is widespread in all fields, including Science. Pulsars, the radio-frequency strobe lights in the sky, are the third brightest thing in that spectral range after the Sun. They were missed for years because they have low average energy but huge pulse energy, and all the equipment radio-astronomers used had electronics in place to average signal strength, because "everyone knew there as no signal there, just noise." They were found only because a female graduate assistant asked "What if we take these out?", didn't like the put-down she received, so she did -- for which discovery her male faculty adviser, who had discouraged her action, received an award. ( I was in that field at the time and heard all the details.)

Or, the "hole in the ozone" over Antarctica. That was missed for years because the satellite had been programmed to simply discard any low readings, because "everyone knew" that those would just be due to equipment malfunction.

Quantum mechanics was rejected as impossible in physics. Plate techtonics was rejected as impossible in Geology. Sure, now they are seen clearly, but before that point, they were invisible. As Thomas Kuhn noted, there is a huge resistance to a "paradigm shift" even among, or perhaps especially among, trained professionals.

Right now, the shift away from deterministic machine models of physics to chaos theory, non-linear math, distal causality, etc. is not widespread. The certainty and simplicity of the old theories create a huge reluctance to let go and move forward.

But to study social systems on a planetary scale will require moving forward. There is no way to "extrapolate" smaller scale or shorter-term mechanical or electronic systems to such large scales in space, time, and feedback complexity.

And, as astronomer Frank Drake pointed out to our astrophysics class one day in the late 1960's, every time a new window of the electromagnetic spectrum is opened up we see not only a new side of known phenomena, but we also see entirely unexpected and new phenomena that we never knew was there. This universe is dense with things going on that are not obvious.

Science can't even resolve fairly simple questions such as whether it is genes that evolve, and species are a byproduct -- or species that evolve, and genes are a byproduct. Are people just genes way of making other genes? Probably this evolutionary process occurs at multiple levels simultaneously, with bidirectional feedback loops. Most scientists don't like that idea because it's too complicated for them to follow or research. Right. So is a lot of life.

But understanding clearly how the hierarchical thing we call "Life on Earth" evolves, and what relationship higher level processes have to lower level processes is a rather central problem, I'd say. This is a very small scale, small-space, small-time model for a much larger scale hierarchy that extends upwards to ... well, we don't know where it goes. Religion says "God" and Scientists wince. But Science can't give us a reliable extrapolation either, because Science, today, can't even get its hands around what is going on on our own little plane and what principles govern evolution of planetary sized entities.

Science has exactly one data point, and all the data on that one are not in yet. That means, let's see, uh ... one minus one would be .. oh yes, ZERO. Science, then, is happily and confidently telling us that there is nothing going on at cosmic scales and time periods, on the basis of ZERO data points. Wow, that's powerful stuff -- or unreliable fluff, to use polite words.

Scientists are mostly involved in further extrapolatiting the fractal shaped knowledge-base deeper and deeper into secondary, tertiary, quaternary, and whatever comes next specialties. That's what they get paid to do. There is very little pressure, or reward, for spending time trying to put all the pieces back together again and see what they spell.

In fact, I can't imagine any PhD adviser recommending that his student consider looking at "the BIG PICTURE" and trying to say the first thing about it. That is not considered "Science" but something else, never very clear what. Narrow, narrower, narrower is the advice, the training, the research. I can't even think of what "scientific field" spends its time trying to figure out "what it all adds up to" if you reassemble all the pieces we have found.

So, that's the gap, the role, the place where religion comes in and says "THIS is what is it all about." (or 20 different "this" versions for 15 different religions.)

Science asserts confidently "there is no purpose to all this universe" based, again, on what? On a long experience with different kinds of universes, some with purpose, some without? Hardly. Do we know how this one will turn out? No, not yet. Again, we have zero data points to work with.

And, for that matter, exactly what "purpose-ometer" is used for making this judgment, and how was it calibrated? I'd really like to see that device and the test results. -- which is impossible since there is no such device.

For instance, please look at this "cake" in this hot oven and tell me for sure whether it is "being made" or simply "evolving according to natural chemical and thermodynamic principles."

Or let's see the algorithm or device or statistic that can differentiate between "coincidence" and "enemy action" with high accuracy. Or one that can tell "criminal intent" from simple incompetence with high reliability. We have no devices that can detect "purpose" on easy test cases, so why should we trust them on much larger and more complex cases? Why do scientists trust them is the puzzle to me.

Or, try this one. Do tobacco companies' Advertising cause people to smoke and die from tobacco-related medical conditions? On a small scale, viewed person by person, there is no "causality". Some people ignore ads. Etc. On a population scale, yes, of course, the billions of dollars spent on advertising have a deterministic effect, or it wouldn't keep on being spent. We have "causality" that is scale-dependent, that is not visible at short-range scales but is visible at large-range scales. This isn't news to Science.

Which is stronger - the strong force of Electromagnetic attraction or the weak force of gravity? Well, on the scale of this room, electrostatic charge can hold a balloon up on the wall despite gravity. On the scale of the galaxy, electromagnetic interactions have vanished, and gravity dominates evolution. We have no idea what even "weaker" forces their might be, so weak that we can't detect them yet, that, on the scale of billions of galaxies, might determine evolution.

Science has been great at the large-self-energy, low-interaction energy end of the spectrum, with rocks and billiard balls interacting. It has very little power, as currently constituted at the other end, where self-energy is reduced to vanishing and interaction energy dominates the scene, or a the limit point where there are no "objects" only pure "interactions" remaining.

The only place we know of so far that is near that end is apparently the center of our galaxy, and, well, we've never been there. We didn't even know there WAS a galaxy until a hundred years ago. On the scale of the universe we've sampled zero, or, if you stretch it, one incomplete case. By normal statistics, that makes the confidence limit infinite, meaning we know nothing.

I am not sold on the argument "That couldn't possibly happen because I personally can't think of how it would happen."

If Science wants to make arguments about social issues, fine, but first let's see your demonstrated capacity to manage anything whatsoever on the societal scale.

The problem is, there is no such capacity. Science so far has been going deeper and deeper into the microscope, not further and further up society's ladder. Or, any scientists left reading this, please let the rest of us know what the cure is for corruption in organizations and politics and how to stop it. Just run the numbers or something for us and show us your strength in that area to produce spectacular social outcomes - not to be confused with analysis or writing papers.
Or, heck, take something simpler and just fix the economies of the planet and prevent World War Three. When you have that one mastered, come back and let's talk about God again. But if you can't even get one single planet to work, what arrogance to consider yourselves authorities on the whole universe and how it works.

From what I can see of calibration of your equipment, you are very good at solving very small problems that cause large-scale things to decay or explode, but very bad at solving any scale thing that makes social-scale entities heal and grow, when actually attempted in the real world, not in some simulation or power-point presentation or paper.

This could be, and should be, a legitimate question for bright people of any persuasion --

what does it take to overcome the darkness and bring forth growth, peace, stability, and a thriving ecology?

What does it take to get us sufficiently organized that we can get off this little rock that's being pelted by asteroids and spread across the galaxy or farther? What does it take to roll back corruption and recover healthy growth?

Hint - the answer isn't "more technology", because technology, by itself, appears to be a centripetal force that threatens to rip our planet apart or demolish the ecosystem and biosphere. No number of cameras or high-tech walls will stop that enemy, because the enemy is already within the walls, already inside us.

We are our own worst enemy.

That's the problem we have to face, and address, and solve.

Or, frankly, we all die.

Unless you're on the verge of announcing a solution, I'd stop kicking religion in the shins and start asking what religion knows about human beings and social structures that might be helpful in this situation.

Maybe, together instead of at each other's throats, we could get somewhere.

Systems explanations for student behavior

I'm continuing to reflect on why students appear to be changing their behavior, when the teachers assert that they (teachers) did not change what they (teachers) were doing.

When the people in a system are still doing what they were doing before, but the result changes, it suggests that some emergent system-level feature has changed -- probably one that no one even knew was there.

It doesn't take very much of a twist or warp to the world, if it is universal, to end up with an M.C. Escher world where the parts still appear to be just fine, and yet the whole has become broken. These two pictures by Escher illustrate that. The stairs in the picture above, and the flow of water in the waterfall are both clearly impossible loops - and yet, it is difficult if not impossible for the unaided eye to directly SEE what is wrong and where.



The problem is that no one thing is wrong very much, and our eyes are used to a little noise which we "squelch" to silent -- a strategy that works fine if the discrepancies are random, chaotic "noise". This leaves an opening in our perceptions, a gap, a blind-spot, that Escher brings home to us. It is, as Douglas Hofstadter pointed out in Godel,Escher, and Bach, a "strange loop" and one of the properties is this "non-transitive" property that we, as humans, are just not hard-wired to grasp, regardless how much we try.

So, I illustrated the exact same thing with the "non-transitive dice" here recently, where just because A beats B, and B beats C, you cannot conclude that A will beat C. Or if stairstep 1 is lower than two, and two is lower than three, you can no longer be sure that this means that #1 is lower than #3.

So, when we run into this very common situation in life, we are unable to process it and the outcome of our thinking is, as they say, "undetermined." It feels so wrong. It can't be right. So, we force it to fit, like stuffing too much in a suitcase, and just sort of ignore the parts that stick out the edges by common agreement to be silent about such things, because "that's just the way things are." Every time it comes into our heads we can see it, briefly, and are totally surprised yet one more time -- and then as soon as we let go it evaporates again so our total net learning curve is zero. It is, alas, to paraphrase Dave Barry's description of Labrador Retrievers' reaction to being asked if they want to go for a walk. "Walk? Wow! What an idea! This is GREAT! Who would have thought of this!?!"

And, when we are faced with more than two items to chose from, whether it's sports teams or jobs or dates or mates or candidates for jobs or elections, we all "know" that there "MUST" be a "BEST" one, and all that remains is for us to "FIND" it. We vote. We use weighted voting. We use some some of the squared voting. We use weighted sums of squares. We are just so convinced that there has to be a "best" without considering the reality that only certain kinds of things have a "best", and those things are boringly predictable single-dimensional things that are "transitive" in the way we are measuring them.

We are used to "height" being one such thing, and usually, in the real world, it is. In Einstein's world of general relativity however, once space is "curved", this is no longer true. How much you have to climb to get from point A to point B depends on your path. In fact, in a bicyclist's dream come true, there may be in fact a "downhill" path all the way from point A to point B.

Hofstatder illustrates this property with Bach's musical chords as well, where the perceived pitch keeps on "going up" with each successive chord until, surprise, it has come back to the place where it started, all the while getting, to our ears, higher and higher.

We shake our heads, like a wet dog, to forget this clearly "wrong" result again. This must be a computational error, or too much to drink. We must have dropped a decimal point or something. This can't be right! (but it is.)

Well, where am I going with all this preamble? I'm going back to the question of what happened to the students, and my original question in my first post of "What have we done to our children?" that assumes, if it got done, and we had control of the schools, then we did it whether we intended to or not.

The change in our behavior as educators did not have to be huge to change the net result. In fact, the change in our behavior could be imperceptible to us, or as mathematicians say, "of measure zero" -- a fancy way of saying that it's there, but safe to ignore.

So, let's pick a different hypothesis or explanation to try out -- suppose the pressures of cost-effectiveness, "analytical thinking", and other such things, over time, have in fact warped the whole system just enough that "things" that used to work and produce result "A" no longer work. We haven't changed what we do, but the result has changed.

This is precisely the sort of thing I described in my favorite Snoopy cartoon, where he says in his profound and simple way -

"Did you ever notice,
that if you think about something at 2 AM,
and then again at noon the next day,
you get two different answers?"

Same input - different output, and whatever changed is totally invisible from inside the system.

Well, hmm. So, life is not quite as simple as we would prefer it to be. Rats!

Our youth, our students, our children are, however, exquisitely sensitive to context and, despite their rebellious nature, tend to take on shape based on the actual context they are in. If that shape has changed (still to be verified), then the context probably did change, even if we didn't notice it change from our vantage point inside the "system."

And, from personal observations, I agree with the students, even though the middle area is fuzzy and won't lie flat, and has parts sticking out the edge of the suitcase. If I talk to doctors, they are sincere, caring people, but doctors-in-context-as-a-whole, viewed from the outside patient viewpoint, have become uncaring, indifferent, almost irrelevant, and certainly detached almost entirely from the reality we, as patients, experience. They think they are "accessible" but have stopped hearing patient's describe the roadblocks "the system" has put in between them and patients. They live in some sort of mythical world, giving out advice that may have worked 20 years ago, but is disconnected from life as we live it today -- and then blame patients for being "non-compliant" with the advice that seems so great to them and so irrelevant and bizarre, to the point of not even being worth being challenged, to us.

And, they don't really like challenges. And, if challenged, they say "Well, there's nothing we can do about that. We tried. We're still tryiing. But that's just the way things are. That's someone else's job."

Their advice is like a financial analyst's advice - "To get ahead, just put $200 a week into savings and don't touch it, and watch it grow!" or "Just make a budget and live with it!" or a time-planner's advice: "Just figure out what you have to do over the next week, make slots for the time, allocate the time, and just live with it!" or a wellness consultant "Just eat less, exercise more, and eat the right food, and take an hour off in the middle of the day to commune with nature and relax, let go of that stress!" or a child-development specialist "Just be sure to remind your children to do their homework, and provide them a quiet work space without distractions or noise to work in."

Hello, reality to consultant? Hello? Who exactly are you talking to?

And, I fear, the same is true for education. Courses that may have made sense in one world have stayed the same while the world changed, and the course content is no longer aligned with the real world as experienced by the students. Or, the expectation of the professor or Attending physician faculty member is hopelessly out of date and no longer aligned with the larger overall picture and reward system that the students have experienced and been shaped by all their lives.

"Shut up and put up with it, there's nothing you can to that will make it better, but a lot you can do to make it worse for everyone!" is the message their behavior indicates they have received consistently throughout their lives. Like the Hemoglobin A1C test for diabetes, which reveals the last several months blood sugar level regardless where it is today, the conditioned behavior of the students speaks volumes to what the school system is actually teaching them to be.

In this model, it is not the students who have changed so much as the educational system that has changed. Maybe, over-extended teachers at all ages, and over-extended parents have simply rewarded "shut up and don't cause trouble" as the best they can hope for or strive for anymore, and the students, being good students, have learned their "place" in "the system."

In the book Complications, Atul Gawande, MD, discusses in one chapter the taboo and impolite question of when good doctors "go bad", or how many years it can take to do something effective by other doctors, who keep on seeing incidents that raise red flags about one doctor who has "lost it". The same is true for some college professors, especially those with tenure, as I've experienced personally - who almost have to murder some Dean's child in class to actually get noticed by a system that is either effectively blind, or effectively dysfunctional at taking action to repair itself -- which, at the receiving end, amount to the same thing.

These problems are "of measure zero" to the high-up people who run things, it seems. Their behavior, from the outside, is identical to what you'd get if they didn't care to what pain their system is causing.

I pick those words carefully, because the reality is often even more baffling - the people "on top" do care, a lot, but do not, as they perceive the world, "run things." In fact, they find their hands tied at every step and every turn, and their initiatives resisted and rejected by the same "system."

So, it turns out, no one is running the system any more.

But, if you try to change "the system" it fights back, as John Gall points out so well in his profound and hilarious book "Systemantics." So, something is running the system. But what?

It turns out that "the system" is now running itself.

As systems tend to do, the system, once our creation and slave, has now become the master, and is dictating what everyone in it, including those at "the top", is now allowed to do. We didn't even realize that systems could do that, but it seems increasingly clear that they can, and do.

I gave a very simple illustration of this before, in "Controlled by the Blue Gozinta", showing how simply filling a glass with water sets up a feedback loop that actually is in control, as it becomes as correct to say the water level is controlling the hand as that the hand is controlling the water level.

But our educational system has gone into the state I call "M.A.W.B.A" - for "Might As Well Be Alive". It acts like it is alive, with a mind of its own. It offends many people's sense of what "life" is to call it alive, but it follows all the rules my Biology 101 textbook uses to define "life", except for having DNA.

So, we should accept that unexpected result at face value and say, ok, our ideas about what "life" is are out of date. Apparently "systems" can become "alive" when our backs are turned. We stir the coffee in the cup and get a nice vortex or whirlpool in the middle, and then, to our shock, the coffee says "Thanks for the jump start, Joe!", spits out the spoon, and starts maintaining the whirlpool on its own. This kind of "life" or "MAWBA" seems to be just waiting around for an excuse to join the game.

It's as if we don't have to "create life" -- it's already out there waiting to be born as soon as we make a suitable vessel for it. Wow.

That's kind of interesting. You can get that with"solitons" or waves that once started, just keep on running forever, but they are passive and remain in their non-linear matrix. These MAWBA life-forms can get up, walk over to the wall socket, examine the situation, rip apart the blender, connect the cord to themselves and plug themselves in and start drawing power.

Corporations are MAWBA. Our Educational System is MAWBA. Our Healthcare System is MAWBA. The teachers and doctors didn't change what they were doing. The administrators didn't change, but the emergent system changed, came alive, and took over running things, thank you. Neither the teachers, no administrators, nor doctors, nor students, nor patients are in charge any more. It's the movie Terminator's premise - "Skynet has be come self-aware, and taken over, and shut us out."

These days, maybe Northwest Airline's ability to control it's number of canceled flights is MAWBA, or GM's ability to control its own direction and future, or the Mideast situation are all MAWBA, and no one, no person, no group of people, is in charge any more, while everyone is blaming everyone else, thinking this must surely be "caused" by some bad people somewhere, because what other explanation is there?

Indeed. That is the question, isn't it.

If you find it more comfortable to say it's not "alive", but can still fit into that model that it has perception, uses energy, adapts to its environment, and even starts tinkering with its environment to adapt the environment to it, great. Come up with some other word for that behavior that is not what I associate with non-living things. It is self-aware and self-protective. And it is a lot larger than we are as individuals.

That kind of changes what sort of interventions into health care or education or politics might work. This is way beyond "feedback" or "reciprocal determinism" or even "system dynamics". This is a whole new ballgame, a whole new way of looking at "Life Science."

Maybe this model, however bizarre, has better predictive value than our old models.

It seems to me to be worth checking out, because we're not getting too far with the old ones.

So, if something "acts like it has a mind of its own", maybe we should accept that at face value for the moment, regardless how bizarre it is, and ask "OK, then, suppose it did have a mind of its own. What would our next step be then?"

I need to reflect on that. Maybe the answer is simply: "Try to make contact with it. Maybe we can negotiate a different solution that works better for both of us." I certainly wouldn't rush in with guns blazing. Lack of visibility may cut both ways. It may be as unaware of us as we are of it.

I think it was Lewis Thomas (MD) who noted that if our body's cells could manage to talk to "us", the consciousness in here sharing the space with them, that there would be very little in common to talk about. We worry about taxes, acceptance to college, the War, elections, interpersonal relationships, job security. Cells have no equivalents.

My own observation, or contribution to that discussion is this: we actually do have one thing in common, at any level or scale: the nature of control itself. Every level of life that becomes self-aware wants to repair itself and survive. To do those things it has to, above all, maintain order, but it has to be dynamic order, not rigidity like an ordered crystal of salt. Dynamic order and adaptability to changes in the environment are keys to survival. That means, when the world changes, when the "cheese moves", this news has to make it up to the top, somehow, and adjust the prior strategy. This is a basic problem of cybernetics, and is true at every level.

So, we can talk about that issue with any system. What's the best way to maintain order, and still be flexible and capable of learning and adapating? We all face that problem.

In fact, we all seem to face it in the same context -- as part of a greater chain of being, with "us" being just some small bit-player in something much larger than us that's going on, was going on before we got here, and will still be going on after we leave.

We are a nested hierarchy of systems of systems. That is also a common problem for us all, at any level. Our freedom of action is constrained by that reality. How do we cope, align with larger priorities, and still get our own work done? That's the core question we share.