In this video, Professor Brian Cox makes a very important case when it comes to the need for publicly funded Science. This is specific to the United Kingdom, but it applies to any and all the countries, including, Canada and the United States.
If you watch it, then please watch the entire video.
Between order and chaos, there is a space.
I sense that classical hierarchical structures are not equipped to deal with a rising level of complexity.
A phenomenon, if it is to be considered true and depending on the scope and complexity of the problem(s), shifts a system towards chaos. That is, systems that rely upon it's own hierarchical structure of control and decision making.
Where, on the spectrum, the system happens to be, is predicated upon a couple of different factors.
If complexity is rising and continues rising, then classical hierarchical structures become this box. In such a box, there are no variables to make sense out of what has just entered into the box.
Frustration creeps in.
This, in turn, results into a reality, where reason could become an after-thought and emotions may kick in.
If you slow down the mechanism by which decisions are being made in such a room, down to milliseconds, then, in the absence of an adequate amount of data, as well the inability to make objective sense out of the situation, the decision maker has no choice but to look nervously around the room, make sense out of the prevailing sentiment by glancing at the facial expression of some of the other decision makers in the room. And then, in the interest of time, acts upon the limited information that is on hand. Not very well aware of cognizant of the potential impact down the road.
All of these interactions occur super fast.
In the absence of no data or data that is skewed in order to meet a certain objective, this can only be the foreboding of bad and terrible things down the road.
Perhaps and most importantly, this phenomenon rolls up into problems much bigger of a magnitude, whereby that much more time/energy/capital is expended upon solving the mutated version of the problem that has been created.
A problem that should not have mutated to this scale in the first place.
If the right kind of a construct would have been enabled, perhaps, such as a, 'network of networks' or another construct that could make objective sense out of a developing situation by leveraging empathy as a lens. Then, the effort could have lead to better things, better designs.
Must freedom always come at the expense of something else?
If freedom continually comes at the expense of something else, then what is the net regressive impact on the system down the line?
Throughout the course of history, humans have tried many different variations, as in forms of governance. And there really is no ideal system of governance. Perhaps, it is a kind of system that has seen very little innovation in thousands of years.
Here my sense is, that, that which is important is sometimes forgotten and often overlooked.
It is also my sense that, collectively, we as a species focus too much on security and not enough on innovation.
What I am about to suggest, does not entail that we must now sacrifice security and defense, so that more innovation can be had. I am not asking for sacrificing objectivity.
But, we must think deeply and objectively about:
There really is no such thing as absolute security. In the words of a previous American president, Dwight D. Eisenhower:
"If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom."
"We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security."
I think, we, as a species are making the grave mistake of thinking/believing and acting upon the notion that our collective existence begins and ends at being able to sustain civilization.
I think, that a core focus on security is coming at the expense of enabling the future. As this phenomenon continues, we will always think of security first and everything second. This will place severe limits on our growth prospects.
Growth cannot be had without innovation. And so if we are to safeguard our collective future, then we need to focus that much more on mechanisms by which more innovation can be had.
Source for image above: Research done by Geoffrey West link
If you have absolute security, then it is not something tangible that you can do with. If on the other end, you do not have any security, then you also cannot do anything.
But security is supposed to power a medium whereby all can come and play.
The need is to have more of our efforts, many more of our systems architected in such a way, so that more innovation can be had.
The need is pretty clear for many reasons.
Right now and according to some estimates:
So imagine the possibilities, the opportunities that lay hidden in the collection of and merger of different research in the 99% category.
I've been working on a blogpost, that is going to be a bit more detailed. In this blogpost, I will be focusing on the need for what I refer to as 'true innovation' and the pivotal role eco-systems will increasingly play (working as platforms). If anyone is interested, then I plan to post this blogpost by the mid of December 2015.
Creation of a subset within a Social Network with a specific focus on v 2.0 of the 'Dunbar’s limit' that is dynamic in nature and continually evolves
Amongst other things, I've also been thinking about the Dunbars limit. I think this area, or rather ‘the logic encapsulated within this theory’ needs further research. So, that the main tenet being proposed can be broken down analytically, reconstructed and reapplied to a wide and varied dataset. With the eventual goal of having these newly defined concepts, for them to be reapplied in new and unique ways. I am thinking ‘influence’ (1:1 ratio) and how that can be monetized at the very least.
Now, it seems to me that, some subset of the 150 people that we can have stable relationships with, that this subset and the subset within this subset, that they keep evolving on an ongoing basis. If that even makes sense. Maybe the second visual below will make some sense.
What I mean by evolution in this respect, is that the individuals within some (if not all) of these subset, that they keep changing and are constantly being replaced by other individuals on an ongoing basis. That there are different gradients within each of these categories.
It true, I would suspect that this can be attributed to the new and emerging forms of communication. Whether it be social media, new ways of getting work/projects done etc.
So if we can visualize what I'm actually saying right now, then what I’d do is to look at the total number of people that an individual could have some kind of association with.
Since I'm not an expert in this field, what I've done is to simply come up with some simple categorizations. For simplicity’s sake, let’s go with the frequency of communications between an individual, let’s call this individual Jane and the group that Jane would interact with.
Here is how I would visualize these very interactions. Obviously these numbers are made up.
Hence, this (above) could be considered as a very basic model and framework for depicting a logical breakdown of Jane’s association with others, in her network. The percentages would be governed by the recency and frequency of the various interactions.
But, what if this framework could then be broken down into different layers. A sample visualization has been provided below with my very limited photoshop skills at play.
Now these layers would contain data relating to the frequency and recency of interactions with each and every individual that Jane would interact with. We don’t care if this interaction is in the offline world (in-person, phone e.t.c) or the digital world. As long as it can be measured, it can then be applied within the constructs of the system being discussed.
Now you may ask, what's the benefit of such a model? Well, for starters, such a model would allow the ability to calculate, with some level of precision, the ‘influence’ individuals have over one another.
Aggregating the sum total, of this influence, in it's different forms, may also allow us to have a better gauge over an individual's influence over a group or groups.
But, in a Donald's Rumsfeldian way, one would have to be mindful of the fact that we can't measure what we can't measure. As in, offline communications that cannot be measured, but may have powerful influence, relating to one individual over another.
Overall, it begets the question why would you want to do something like that? As in, measure influence that individuals would have over one another in their own group settings.
To go back to the very instance, where I came up with the thought of connecting the different gradients (hypothetical) and layers (hypothetical) within the Dunbar’s limit and connecting them with the spheres of influence (also hypothetical). I think that's where the money is.
We have now come to a point where we can measure the influence an individual can exhibit over their network (Linkedin, Klout e.t.c). I think the time has come, to be able to measure these 1:1 interactions and to then be able to aggregate and measure them holistically.
I can think of a lot of different ways this mechanism for measuring influence can actually be monetized. Some examples that I can think of right now:
I can think of many other ideas along these categories. But the time has come to call it a day and hit the gym. Overall, this idea needs more time, research and thinking. As frequency and recency alone are not a good indicator of measuring influence.
By the way, I've been working on a project in this area that I have just elaborated upon. Something that could potentially morph into a subset of this very idea. A very tiny subset.
Details to follow.
Upon reading a very short introduction of Game Theory, the following caught my attention:
"Similarly, companies aren't always run by great intellect, but the market is often just as ruthless as Nature in eliminating the unfit from the scene"
It's really not just innovation that companies have to focus on today. In the words of Andy Grove, "Only the paranoid survive"
If someone asked me, what I believe is most important for society at large. Then I would say that a rich and vibrant culture is absolutely important in order to sustain a thriving civilization.
However culture alone cannot sustain a civilization. You need the necessary foundations in order to support and sustain the system.
Once again, I am reminded of these words by John Maynard Keynes. This is a need of our times:
…Economic policy must reflect an ideological vision; it must be inspired by the ideals of a good society. And it is evident that we are faced with failure of vision, with a crisis in the aims and objectives that economic policy should serve. In 1926, Keynes defined the political problem as a need to combine three things:
“economic efficiency, social justice and individual liberty. The first needs criticism, precaution, an technical knowledge; the second, an unselfish and enthusiastic spirit that loves the ordinary man, the third, tolerance, breadth, appreciation of the excellenciesof variety and independence, which prefers, above everything, to give unhindered opportunity to the exceptional and to the aspiring”
….We need to bring the institutions that foster this triad of efficiency, justice and liberty up to date.”