communication. community. cognition.
You know, if I could answer that question, I could make a great deal of money.
Truly “making things simpler” can be exceedingly difficult, because it generally involves rethinking every assumption, or taking the whole paradigm out for a thorough flogging.
But an easier exercise for most of us is “making things less hard,” or looking for those steps in a process that we include even though they get in the way. [Read more...]
If you want to get down to the essence of something, you strip away the unnecessary. Jamie Oliver successfully branded this notion to cooking, and became the Naked Chef. Dr. Charles Whelan applies the same formula, and calls himself the Naked Economist. While I applaud anyone who is interested in making the complex easier to understand, there is a point where you bypass the truth and simplify to the point of conjecture.
Whelan, in a recent article about income gap, shows exactly how far you can go in asking the right questions.
[Read more...]
(subtitled: “How to avoid making a fool of yourself on national television”)
I really just wanted to kill some brain cells while straightening up the living room the evening. I certainly had no intention of blogging tonight. But then I saw something so stupid, I couldn’t let it go. And then it got worse. When I first heard about the concept behind “1 vs. 100,” I thought it sounded novel and fun. But that was before I felt like throwing a brick at my screen. Tonight, I found a true sign of the Apocalypse in the things Americans know and don’t know. The NBC television network has succeeded in creating a show that unlike Jeopardy doesn’t make you smarter; it just makes you feel smarter. (Apparently, years of finding new ways to wince at home video crotch shots has taken a toll on Bob Saget.)
[Read more...]
I promised to bring things full circle, and here we go…
The scientific method does us its greatest service when it simplifies the way we think, understand, and apply our collective knowledge to predicting outcomes. The application of Occam’s Razor is meant to be a guide — not an bulletproof truth in and of itself. In the practical world, there are times when we ought to make fewer cuts. The examples I have in mind involve a different kind of epicycle, focused on time instead of space.
One of the neat conversations with my wife that sparked my re-entry into blogging had to do with how science marches on, in a constant quest for refinement. I tried to think of an example of how these incremental gains on the truth sometimes lead to a blind alley, and require a complete paradigm shift. For some reason, Johannes Kepler and his laws of planetary motion came to mind.
In more than one sense, this is rather circuitous, as I had recently recalled my “Who Wants to be a Millionaire” moment as a phone-a-friend… the question? Kepler. (I would bring everything back full circle about now, but that is precisely the problem Kepler was trying to avoid…)
As our celestial measurements grew more precise, and our nautical navigators needed them to be, our men of science discovered a problem: what they observed never quite matched what they predicted. When your best measurement of your location was down to a degree or so, this wasn’t as critical. But the further you got from the coasts, the more the star positions mattered, and the more you needed to fix your tools and algorithms. The best means for testing the “drift” in your system was by observing the planets.
The word planet comes from the Greek word meaning “wanderer,” describing the night-to-night path these bodies tended to trace out on the sky maps. The motion was not apparent until you started charting over time — and some of that movement made no sense. Early on, civilizations recognized the strange backwards turn Mars made. The same “retrograde” motion also goes for outer planets, but being further from the Sun, not as easy to track. (The planets don’t really alter course — it’s just a slow-motion optical illusion, analogous to passing a car that is on the outer lane while you are on an inner lane.)
The answer was to tweak the calculations of the orbits… done by adding a small circle to the big orbital circle. Not terribly elegant to calculate, but it did allow the early astronomer to make a decent enough prediction about where the stars and the planets would be.
At least, until his tools improved again, renewing the cycle of recalibration and recalculation.
We recently added a new communicator in our Red Cross regional office. He’s a great guy, assigned to support the Hurricane Recovery Program. I’ve known him a while and respected his work, and we recently had a chance to collaborate on promoting one phase of the long-term recovery efforts.
He wrote a brilliant release that we were going to distribute through our network of chapters: after all, it is important that those with the local media relationships should maintain them. It was at this point that we recognized a potential pitfall. “How do we make sure the chapters actually send the release?” [Read more...]
