Turkeys versus Butchers
- Login to post comments
One of my issues with the course to date is that it seemed to present a hypothetical environment in which a diverse collective collaborates openly and honestly, putting all available data on the table, to develop potential future scenarios.
My issue is that in real environments, multiple players with multiple agendas often withhold data, intentionally misinform or manage perceptions to catalyze future scenarios based on individual and hidden -- rather than collaborative and open -- agendas.
I had the instinct to react against George's comment in this week's talking-head video that the stock market crash was 'unanticipated'.
While this may be true for the majority (the turkeys), there were certainly dissenting voices predicting just such a calamity as the investment banks and their derivatives markets were being deregulated. (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/view/)
As more information comes to light about actions taken by those controlling these markets (the butchers), it seems that the resulting crises was not unanticipated -- a Black Swan -- but in fact quite predictable.
The anomaly here, as I see it, is the idea that the what was essentially a large-scale ponzi scheme was not problematic and would continue to produce increasing returns. This idea, to me, is more of Black Swan than the eventual crash -- something completely unanticipated and contrary to existing logic.
So how did that Black Swan get turned into a White Swan? And how was decision-making influenced by that shift?
Taleb's work on Black Swans brings back some of that critical element into the course (initially hinted at for me in alanajames's post on 'fear-based' decision-making):
**Taleb states that a Black Swan Event depends on the observer—using a simple example, what may be a Black Swan surprise for a turkey is not a Black Swan surprise for its butcher—hence the objective should be to "avoid being the turkey" by identifying areas of vulnerability in order to "turn the Black Swans white".**
Asif,
Even though I agree with you that the crash of the stack market was predictable by some people (your butchers), I think that the average person could not make such prediction. Therefore, I believe that when we apply that example to this course (the future of education), we should think in the following logic:
How can we better achieve our educational goals and objectives by dealing with unpredictable changes that affect educational institutions (i.e. changes in technology, economy, politics and society).
Hi Abdrahamane,
You're right of course -- and you can see some of my politics showing through here.
I guess some of the questions I'm currently struggling with in terms of decision making are:
- How is it that elites can make decisions that have such negative and widespread social consequences?
- How is it that masses of people can accept and support decisions that have such negative consequences on themselves?
- How are these phenomena accounted for in the decision-making models we've been looking at?
Dolors's comment below about confirmation bias -- the 'tendency to reject information that refutes our own ideas' -- points to one answer.
But how do others' ideas become our own even when they operate against our logic, experience and best interests?
Maybe I'm naive, but this to me is something unexpected and difficult for me to understand -- a real black swan.
So then: How can learners be prepared against such (a trend of) passive acceptance as they participate in decision-making processes that will have widespread consequences in the real world?
It has to do with leadership.
There is an elite that generates and disseminates ideas, which develops and implements projects, and a majority that, for convenience or lack of capacity, to simply accept the facts.
Being part of the elite implies the need to prepare properly for decision-making.
I think, Assif, a simple answer to the question "How can learners be prepared against such (a trend of) passive acceptance as they participate in decision-making processes that will have widespread consequences in the real world?" can only be found if we are able to answer the following questions:
*How can we offset mainstream media so people can have access to real information?
*How can we change the political process so only decisions that serve the greater good is made?
Unless we have the answer to these two simple questions, I believe we dream about effective change.
Hi Abdrahmane,
Sorry for the delayed response.
I think your questions are very appropriate:
*How can we offset mainstream media so people can have access to real information?
*How can we change the political process so only decisions that serve the greater good is made?
For me, the answers lie in three interrelated fields:
(1) journalism -- where we see more and more alternative news outlets presenting non-mainstream-ized perspectives (ie. http://www.democracynow.org/)
(2) education -- where I think we're beginning to see a fragmentation of this traditionally institutional-ized activity into small-scale, individual-centred niche training (ie. this course)
(3) civil society -- which seems to be stepping in to address and influence issues directly where governments and politicians fail (ie. the free Gaza flotilla)
As I see it, all three have been/continue to be empowered as a result of new communication technologies, which allow for the do-it-yourself broadcast and exchange of not-for-TV information, perspectives and analysis.
A good example of a group that blends all three is the Yes Men: http://theyesmen.org
On the other hand, such fragmentation produces competing narratives in each of these fields -- with the danger that societies become broken down into belief-ghettos (ie. left vs. right, conservative vs. liberal, etc.) in which little common information is exchanged.
So the question for me then becomes: is there a way that we can have both optimal fragmentation and optimal unity?
Asif, I don't think the environment is hypothetical. Just such decision-making collaboratives do exist, but they are not necessarily given, and they can be subverted. In his book The Wisdom of Crowds, Surowiecki notes that a collaborative of sufficient size and critical independence can be surprisingly robust and make very accurate decisions, even when a portion of the collaborative is trying to subvert an honest problem-solving, decision-making process. Perhaps the most dangerous subversion of the wisdom of crowds is group-think, when too many members of a collaborative lose their critical independence. I don't think this collaborative will suffer from group-think.
"(...) were certainly dissenting voices predicting just such a calamity as the investment banks and their derivatives markets were being deregulated (...)"
A same thing can happen in so many ways that, whatever its outcome, most of the time it seems surprising and unexpected.
Hi Dolors -- fascinating how we can be primed to 'expect' the most unlikely outcomes, and at the same time, how we can find the most logical conclusions 'surprising and unexpected'.
I think that a lot of this has to do with creating myths that frame our perspectives of the present and future.
And once such a myth is repeated often enough, it becomes accepted -- i.e. 'if everybody else is thinking this, then it must be true' -- to the point where we subsume our own rationality for alignment with the (alleged) group.
The WMD myth justifying the Iraq war is one example.
All of which makes me wonder about the differences between group rationality and groupthink.
It should be noted that there is a widespread tendency to reject information that refutes our own ideas (confirmation bias -Wason, (1969)-), which means an inability to visualize the problem on a new or different view.
Asif,
We live in an asymmetric world. Someone just said something to me that made perfect sense. He asked me to imagine the kite flying season in India and a wonderful sunny and breezy day where all kinds of kites, with all colors, all sizes and movements are flying in the sky. Some fly steadily through a tangle of kites, appearing seemingly at peace amongst the surrounding crises. Some are higher than the others. Some are falling to the ground after an altercation. Small children race and fight to reach the broken kites and the kite flyers struggle to battle against each other.
It is an involved experience and there is no clear judgement on what is good or bad or who was right or wrong. What is good is that we participate in the sensemaking and feel the tensions vividly. What is even better is to have an open forum to express them and perhaps influence some opinion. Perhaps it will result in change.
I think this "course" is also about that - providing the tools to engage with and think hard at the problems at hand - and to leave with some new connections and impressions.
A tad philosophical, but this is what I felt about CCK08 and now here.
Regards,
Viplav
Totally agree with you, Viplav,
But in CCK08, remember?, There were some excellent animators.
That is something that Dave does not seem to take into account in his last post, since, to motivate, he raise set some restrictions. :-(
- Login to post comments
Asif,
Even though I agree with you that the crash of the stack market was predictable by some people (your butchers), I think that the average person could not make such prediction. Therefore, I believe that when we apply that example to this course (the future of education), we should think in the following logic:
How can we better achieve our educational goals and objectives by dealing with unpredictable changes that affect educational institutions (i.e. changes in technology, economy, politics and society).