Social Mode

,

  • Below is a Washingtonpost.com article from 1-15-09 that encapsulates the events on the Hudson River in NYC that allowed 155 people to walk away for a ditched water landing in extremely chilly conditions.

    (If you don’t like this particular description of events, pick another from the 1032 that were on the web by that evening. Any assessment will work for the questions I am raising under the sub titled heading that precedes the article.)

    Determined but unpredictable

    A Water Landing

    An unlikely event plays out on the Hudson River


    Friday, January 16, 2009; Page A18

    THE NEXT TIME you’re tempted to ignore a flight attendant’s plea to direct your attention to the front of the cabin for safety instructions, remember yesterday’s dramatic Hudson River landing of U.S. Airways Flight 1549. The aircraft had just taken off from New York’s La Guardia Airport en route to Charlotte when both engines were reportedly knocked out after being hit by birds following takeoff. Remarkably, the 150 passengers, two pilots and three flight attendants were rescued.

    This crash could have been so much worse. That it wasn’t is a testament to a number of actors in the drama, particularly the pilots, that unfolded above the river’s frigid waters. By all accounts, the pilots brought the Airbus 320 down in a controlled manner, and the crew prepared passengers during what little time they had. A passenger interviewed on television said, “We hit hard!” But because of the pilots’ actions, the plane neither broke apart on impact nor sank quickly. One can only imagine the fear inside the cabin, especially after water started to fill it. That everyone got off the plane without life-threatening injury, despite the bone-chilling air and water temperatures, speaks of their pulling together in a time of crisis. The stretch of the Hudson where Flight 1549 went down is served by a constant flow of ferries between Manhattan and New Jersey. Within minutes of the plane’s entering the water, eyewitnesses said, boats were on scene to help pull passengers to safety until New York law enforcement could get there to lead the rescue.

    Federal investigators will examine the plane to find out what exactly happened. But the lesson for everyone in all this is to pay attention to those preflight instructions. “In the unlikely event of a water landing” now has special resonance.

    The events of the day were just as you heard or read about in the media. 81 tons of metal with millions of interconnected parts and environment physics malfunctioned after take off. No one has paused long enough to pose and extend answers to any of three questions…

    Do you believe this was a set of miracles or a consequence of the 437 hours of training of the pilot and crew?” Pick one…

    After a problem was detected by the pilot and co-pilot, did their behavior or intervention of Allah, Buddha, God, chance or karma etc., result in the plane landing as it did in the river?” Select the interventionist you favor…

    Did the pilot and crew depend on any other agency, including the tower, to do what they did? Select a contributor to their set of results…

    Can you explain why the consequences of this aviation event were what they were and other aviation events ended had less desirable consequences?” Please respond and share your views, beliefs and theories…

    Determined but unpredictable Hudson River landing

    –––––––

    Jan 16
  • [Update 1/20:  Here we see new details coming out on this flight… so does this change the evaluation of the consequences and behavior?]

    Most reports on the Hudson Plane Landing are very much a praise of the crew and the captain. For good reason.

    Ah, contingencies of context.   We’re assigning value to the pilots actions based on the consequences.  Perhaps if the plane had trouble with the water landing we would be criticizing his methods.

    Consider this statement from the report:

    The pilot and air traffic controller discussed options, including landing at Teterboro airport in New Jersey, the official said. Then there was a “period of time where there was no communications back, and I’m assuming he was concentrating on more important things.”

    How many times have we heard after a tragedy that this same lack of communication resulted in the disaster?

    So now, is it better to concentrate and non communicate with the controller?

    For amazement, view some of the social network shots and stories.

    Would we praise the hudson river pilot the same if the outcome were different?

    –––––––

    Jan 16
  • I wonder if I can break from the flow in this blog to posit a response on the CNN article…

    When any argument used results in the personification of the brain as an entity that ‘does’ things, the value of your verbal behavior to others gets minimalized. Brains are cellular matter that behave according to cellular chemistry and physics without any agency toward purpose, function, or order.”

    Please don’t follow the crowd and use words as if they don’t matter. Furthermore, avoid the crowd’s focus on monocausality, absolutes and Newtonian cause and effect chain-link logic. You are involved with an organ that has roughly 100 billion neural cells with 10 million attachments to each one. Noodle that if you will! The number of permutations for what is going on in the brain as a billion fibers fire in and out of synchrony with other patterns is difficult to deal with. Using simplistic metaphors is what the crowd does. Metaphors may sound succinct but they reduce the reader’s ability to grasp the enormity of the problems involved in every aspect. Behavior::neural activity::genetics::the environment and their reciprocities are complex. The subject matter has a “wow” factor but it also has a history littered with charlatans, elixir salesman and worse. Don’t follow the crowd but instead, select the empirical path rather than the path of myth, magic and dualism.

    No, these observations reported by CNN don’t abstract well.  They don’t do much but imply that a correlation is as good as a ‘cause.’ Pity. Correlations are the basis of fMRIs.

    The brain doesn’t show that people fear being different. The brain shows patterns of firings that people with letters and research project numbers after their name interpret one way or another. You still have to listen and read and evaluate what they say, write and interpret.

    • How did the brain come to fire the way it did (in that area, at that amplitude, and pattern)?
    • What impact did neural plasticity have on the firings?
    • What do the fMRI readings represent?
    • Is the same firing pattern seen in Budapest or Pogo to that stimuli?
    • Is it true of Paraná tribe members and Malaysian sea nomads?

    We are like others in groups or organizations because we are both reinforced and punished over time for our behavior in relation to their behavior. We recognize similarities (selectively) and as long as they don’t conflict with our other (selected) valued belief systems, we “relate” to that group. We diverge from social group convention for the same reasons. What is constant are the changes in the flow of what we value or what we relate to in those and other groups we attend to…which is also conditioned.

    To show the degree that things are controlled by consequences, invite a Shiite to speak at your church mission group or invite a goyim to participate in the next Hasidic  law review. Watch the group behavior.  Of course these are extremes to show an effect.  But there are subtle abstractions as well… Bring your close friends, the ones who love you for who you are… to a Monster Truck Rally.   Social contingencies are powerful!  

    That is one way to explain why some people are Green Bay Packer fans and some are Oakland Raider fans. Each sees things they value in their group and don’t value in the other’s group. Those ‘things’ are also conditioned by the contingencies the different fans were exposed to in the past.

    How else does one explain being a Raider fan?

    CNN captures Absurdity on a page…

    –––––––

    Jan 15
  • We’ve got yet another mystery of the mind revealed article in the loose today.

    The two leading theories of conformity are that people look to the group because they’re unsure of what to do, and that people go along with the norm because they are afraid of being different, said Gregory Berns, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia.”

    That is not an explanation.

    Perhaps we’ll find something of value in this article here:

    Participants looked at projections of three-dimensional objects, and had to identify which shapes were similar. As with the new study in Neuron, participants tended to shift their opinion to the majority view, although in this case the problems had objectively correct answers. The effect was also more potent in this experiment because actors were in the room to simulate a group with a shared opinion, he said.

    But brain images revealed participants were not lying just to fit in. Changes in the activation of the visual part of the brain suggest the group opinion actually changed participants’ perceptions of what they saw.

    One reason behind conformity is that, in terms of human evolution, going against the group is not beneficial to survival, Berns said. There is a tremendous survival advantage to being in a community, he said.

    This is your typical evolutionary psychology explanation.  The brain shows this on fMRI because it helps people survive.  Blah.  

    There’s little doubt that we all conform to the group.  There’s little doubt that others opinions on things change our perceptions. There is a lot of doubt about the origin of such a phenomenon and whether it helps or hinders survival.

    This particular aspect of behavior falls into the bigger bucket of how we learn, within and outside of a group.  We get conditioned and reinforced and punished and all that.  This applies to social behavior as well as to the process of developing that social behavior.

    What I mean is that, perhaps this “groupthink” is simply conditioned.  Perhaps the brain isn’t hardwired after all but becomes so after we condition group think behavior (don’t be different!).  That’s a more plausible explanation than the mind is wired for community!

    What stinks so much about these types of reports and experiments is they don’t abstract well at all.  There are no first principles presented here.  We get a collection of “in the brain we see this”, but nothing that applies to all sorts of different behavior.  This is in the face of a lot of data and experimentation and field studies suggesting that learning is consistent in all sorts of situations and species.  More specifically, if I say “we fear being different” how does that explain any other behavior other than in the context of this experiment?  If i have to specify a rule like that for every behavior, i gain nothing by my research and really explain very little.  And it isn’t the truth that we fear being different.  If you have children you learn pretty quickly that we condition children to start “seeing differences”.  and we condition the fear in our schools, media and homes.  I’m not making a moral argument here.  The fact is you have to learn which features you can differ on and be shown how to differentiate and attach value to those differences.  Yes, a child can tell different colors and different face shapes and different voices.  But they do not attach values to them like “oh, being different is something I should fear.”  We shape that.

    Maybe I’m wrong though.  I don’t want to be different, ya know.

    Going with the flow – aka Operant Conditioning

    –––––––

    Jan 15
  • There is a lot of spew about ‘behavioral economics’, the ‘behavior’ of markets, the psychology of markets, etc., and that ilk in pop media as well as ‘professional’ journals. All bring to mind that you can say almost anything if you don’t have to substantiate it. For the most part these type articles fill the vacuum left by disciples NOT having any scientific and empirical approaches to apply where needed. Most tell the reader little of value and almost all promise to understand the future enough to predict it. Yes, red flags all for those trying to figure what the heck is going on out there [in the world].

    Niall Ferguson has written a book “The Ascent of Money” and, far from being a primer on Money 101 from this Harvard faculty member, his book is a set of deposits and balance statements on selected facts on loot, dinero, change, coin, or money and how it works with almost no relevance to the global financial meltdown (1-15-09).

    So that you can appreciate the basis of what is going on out there financially and be entertained at the same time, I have enclosed the beautifully done PBS 2 hour documentary for online viewing. It is outstanding! Not in its profundity but in its scope. It was done (filmed, edited and packaged) before the death knell of current markets was sounded and it can’t possible live up to the expectations of those seeing it now through pauper’s glasses who are looking for THE ANSWER

    The sections follow a sensible sequence: the history of money, trust, credit, bonds, stocks, insurance, real estate, globalization, hedge funds, computer models of investing, and “behavioral” finance. In reality the whole thing is about behavior; there is less focus on disciples of finance, economics, banking and risk management. See what you think. Let me know and I’ll respond to your thoughts and critiques.


    http://www.pbs.org/wnet/ascentofmoney/featured/watch-full-program-the-ascent-of-money/24/

    “The Ascent of Money” – Video is yours to assess for FREE

    –––––––

    Jan 15
  • Could there be a worse example of science and science reporting than this joke?

    Intrigued by the connection, psychologists Simon Jones and Charles Fernyhough of Durham University in the U.K. designed an online survey that was e-mailed to university students. The 200-plus participants, most of them women, answered questions such as “How often do you drink … brewed coffee?” and ranked the relevance of statements such as “I have had a sensation … that I left my body temporarily.”

    200 participants via emails at a university?

    And we can’t come up with alternative theories as to why coffee drinkers at universities might have hallucinations?

    Scary that it takes so little to get published.

    Whoa! Did anyone else just see that?  Holy crap, I just saw myself floating….

    where’s my coffee?

    Caffeine Induces Hallucinations, uh, yeah, uh…

    –––––––

    Jan 13
  • Alexandra Penney is featured on CNN today.

    Public reaction to her reaction to having her “life savings” wiped by the Madoff situation surprised her.

    This is a great example of how the rules we all play by are specific to our own contexts/situations in life.

    In reading the CNN piece and Penney’s writing you might say:

    • God, she still has a lot of money
    • Why would anyone fall for Madoff
    • Madoff isn’t in jail?!
    • Why do ponzi schemes work?
    • What a whiner
    • Madoff should rot in hell
    • …

    Penney seems to be really offended. The justice seems to be really light on Madoff.  Madoff seems to have really had a lot of people who trusted him.

    Our perceptions of that reality are 100% dependent on our own history.  We will almost always be surprised by others reactions in such conflicting contexts.

    Madoff-ed? Or learning truth is contextual?

    –––––––

    Jan 9
  • Though the book, The Reader by Bernhard Schlink, is over a decade old it is back on the front table and topshelves again because of the movie version.

    In short: this is a fantastic book. You should READ it before seeing the movie.

    Writing a review of the book poses a challenge because of how the story develops and the content of the story.  To write to0 much about the story itself would destroy some of the experience of reading it.

    It’s a mere 200ish pages, reads in probably a long night of reading or over a period of 3 or 4 nights before you go to sleep.

    Yes, it is a love story and crime story and a slice of history piece.  It has all the trimmings of lost love, failed dreams, shame, moral dilemmas and truth seeking.  It is not remarkable in style or story arc or character development.  The Reader startles you in the conclusions it doesn’t draw.

    What a sad story, I thought for so long. Not that I now think it was happy.  But I think it is true, and thus the question of whether it is sad or happy has no meaning whatever.

    – page 217, The Reader

    I brought to it my world view and in that context I found a sympathetic story to my belief that we are not objective, autonomous humans capable of rising above the environments and realities of our own situations.  Truth is contingent on context.  Our justice systems, historical accounts, and romantic relationships can’t escape this fact.

    The Reader Review

    –––––––

    Jan 9
  • I was going to title this “Not found @ 2009 Consumer Electronics Show…” but I’d get punished.

    People invest in training for their education, work, entertainment and even lifestyles. The society as a whole invests billions in training and education for all its children and encourages more of it after high school. Collectively, corporations spend hundreds of billions of dollars on training of all levels; from simple tasks (MS Office) to the ultra complex (Billings fMRI certification). Training can be hands-on, case studies, role-play, webcasts, podcasts, virtual, instructor led, eLearning, Learning communities and even blog solutions groups. Then there is mentoring for individuals to complement sales training, technical training, service training, partner training and vendor training.

    Professional athletic organizations spend billions of dollars globally each year to train not only the muscles of their athletes but the way they think about themselves, their competitors, and how to handle work-life balance issues that can be anything but normal. The ‘natural’ athletic ability of athletes like Michael Phelps, Tiger Woods, Paton Manning, Dana Torres, and Mario Williams comes at the price of eight+ hours of practice a day for years in order to be an over-night success. People watch super athletes perform a bevy of athletic feats and too frequently ascribe their behavior to a “natural ability” rather than to intense training in multiple areas that is required to do what they do. The US Olympic Training Center in Colorado Springs, CO, has classes for athletes on handling the media, food, injuries and anger. Organizations also spend millions more to learn new methods of training world class athletes for elite competition in every sport imaginable from both forms of football, baseball and basketball to lesser but intensely played X-games, tennis and ping pong.

    All this time, all this money and all these people invest daily in what they can learn today that will take them to the next level tomorrow. They are all committed to acquiring whatever will improve performance, profit, presentation or information that will serve them in the pursuit of what each of them is organized to value.

    However when any of these individuals, groups or organizations are presented with the learning and conditioning rules that apply to their training there is push back and denunciation conditioning. While even a grade school track coach knows how the Krebs cycle affects a ‘kick’ at the end of a 440, they know next to nothing of the methods of reinforcement and avoidance, chaining and fading, discrimination training or schedules effect those they train. Even the arguments against the use of conditioning and learning techniques as being relevant are learned using the very contingency management they deny is involved.

    So, am I missing something? Did we all learn to read blogs by reflex? Was divination involved in finding the right partner to marry? Was it always their ‘motivation’ or was it due to a ‘calling’ he turned that MBA from University of Colorado into a creative design position for www.getgreen.com?

    The value for us is that learning and conditioning is everywhere. It is harder to find a behavior that didn’t come about due to past consequences than it is to keep up with pop logic that eating chocolate is good for me or that purging is a disease. Please! The effects of learning and conditioning are everywhere; drug cartels, congressman, Joel Osteen, Rev. Wright, moms, brothers sisters and you too.

    Maybe we ought to take the rules of learning seriously in order to understand the big stuff about what the heck is going on in the world. Then we can start on the tough stuff.

    Find me a behavior that was acquired without conditioning and I’ll pay you money.

    Good enough for Education, Business and Sports

    –––––––

    Jan 9
  • Yay! A useful post on techcrunch!

    As a friend of mine said:

    Consumer magazines, on the other hand, sold for only 1.5 times revenues and 8 times EBITDA.
    worked

    That’s a bigger stat than it might appear.

    But we already knew that.

    What isn’t so obvious in all this madness is that digital properties are far harder to defend than well established offline.  Sure the world has changed, but no acquiring company should ignore defensibility as people go digital.  Though the multiples are high now eventually very real difficulty of maintaining audience for the long term will start to bring these multiples down.

    For instance, CNET is not a good buy at that valuation.  They are built mostly on SEO and some older properties.  {traffic profile} They will be hit badly by this ad recession AND they have very little staked out in social media (they have some minor efforts).  It’s certainly a beachhead for CBS, but the SEO game will collapse eventually – it already is for a lot of people.

    Think about that insane investment!  1.8 billion for maybe 10-12 million UUs.  I’ve spent probably 10 million of investor/corporate money in 3 years and generated upwards of 20 million UUs across various properties which reeled in 35 million or more in revenue (at a 21x multiple this would be 735 million valuation).  I’m not saying that i’m worth more or have found a magic formula.  What I am saying is that 1.8 billion could have been spent far more strategically.  i.e. a bunch of micro acquisitions that have huge upside.

    Getty Images wasn’t a great acquisition either at that price.  I mean with citizen journalism, exclusives on photography are just not going to matter as much.  Getty has some nice services, but it isn’t a growth company at all.

    Sometimes the mass of these media operations gets in the way of good financial sense.  That’s the one bad part of old media going digital.  They haven’t learned from Google, Yahoo, WordPress.com… you just don’t need the same resources when the computers and users take over.  Old media has been acquiring with their pre 2009 excess money and their fear of extinction.  Unfortunately, there’s a lot of lame M and A out there which isn’t going to help old media much.

    Media Money Data Madness

    –––––––

    Jan 8
Previous Page Next Page

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Social Mode
    • Join 99 other subscribers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Social Mode
    • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar