Systems theories, that is, the mathematical models that account for various behaviours of interacting elements are noticeably absent from any discussion, particularly within the social sciences here at UofT.

Thomas Homer-Dixon was an innovator in introducing the concept of complex-adaptive systems to the discourse of young undergrads doing Peace and Conflict Studies. Anatol Rapaport before him bestowed upon his students the mixed-blessing of a comparatively rigorous examination of game theoretic models of strategic agency.

What these men recognized is that there must be tools to understand abstract commonalities between seemingly disparate eventualities. The ultimate goal of history, after all, is to let us learn about the future by examining the past. It astounds me then, that historians steep themselves in factual accountancy rather than examing constructs for identifying patterns.

Just recently I wrote a paper on how dynamical systems theory can account for Jack Goldstone’s framework of analysis of revolutions. Goldstone gestures at the possibility for revolution as an emergent property but he fails to account in the readings we were given for what kind of system this emergence is coming from.

Dynamical systems theory appears nowhere in my Peace and Conflict literature, or any of my political science courses. It was introduced to me in my Cognitive Science class - a class no more connected with the mathematical particulars of dynamical systems theory than peace and conflict studies.

This may seem ironic, or even hypocritical given my previous entry decrying the inadequacy of abstract models at offering solutions to the most pressing problems of development - alluding to Hiediggerian functional fixation and framing issues.

The cognitive framing problem abounds in the social sciences - what start out as heuristics in undergrad become immutable laws of reality in the professional world, with no account as to hardening.

Competitive processes must be at play when examining issues of political or social import. On the one hand, we must be increasing the efficiency and applicability of our solutions - seeking the best solution for particular problems. The kind of hyper-contextualized thinking I said needed to be explored in my previous entry.

Conversely, generalizability and pattern coagulation and integration are also important processes. How can we identify relevantly similar characteristics and frame our problem-space, let alone our potential solution space if we have no basis for connecting two contexts. This is where innovation happens.

Thusly, a professional endeavour of any social scientist is to engender an appropriate governing mechanism for emphasizing one cognitive style over another. It is only in this way that sagacity in situations of apparently iredeemable conflict can emerge.

The only problems we face are ill-defined problems - insight is required and thus a disciplined process of cognitive annealing is needed to avoid functional fixation of the disasterous sort seen in the United Nations.

Systems theories, like any other theory allow us a currency of discourse that is otherwise unavailable. This compression of information accelerates and expands thinking - which can do nothing but help foster more and better solutions to the pressing problems of our time.

Uncategorized | No Comments »

Journalism was born out of intellectual curiosity and maintained by intellectual laziness.  When Johann Carolus gave us what we understand today as the first printed newspaper he did so to provide a way to disseminate knowledge rapidly, asynchronously and persistently. It allowed a small group of authors to rapidly distribute information they thought everyone should know about with a strong emphasis on the timeliness and temporality of said information.

This is the same story for the modern web - except that small group is now a single person and that “everybody” is no longer figurative. Many people have said that the web is an enabling technology as profound as Gutenberg’s printing press. The printing press, like the web, was initially considered a novelty and didn’t really find its legs until its net effect had taken hold - mass literacy. When everybody knew how to read, books became the primary mechanism of information transfer.  Marshal McLuhan posited this lead to a monopoly of the alphabet - where the letter supplanted the spoken-word as the primary communicator.

Journalism, that is the process of compiling information and articulating it for a community of consumers, before Walter Lippman and John Dewey had their say, was simply about communicating facts to a group of people.

Journalism has become, however, a method of maintaining the appearance of worldliness at a convenience. It took the rigor and difficulty out of information and allowed people to understand and contextualize events - to read the immediate unfolding of current-events like a history book.

Without getting overly Marxist all up-ins “the media,” that is the media-industry and its social-class corollary quickly dismantled the necessity for people to think critically. The media classified their audience into aggregations of mutually compatible opinion groups and delivered material to reinforce these classification schemes. It takes a scintilla of factual truth, usually isolated and frequently uncontroversial - and places it in a contrived context to reinforce predetermined political, social or preferential biases (which exist as a synthesis of the political agenda of media corporations and the demand of their consumers).

Newspapers cling, to this day, to a laughable pretense of objectivity. An historical absurdity which has been dismantled, in drastically different ways from people as diverse as Noam Chomsky and Joseph Goebbels. To deem centralized institutional media as any sort of arbiter of fact, truth, reality or correctness is patently fatuous.

People like Andrew Keen cling to an archaic method of imperative reality - it’s true because we (the elite) say it is true. This was, for almost two millenia, an efficient and effective way of establishing a consensus - everyone was on the same page when it came to how the world worked because we all listened to the same people. If we didn’t, we went to war with each other.

The internet, and specifically the web, and the kind of social perception it engenders, greases the wheels for consensus reality. The “web-generation” isn’t called that simply because of the technology we’re using (that is a mulligan in the generational narrative).

People who use the web view society differently from those who do not, dramatically differently. Self-identification and mutual discoverability, which is taken to new extremes on the web, enables a fundamentally different kind of social interaction and self-perception.

Think about the differences in the interpretation of such concepts as “community”, “like-minded”, “friend”, “dialogue”, “openness” that the web has and can enable - this kind of change in perspective is irrevocable once it has transpired, when one “gets” the web one can never go back.

What we can consider fact, or true or even believable has been undermined by instantaneous transfer of information. Nobody can be considered canonical, if Wikipedia (edited by tens of thousands of dedicated supporters bent on veracity) is unreliable then so is everything else.

What newspapers rely on now to justify their existence, are the Aristotlean “incidental” qualities. Those things which are consequential of newspapers qua newspapers but aren’t definitional. They are large format, consume no electricity to read, portable, amenable to advertising placements and consequently (for some) quite lucrative.

Yomiuri Shimbun retains the highest circulation of a daily, paid-for newspaper in the world. Its Alexa rank is 735. The highest Alexa rank for a newspaper website is 91, retained by the New York Times. One must go well below the ranks of all the major social networks, and most of the big-name blog hosts (Wordpress, Blogger, Blogspot and Livejournal) to get to NYT. Wikipedia, is however, ranked 8th by Alexa - an Amazon property dedicated to tracking the relative popularity of websites.

If the New York Times really does give us all the news that fit to print (newspapers have condescension integrated even into their mottos), why then does NYT get two-thirds the traffic of CNN.com? Surely the world demands the rigour, expertise wisdom and insight proffered by the editorial staff of the NYT and newspapers of its ilk. Americans have used the TV as their primary source of news since 1963, the glitz and multimedia nature were used to explain the appeal. On the web, no distinction necessarily applies.

Perhaps, however, the world is getting messier. Perhaps there is an awakening of the fallibility of expert opinion (that is, in the case of mass-media opinion provided by a purported expert).

The mythology was the journalist was the citizen-ally against the potential corruption of our ruling elite, then it became our surrogate watch-dogs against our democratic leaders. They were, the story goes,  an essential pillar in maintaining the most important (and only essential) element of good politics - transparency.

Now, thanks to Chomsky and others, they are regarded merely as one more vested group. Owned as they are by large, vertically integrated corporations with extensive integration within government and private business. Media institutions are not our friends.

The principle threat is not from the blogosphere, mass-media is being eroded by newspapers themselves who’ve lost their way, their purpose and ultimately their reason for being.

Newspapers are made of dead tree. They’re falling without making a sound.

Uncategorized | No Comments »

I’ve been reading a variety of treatises about proposed frameworks of understanding international development - the standard, virtually canonical literature such as Collier, Easterly, Krugman etc.

I’ve also examined the primary texts of the Millenium Development Goals and corollary literature, as well as the standard charter documentation of the World Bank Group and others.

What they, and scores of other institutions and organizations have in common is a pursuit of an abstract model for understanding the problem such that they can simulate it and thus test solutions which can then be applied to reality. The assumption, unproblematically accepted, is that an accurate simulation and abstraction means the reality is understood.

Often the solution predicates the model; such as the Marshall Plan becoming, however transiently, the model for international development amongst the western world.

There is a profound problem with this as any engineering student can tell you - abstractions don’t problems, and solutions built into unreliable or erroneous simulacrum are problematic, ineffective and often damaging. They build the scale models out of chip-wood and card-board, they construct the buildings out of concrete and steel, there is both a quantitative and qualitative shift.

International development is a combination design and engineering problem - both in the literal sense of technological innovation, but also in the philosophical sense of developing solutions and identifying principles of applicability.

Plain example, few people would dispute the utility of the hammer as a tool, and thus as a solution. It’s often seen as an indispensable tool for anyone who works in construction and thus should be taken nearly everywhere.

However, availability and implementation are often indistinguishable when it comes to solutions in international development. That is, it’s very costly to have a variety of solutions readily deploy-able within a nation and thus one must be judicious in selection in light of tightly limited resources. These resources, notably, are getting tighter in the contemporary economic climate.

So solutions, such as micro-credit, which thanks to Yunus and the Grameen bank have been a boon to legion Bangladeshis, must be seen as a hammer - a single isolate solution in a specific context.

A hammer, one can easily forget, is a extremely contextualized solution - it requires a nail, material amenable to nailing and stresses on the material amenable to nailing - the fixture of materials is the solution, just as providing means for entrepreneurship is the solution, not the credit itself.

That’s why micro-credit finds itself stalling elsewhere, such as Uganda or Sierra Leone. These places lack the population densities and the social norms expected of the model - the nails, materials and stresses.

On the one hand, international development practitioners, NGOs, CSAs, IGOs etc., develop contextualized solutions which frequently fail utterly to replicate outside the narrow conditions of the original. On the other hand, international development scholars identify global trends that frame the issue of international development is a unified homogeneous gestalt - which if taken as describe is beyond the capacity of a dedicated fraction of humanity to abate, let alone solve. As the Millennium Development Goals would indicate.

International development is plainly an engineering and design problem - more literally than figuratively. Amy Smith and her D-Lab’s solution for charcoal fires in Haiti, for example, demonstrates the kind of impact a combination of insight, education and technology can render on a community and then a nation. Solutions like the Solvatten, and yes micro-credit are profoundly important.

The issue is, there is little in the way of a catalogue, of problems and solutions. There’s no easy way for a agriculture engineer to look for descriptions of problems sorted say, by number of people affected with contact information of a stakeholder and immediately get to work developing a solution or to contact people who are already working on a solution to see how they can contribute.

Further, there’s no simple way for an aid worker with a particular problem to find a catalogue of solutions with descriptions of existing implementations and specifications for requirements. What education is needed? What are the pitfalls of this strategy? How long has it actually taken and what were the estimes? What was the scope and scale of deployment?

Such domains for problem and solution interchange, discovery and synthesis are sin qua non in software engineering, it is the primary and most salient virtue of open source development.

The average person cares little whom solves the problem and care tremendously more about whether the problem is solve and whether the solution is sustainable.

Programs such as Cameron Sinclair’s Open Architecture Network and Amy Smith’s courses at MIT are good starts.  We need more and these meta-innovators need to form an integrated community themselves to share knowledge - and on it goes.

The issue isn’t that the information is hidden, it’s that it’s disorganized and massive. The amount of open Academic literature available is paltry, and what is accessible and recoverable is largely out of date. Most of the cutting-edge material is still controlled by proprietary academic publishing houses - keeping it out of the hands of African and South-East Asian academic institutions (among others). While open scholarship will go a long way to get the information to the people with the circumstance and motivation to act on it, I think simply churning out literature is insufficient since it doesn’t address the underlying issue of quickly identifying and resolving problems in a highly contextualized fashion, while keeping the “customization costs” near zero.

What exactly the tools would be and what form they would take elude me - but I think it’s an important question and I think part of the answer lies in the open source movement and the tools (both technological and social) it has developed to handle the informational and labour scope, complexity, diversity and atomicity.

Uncategorized | No Comments »