Playing musical chairs is about as mature as playing tic-tac-toe.
The Corporate Sister hypothesized that black women find themselves at odds with each other because corporations supply them with too few opportunities. She compared it to a game of musical chairs in which the seats are being taken away, and the players fight over what remains, naively trusting that the seating arrangement will stabilize soon enough to make the game worth playing.
The following musical chairs theory has the same form, but suggests that the opportunities are more often designed for people of certain evaluative types (e.g., jobs for creative people vs. conservative people vs. competitive people vs. empathic people, etc.), rather than for specific race or gender, but racism and sexism impact who gets opportunities that are in short supply.
As a result, if there are more than enough people of an evaluative type to fill the legitimate social positions for that specialization (e.g., natural leaders), then minorities may be under-represented in those positions and over-represented in illegitimate roles specialized to the same type (e.g., in crime). This would create an especially deep evaluativism inside minorities, where the type lacking opportunity becomes associated with illegitimacy (e.g., women and blacks believing it would be improper for them to act like Steve Jobs).
There is much to be tested about this new musical chairs theory (e.g., are black conservatives less represented than other black populations in prisons?), but it is consistent with evidence gathered thus far. Medical doctors attempt to support the diversity of cells they encounter in the human body--they do not devise foods that only neurons can process, for example--they treat the human body as a wondrous design worthy of respect. In contrast, social engineers (politicians, business builders, etc.) attempt to re-think society from scratch. Rather than set the number of jobs of each type to match the number of people of each type, they let the "market" determine what kinds of jobs will be available.
Worse, because the market also determines salaries, the people competing to secure a high-paying job designed for a creative person, for example, may also include many non-creative people. Not only does this leave us with a bunch of unqualified people in high-paying jobs, but increases the number of people who lack an appropriate job. The highly creative white guy from a wealthy family who showed promise as a scientist ends-up as a mediocre database administrator, employed out of pity. Meanwhile, equal talents in an impoverished black woman are never recognized--she is labeled "handicapped" and left to the mercy of charity.
The root problem is that modern social engineers are even less competent than medical doctors. At least medical doctors can recognize the difference between a bone cell and a muscle cell, and can convince us that both kinds are valuable. Modern social engineers cannot tell who is pretending to be something they are not, and they have failed to convince us to value our differences (e.g., between liberals and conservatives). Until we develop such basic competencies, any social engineering is as bound to be quackery as medicine was a thousand years ago.
Yet we cannot stop social engineering. We live in a world of nations, corporations and churches, so there will be allocated numbers of chairs. The only way to avoid competition is to align the allocation of chairs with our natural design. We have accumulated a debt--the debt of getting ahead of our knowledge--to pay it off we must spend on learning. We must buy competence in social engineering.
You can think of this debt as a tax. Our leaders must pay by gaining competence in social engineering, and most would do so eagerly if only educators would offer that knowledge. Educators are less inclined to offer new curriculum, but could be hired to do so if the science were clear. Scientists, however, expect to be able to research whatever they want. Even if grants were aligned with social health priorities, many sociologists wouldn't know how to do the research. More innovative people need to be recruited to the social sciences, and they need to be given more effective research tools, such as in vivo EEG data of entire social groups.
There are parts of the world where the extended family still provides jobs, education, and conflict resolution. The game of musical chairs is less of an issue there because jobs are less defined, so the number of chairs for each specialty adjusts toward its frequency in the population. However, a creative person who serves as an artist in a tribe might have had an opportunity to serve as a scientist in a corporation. Lack of opportunities in tribes prevents fighting over them, but that is hardly a step forward.
Perhaps the major reason why other parts of the world end-up playing musical chairs is that we cling to the model set in those parts of the world. The social engineers in those parts of the world are born to their privilege, so they face no expectation that social engineering requires talent or science. Even the corporate world treats leadership as an art rather then as a science--leadership is seen less as the mundane activity of researching the nature of a society than as the glorious activity of devising an inspired vision.
The punishment we pay for failing to develop competence in social engineering comes not just as lost productivity, but also as retribution from those denied a seat. The modern buzzword for that retribution is "terrorism," though we experience the costs most in what we pay to defend ourselves from terrorism. People who have a seat do not engage in terrorism, so the only reason why we must engage in military protection is that social science is not sufficiently advanced to design a world that provides seats for everyone.
Our world spends over $250 billion on medical research each year. We should spend even more to understand social health, but instead spend less than a hundredth as much, as though expecting social leaders to work miracles (as doctors were expected to do a thousand years ago). Meanwhile, annual military spending hovers around $1.5 trillion.
Rather than recognize and regulate the game of musical chairs we are playing, we fight over the chairs.
Does that sound mature to you?
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Predictive Deduction: Expanding the Arsenal of Science
Here's a lesson about promoting social change: Provide tools that are easy to use.
A friend recently asked me for a link to my first online book, Predictive Deduction: Expanding the Arsenal of Science. It is still publicly accessible, but has fallen into the junkyard of ideas--the Internet Archives (click here to donate to this amazing service).
Developing this work took some of the best years of my life. My friend remembered when it was proudly displayed in the open; it was one of the reasons he wanted to become my friend. It was used in 1999 to make predictions that are coming to fruition today, including Google glass and the irrepressible unemployment rate. Nonetheless, there was a very good reason why this work ended-up in the junkyard, and there is a lesson to be learned, so I'd like to give a more practical account than I did in my post, Saving the World.
In addition to friendships, this work landed me an internship in a think-tank where I was given an opportunity to demonstrate my predictive method, and then to train senior engineers to apply it themselves. Their assessment was that the method appears to produce something valuable, but is too difficult to learn. They recommended that I figure-out how to build a computer to implement it.
Well, some ideas are too expensive for one person to develop alone. These ideas die unless a bunch of other smart people find the humility to abandon their own ideas and instead devote their lives to helping the self-proclaimed genius. There are a bunch of problems with this fantasy, so we need to generate less expensive ideas.
My current work on evaluative diversity is probably not as awesome as predictive deduction (although it may help society reach a point at which fewer ideas need to be discarded); however, anyone can take the GRIN Self-Quiz, and you don't need to be a scholar to appreciate it.
Have I learned my lesson? We'll see...
A friend recently asked me for a link to my first online book, Predictive Deduction: Expanding the Arsenal of Science. It is still publicly accessible, but has fallen into the junkyard of ideas--the Internet Archives (click here to donate to this amazing service).
Developing this work took some of the best years of my life. My friend remembered when it was proudly displayed in the open; it was one of the reasons he wanted to become my friend. It was used in 1999 to make predictions that are coming to fruition today, including Google glass and the irrepressible unemployment rate. Nonetheless, there was a very good reason why this work ended-up in the junkyard, and there is a lesson to be learned, so I'd like to give a more practical account than I did in my post, Saving the World.
In addition to friendships, this work landed me an internship in a think-tank where I was given an opportunity to demonstrate my predictive method, and then to train senior engineers to apply it themselves. Their assessment was that the method appears to produce something valuable, but is too difficult to learn. They recommended that I figure-out how to build a computer to implement it.
Well, some ideas are too expensive for one person to develop alone. These ideas die unless a bunch of other smart people find the humility to abandon their own ideas and instead devote their lives to helping the self-proclaimed genius. There are a bunch of problems with this fantasy, so we need to generate less expensive ideas.
My current work on evaluative diversity is probably not as awesome as predictive deduction (although it may help society reach a point at which fewer ideas need to be discarded); however, anyone can take the GRIN Self-Quiz, and you don't need to be a scholar to appreciate it.
Have I learned my lesson? We'll see...
Moral Diversity
You've seen the pattern: First humanity discovered the inappropriateness of discriminating on the basis of caste and noble bloodline. Then it was religion, then race, then gender and disability. Now it's species and sexual orientation--what's next? Blind to our own bigotry, we seem to discover it form by form, calling each recognition a new stage of social advancement. Witnessing such a pattern, we have to expect that there are stages beyond what any society has yet recognized, forms of discrimination yet to discover. What is the next social frontier?
The title of this blog tells you that I am putting my money on moral diversity (a.k.a. "evaluative diversity"), gadflies being a moral type. Analysis of scripture from diverse cultures shows that we have been labeling particular approaches to evaluation as "wrong" for thousands of years. When Lawrence Kohlberg developed the first measure of moral diversity, about fifty years ago, he called the orientations "developmental stages," explicitly discriminating against people with orientations he deemed lower. Lind's Moral Judgment Test (MJT), still a major measurement tool today, is designed around the assumption that certain moral types (especially that of gadflies) are forms of incompetence. Only recently have we begun to gather scientific evidence that proclivity for these approaches is built into our genes and our physiology, just like race, gender, and sexual orientation.
Like sexual orientation, moral orientation can be hidden. As with biodiversity, the protection of moral diversity requires oppressing the empowered. These facts make moral discrimination politically difficult to regulate. Yet moral diversity is so valuable that natural selection forces societies to split almost evenly into at least four different moral types. That means everyone in a viable society is in a moral minority. We can segregate ourselves, but we will find ourselves discriminated against when we venture beyond our silos. For example, conservatives will feel out-of-place at liberal parties, flower-children will feel out-of-place in boot camp, soldiers will feel out-of-place providing childcare, and lovers will feel out of place in a cutthroat negotiation. All of those people and situations are valuable to society, so we must learn to accept diversity.
I have great hopes for the benefits we could realize by adding moral diversity to the list of forms we protect.
Nations which enter the next stage of social advancement will enjoy great rewards for the political challenges they overcome. They will rise above all other nations. Their higher social advance will attract higher technological and economic advance. And here's the kicker: While previous stages of social development have been specific to diversity among humans, moral diversity applies to artificial intelligences as well. Different machines have different moral orientations. As computers take greater roles in society, they will be most able to flourish in societies which manage moral diversity. Thus, nations with less social progress will find technical progress working against them.
The title of this blog tells you that I am putting my money on moral diversity (a.k.a. "evaluative diversity"), gadflies being a moral type. Analysis of scripture from diverse cultures shows that we have been labeling particular approaches to evaluation as "wrong" for thousands of years. When Lawrence Kohlberg developed the first measure of moral diversity, about fifty years ago, he called the orientations "developmental stages," explicitly discriminating against people with orientations he deemed lower. Lind's Moral Judgment Test (MJT), still a major measurement tool today, is designed around the assumption that certain moral types (especially that of gadflies) are forms of incompetence. Only recently have we begun to gather scientific evidence that proclivity for these approaches is built into our genes and our physiology, just like race, gender, and sexual orientation.
Like sexual orientation, moral orientation can be hidden. As with biodiversity, the protection of moral diversity requires oppressing the empowered. These facts make moral discrimination politically difficult to regulate. Yet moral diversity is so valuable that natural selection forces societies to split almost evenly into at least four different moral types. That means everyone in a viable society is in a moral minority. We can segregate ourselves, but we will find ourselves discriminated against when we venture beyond our silos. For example, conservatives will feel out-of-place at liberal parties, flower-children will feel out-of-place in boot camp, soldiers will feel out-of-place providing childcare, and lovers will feel out of place in a cutthroat negotiation. All of those people and situations are valuable to society, so we must learn to accept diversity.
I have great hopes for the benefits we could realize by adding moral diversity to the list of forms we protect.
- First of all, moral discrimination is probably one of the most harmful forms of bigotry. Suddenly finding your caste, race or gender changed might be a shock, but it won't destroy you--finding your moral sensibilities replaced, in contrast, is a discovery that you've entirely lost your freewill.
- Second of all, it seems likely that most people spend a substantial portion of their time evaluatively in the closet, so ending moral discrimination would directly benefit even more people than ending other forms of discrimination.
- Third, social flourishing likely requires moral diversity. Little would be lost if all people were of the same caste or color, but a society composed purely of a single moral orientation would be like an ecosystem composed purely of plants--it would consume itself.
Nations which enter the next stage of social advancement will enjoy great rewards for the political challenges they overcome. They will rise above all other nations. Their higher social advance will attract higher technological and economic advance. And here's the kicker: While previous stages of social development have been specific to diversity among humans, moral diversity applies to artificial intelligences as well. Different machines have different moral orientations. As computers take greater roles in society, they will be most able to flourish in societies which manage moral diversity. Thus, nations with less social progress will find technical progress working against them.
Would Political Transparency Entail Moral Elitism?
Former director Michael Hayden suggested screening NSA recruits to exclude employees like Edward Snowden. This is possible because attitudes about things like transparency are not mere opinions that could change after being hired--they reflect our genes and brain structures, and that means we can recognize people like Snowden using brain scans and gene tests before hiring them.
Such screening raises some issues:
I agree that liberals have a lot more to offer outside of the NSA--in the arts and laboratories of invention, for example--so I see value in an NSA which hires mostly conservatives. The reason I support screening of NSA applicants is to maintain a minimum of diversity (i.e. diversity quotas), to ensure that it would contain minorities who would do exactly what Edward Snowden did: limit its power. For the government to hire people like Snowden is like deploying soldiers into war zones--it is necessary, despite the inevitability of personal sacrifices, civilian casualties, and unforgivable errors. Power must be challenged.
To be fair, this same argument might be levied against Snowden and the rest of the political transparency crowd. What kinds of politicians would survive political transparency? Would it be a diverse group, or would such an environment select for certain genes? I think it would select. Even if only 25% of voters care enough about authority and purity to respond to political transparency by voting against moral non-elites, that would be huge compared to modern voting margins. As it turns out, such people are conservatives, so political transparency would lead, ironically, to a screening very much like what Hayden proposed.
I suppose liberals might rally around exposed less-pure adulterers, flip-floppers, and compromisers, but representation for the immoral majority is not a viable platform. Any real political transparency would have to show that anyone supporting such a candidate is really just trying to hide their own corruption. Thus, political transparency would accomplish the same result as requiring genetic tests to qualify for elected office, or to vote.
Exclusive election of conservatives does not need to entail discrimination, however. Modern conservatives do not support withholding the vote by race or gender. If they likewise accepted the theory of moral ecology (i.e. that society benefits from diverse approaches to morality), then elected leaders would hire employees with diverse genes (e.g. both conservative and liberal), and would involve them in decision-making such that society would be protected from the problems of a purely-conservative government.
I think the question of whether political transparency would destroy our nation is a lot like the question of whether the invention of tools will destroy our planet. Tools make humanity the dominant species on Earth, and whether that will destroy our planet or not will depend upon whether we recognize the value of other species. By "recognize" I don't mean something as trivial as publishing scientific evidence and blog articles, I mean being willing to make personal sacrifices for the sake of diversity. That is far more difficult, but it is a possible social reform.
Such screening raises some issues:
- People do not choose their own genes, so filtering job applicants based on genes would set a precedent very much like filtering based on race.
- These different gene types roughly correspond to what people call "conservatives" and "liberals", so Hayden's proposal basically means turning control of U.S. intelligence over to a political group (as in the USSR experiment with communism).
I agree that liberals have a lot more to offer outside of the NSA--in the arts and laboratories of invention, for example--so I see value in an NSA which hires mostly conservatives. The reason I support screening of NSA applicants is to maintain a minimum of diversity (i.e. diversity quotas), to ensure that it would contain minorities who would do exactly what Edward Snowden did: limit its power. For the government to hire people like Snowden is like deploying soldiers into war zones--it is necessary, despite the inevitability of personal sacrifices, civilian casualties, and unforgivable errors. Power must be challenged.
To be fair, this same argument might be levied against Snowden and the rest of the political transparency crowd. What kinds of politicians would survive political transparency? Would it be a diverse group, or would such an environment select for certain genes? I think it would select. Even if only 25% of voters care enough about authority and purity to respond to political transparency by voting against moral non-elites, that would be huge compared to modern voting margins. As it turns out, such people are conservatives, so political transparency would lead, ironically, to a screening very much like what Hayden proposed.
I suppose liberals might rally around exposed less-pure adulterers, flip-floppers, and compromisers, but representation for the immoral majority is not a viable platform. Any real political transparency would have to show that anyone supporting such a candidate is really just trying to hide their own corruption. Thus, political transparency would accomplish the same result as requiring genetic tests to qualify for elected office, or to vote.
Exclusive election of conservatives does not need to entail discrimination, however. Modern conservatives do not support withholding the vote by race or gender. If they likewise accepted the theory of moral ecology (i.e. that society benefits from diverse approaches to morality), then elected leaders would hire employees with diverse genes (e.g. both conservative and liberal), and would involve them in decision-making such that society would be protected from the problems of a purely-conservative government.
I think the question of whether political transparency would destroy our nation is a lot like the question of whether the invention of tools will destroy our planet. Tools make humanity the dominant species on Earth, and whether that will destroy our planet or not will depend upon whether we recognize the value of other species. By "recognize" I don't mean something as trivial as publishing scientific evidence and blog articles, I mean being willing to make personal sacrifices for the sake of diversity. That is far more difficult, but it is a possible social reform.
Six Facts With Which to Humble Oneself
Is humility a gift? If so, how could one give it? I am convinced that we need humility like we need food and shelter.
When conflict is an essential element of a collaboration, it can be resolved only through humility. For example, eagles and mice are collaborators in an ecosystem, but the ecosystem requires that eagles kill mice. If the conflict between eagles and mice were resolved through victory by either (i.e. through an end to the killing or an end to the escaping), their ecosystem would be destroyed, and both species would lose, so a different kind of resolution is required, one that accepts lack of both victory and defeat. That kind of resolution is humility.
Human humility stems from awareness of humbling facts. In a way, humbling facts empower us, since we need humility in order to participate in something larger. However, they are not obsolesced by awareness of alternative possibilities; any valid reason to be humble is sufficient. Thus, the same facts arise over and over again in both modern and ancient texts.
Different people are humbled by different facts, so I am offering here a balanced set of six humbling facts, one blog post for each:
I gave these facts to my family and friends for Christmas (they did appreciate them), but I was really just passing along a gift I had received myself. I hope posting them online will help you to pass them along to your loved ones as well.
Next >
When conflict is an essential element of a collaboration, it can be resolved only through humility. For example, eagles and mice are collaborators in an ecosystem, but the ecosystem requires that eagles kill mice. If the conflict between eagles and mice were resolved through victory by either (i.e. through an end to the killing or an end to the escaping), their ecosystem would be destroyed, and both species would lose, so a different kind of resolution is required, one that accepts lack of both victory and defeat. That kind of resolution is humility.
Human humility stems from awareness of humbling facts. In a way, humbling facts empower us, since we need humility in order to participate in something larger. However, they are not obsolesced by awareness of alternative possibilities; any valid reason to be humble is sufficient. Thus, the same facts arise over and over again in both modern and ancient texts.
Different people are humbled by different facts, so I am offering here a balanced set of six humbling facts, one blog post for each:
- Unaided individuals are inadequate in both power and virtue.
- Pure reason is inadequate because our language is inadequate and because we fail to recognize our errors.
- We need reformers; inherited norms change across generations.
- Individual pursuit of measurable extremes (like pleasure, power, security, and prestige) backfires by escalating desire/competition.
- Proper rules include some which cannot be disambiguated, thus forcing empathy/exploration.
- Role-models are social gadflies, challenging social barriers and norms of empathy.
I gave these facts to my family and friends for Christmas (they did appreciate them), but I was really just passing along a gift I had received myself. I hope posting them online will help you to pass them along to your loved ones as well.
Next >
Estimated Time of Intellectual Disability (E.T.I.D.)
Your "E.T.A." is the time when you are estimated to arrive, so I am coining the term "E.T.I.D." for the time when you are estimated to qualify for Social Security benefits on the basis of intellectual disability. As of 2010, the U.S. Social Security Administration has been publishing statistics on the number of people who receive such benefits, people to whom the government sends money each month because their I.Q. is too low to earn money for themselves. In 2010, the E.T.I.D of 141,701 U.S. citizens had already been reached. That number raised to 476,083 in the next year. If it continues to increase 335% per year, the E.T.I.D. for people with average I.Q. will occur in 2016.
That seems unlikely--we need more than two data points--but I want to tip my hat to the Social Security Administration for continuing to track this statistic. Intellectual disability is already the leading justification behind non-worker Social Security benefits (accounting for about 46%). The I.Q. cut-off to qualify for intellectual disability benefits may be fuzzy, but, at the extreme end, we find adults unable to take an I.Q. test, because, like babies, they have not yet learned any language. As adults, responsibility for their care shifts from their parents to the Social Security Administration, who refers to them as "Adult Children." Our society cannot simply abandon these people to die, nor can we expect their parents to outlive them.
Toward the middle of the fuzzy cut-off, we find adults who require help--perhaps they are unable to read beyond the third grade level--but who are able to work as animal caretakers, laundry workers, building maintenance workers, library assistants, data entry clerks, mail clerks, store clerks, messengers, cooks, printers, assemblers, factory workers, photocopy operators, grocery clerks, sales personnel, hospital attendants, housekeepers, statement clerks, automobile detail workers, or clerical aides. I get this career list from this employer's guide to the American's with Disabilities Act (ADA), a document which clarifies that it is legal to create jobs which require higher I.Q. (e.g. robotics engineer), and thus to discriminate against intellectual disability.
Introducing Baxter, one of Time Magazine's "Top 25 Innovations of 2012". Baxter is a robot designed to eliminate jobs, starting with the easy ones. Equivalent to an unskilled laborer willing to work for $1/hour, Baxter is expected to neutralize the economic justification for foreign sweatshops--Baxter will do the sweating locally--but, according to Inc. Magazine, Baxer is also expected to eliminate 30 million U.S. jobs. That's already 20% of U.S. jobs, but add the truck and taxi driving jobs to be eliminated by the Google car, and the personal assistant jobs to be eliminated by Siri, etc., and our current 8% unemployment rate sounds really mild. I'm glad to see those jobs go--I wouldn't wish jobs from the ADA list on anyone. Also, assuming inventors in our society are limited by the costs of building and distributing their inventions, we can expect the elimination of these jobs to increase invention, to spur a new golden age by freeing the creative class from having to work with the disabled.
But, on the other hand, labor costs are not what keep the intellectually disabled from being inventors, and blaming education is misleading--the impracticality of education is the defining characteristic of intellectual disability. When we talk about retraining the American workforce for a new job market, we aren't exactly talking about teaching calculus to people who require more than a lifetime to learn even to speak, but we are talking about educating people for jobs that require higher I.Q., and that simply isn't feasible, especially if I.Q. requirements rise faster than humans can learn--it's yet another example of politicians unable to sell reality. We can either relinquish human identities (and morals) by turning humans into cyborgs, or we can put more and more human beings on Social Security. Privatization of Social Security will seem less plausible as intellectual disability replaces old-age as the leading benefit reason. For example, my most recent patent application replaces medical scribes, clearly a job for above-average I.Q. As the I.Q. requirements continue to rise, we will find that even the creative class is not competent enough for the jobs of the future.
Parts of the process of assembling Baxter robots will likely be performed by Baxter robots (oblivious to the fact that they are reproducing). The idea of similar machines actually improving their own redesign is often taken to imply a technological "singularity," a point in time when machines will surpass humans as the most intelligent beings on Earth. Most experts say this will happen in the 21st century; Ray Kurzweil pegs the date at 2045. I think it is more compassionate to forecast E.T.I.D. than to forecast the date of the singularity, because each person feels the crisis at a different time. More and more people are reaching their E.T.I.D. every day, hundreds of thousands in the last year alone, and there is something inhumane about thinking we've got thirty years before we need to start caring.
That seems unlikely--we need more than two data points--but I want to tip my hat to the Social Security Administration for continuing to track this statistic. Intellectual disability is already the leading justification behind non-worker Social Security benefits (accounting for about 46%). The I.Q. cut-off to qualify for intellectual disability benefits may be fuzzy, but, at the extreme end, we find adults unable to take an I.Q. test, because, like babies, they have not yet learned any language. As adults, responsibility for their care shifts from their parents to the Social Security Administration, who refers to them as "Adult Children." Our society cannot simply abandon these people to die, nor can we expect their parents to outlive them.
Toward the middle of the fuzzy cut-off, we find adults who require help--perhaps they are unable to read beyond the third grade level--but who are able to work as animal caretakers, laundry workers, building maintenance workers, library assistants, data entry clerks, mail clerks, store clerks, messengers, cooks, printers, assemblers, factory workers, photocopy operators, grocery clerks, sales personnel, hospital attendants, housekeepers, statement clerks, automobile detail workers, or clerical aides. I get this career list from this employer's guide to the American's with Disabilities Act (ADA), a document which clarifies that it is legal to create jobs which require higher I.Q. (e.g. robotics engineer), and thus to discriminate against intellectual disability.
Introducing Baxter, one of Time Magazine's "Top 25 Innovations of 2012". Baxter is a robot designed to eliminate jobs, starting with the easy ones. Equivalent to an unskilled laborer willing to work for $1/hour, Baxter is expected to neutralize the economic justification for foreign sweatshops--Baxter will do the sweating locally--but, according to Inc. Magazine, Baxer is also expected to eliminate 30 million U.S. jobs. That's already 20% of U.S. jobs, but add the truck and taxi driving jobs to be eliminated by the Google car, and the personal assistant jobs to be eliminated by Siri, etc., and our current 8% unemployment rate sounds really mild. I'm glad to see those jobs go--I wouldn't wish jobs from the ADA list on anyone. Also, assuming inventors in our society are limited by the costs of building and distributing their inventions, we can expect the elimination of these jobs to increase invention, to spur a new golden age by freeing the creative class from having to work with the disabled.
But, on the other hand, labor costs are not what keep the intellectually disabled from being inventors, and blaming education is misleading--the impracticality of education is the defining characteristic of intellectual disability. When we talk about retraining the American workforce for a new job market, we aren't exactly talking about teaching calculus to people who require more than a lifetime to learn even to speak, but we are talking about educating people for jobs that require higher I.Q., and that simply isn't feasible, especially if I.Q. requirements rise faster than humans can learn--it's yet another example of politicians unable to sell reality. We can either relinquish human identities (and morals) by turning humans into cyborgs, or we can put more and more human beings on Social Security. Privatization of Social Security will seem less plausible as intellectual disability replaces old-age as the leading benefit reason. For example, my most recent patent application replaces medical scribes, clearly a job for above-average I.Q. As the I.Q. requirements continue to rise, we will find that even the creative class is not competent enough for the jobs of the future.
Parts of the process of assembling Baxter robots will likely be performed by Baxter robots (oblivious to the fact that they are reproducing). The idea of similar machines actually improving their own redesign is often taken to imply a technological "singularity," a point in time when machines will surpass humans as the most intelligent beings on Earth. Most experts say this will happen in the 21st century; Ray Kurzweil pegs the date at 2045. I think it is more compassionate to forecast E.T.I.D. than to forecast the date of the singularity, because each person feels the crisis at a different time. More and more people are reaching their E.T.I.D. every day, hundreds of thousands in the last year alone, and there is something inhumane about thinking we've got thirty years before we need to start caring.
Medicalism: No One In Charge
The 2010 IG Nobel Prize in Management was awarded to Alessandro Pluchino, Andrea Rapisarda, and Cesare Garofalo of the University of Catania, Italy, for demonstrating mathematically that organizations would become more efficient if they promoted people at random. They used a computer model to confirm that when you promote people based on competence (i.e. until they stop displaying competence), you are more likely to end up with a hierarchy largely lead by people who do not display competence. This is also known as the Peter Principle.
Should we likewise expect science to produce better theories, you might ask, if we promoted theories at random, instead of based upon each theory's competence? Good question! Unlike managers, scientific theories do not climb a ladder--they either destroy all competitors or are destroyed themselves. The Peter Principle does not raise doubts about the competence of the last man standing--that person stops getting promoted, not because he/she stopped exhibiting competence, but because there was no higher position to which he/she possibly could be promoted. Thus, the Peter Principle does not raise doubts about science.
Unlike theories, however, humans are more effective when working together, recruiting their competitors rather than completely destroying them. Furthermore, while the best theories can be used everywhere, even the most competent human has limited capacity, and therefore must delegate. Capitalism nevertheless copies something from the way theories compete: like theories, new businesses aim to destroy competing businesses. The fragility of market leadership allows entrepreneurs to skip the corporate ladder, to avoid waiting for rungs to open-up. One might wonder whether this allows capitalism to circumvent the Peter Principle.
In socialism, by contrast, the only way to crush the old regime and fast-track greater competence into positions of power is through politics. In some ways, this sounds equivalent to capitalism--tricking voters isn't much worse than addicting consumers--but perhaps capitalistic success rest on a wider range of competences. New businesses can be created to leverage superior skills of science, art, engineering, socializing, beauty, foreign cultures, litigation, etc.--even politics. Socialistic economies would instead be dominated by political skills, and, because of the Peter Principle, non-political competences would be relatively lacking where most needed.
On the other hand, we don't expect the world to be that bad. We expect scientific advance to change the world, even if no competent entrepreneur or politician champions that advance. We expect our response to the theory of global warming, for example, to be settled by experiments, not by the competence of green start-ups or Al Gore. Likewise, Justin Bieber confirmed our expectation that good music can break-out even before being endorsed by businesses and politicians. In other words, we expect to see an economic system of a third kind, one in which ideas compete against ideas, and winning ideas constrain competition among humans. We expect the Peter Principle to be resolved because the competition for power among humans becomes meaningless--truth and goodness are recognized on their own merits, and they, rather than the people in charge, decide the path of our economy.
This alternative to socialism and capitalism deserves a name. I call it "medicalism", because medical theories are the ideas likely to constrain our economy first. For example, every politician and entrepreneur must ultimately succumb to the evidence that smoking causes cancer. None can be competent enough to champion smoking. I expect similar research to overwhelm our economy faster and faster as the Internet makes research more accessible. Today smokers face fees (at least in terms of insurance premiums), and I expect similar fees to arise for other health inefficiencies, more and more, until our lives become pretty much ruled by medical research (instead of by corporations or political parties).
Medicalism is a better answer to the Peter Principle because it is far less costly to have a theory, rather than a corporation or political party, supplanted. Supplanting a corporation or political party entails putting many people out of work, at least some of which are bound to be scarred by the experience. In comparison, rolling-out the next round of medical research might be as subtle as rolling-out an operating system security update. Moreover, as it becomes clear that climbing the corporate ladder does not bring power, promotions may be based less upon competence than upon health factors--something approaching the randomization strategy that performed best for Pluchino, Rapisarda, and Garofalo.
Should we likewise expect science to produce better theories, you might ask, if we promoted theories at random, instead of based upon each theory's competence? Good question! Unlike managers, scientific theories do not climb a ladder--they either destroy all competitors or are destroyed themselves. The Peter Principle does not raise doubts about the competence of the last man standing--that person stops getting promoted, not because he/she stopped exhibiting competence, but because there was no higher position to which he/she possibly could be promoted. Thus, the Peter Principle does not raise doubts about science.
Unlike theories, however, humans are more effective when working together, recruiting their competitors rather than completely destroying them. Furthermore, while the best theories can be used everywhere, even the most competent human has limited capacity, and therefore must delegate. Capitalism nevertheless copies something from the way theories compete: like theories, new businesses aim to destroy competing businesses. The fragility of market leadership allows entrepreneurs to skip the corporate ladder, to avoid waiting for rungs to open-up. One might wonder whether this allows capitalism to circumvent the Peter Principle.
In socialism, by contrast, the only way to crush the old regime and fast-track greater competence into positions of power is through politics. In some ways, this sounds equivalent to capitalism--tricking voters isn't much worse than addicting consumers--but perhaps capitalistic success rest on a wider range of competences. New businesses can be created to leverage superior skills of science, art, engineering, socializing, beauty, foreign cultures, litigation, etc.--even politics. Socialistic economies would instead be dominated by political skills, and, because of the Peter Principle, non-political competences would be relatively lacking where most needed.
On the other hand, we don't expect the world to be that bad. We expect scientific advance to change the world, even if no competent entrepreneur or politician champions that advance. We expect our response to the theory of global warming, for example, to be settled by experiments, not by the competence of green start-ups or Al Gore. Likewise, Justin Bieber confirmed our expectation that good music can break-out even before being endorsed by businesses and politicians. In other words, we expect to see an economic system of a third kind, one in which ideas compete against ideas, and winning ideas constrain competition among humans. We expect the Peter Principle to be resolved because the competition for power among humans becomes meaningless--truth and goodness are recognized on their own merits, and they, rather than the people in charge, decide the path of our economy.
This alternative to socialism and capitalism deserves a name. I call it "medicalism", because medical theories are the ideas likely to constrain our economy first. For example, every politician and entrepreneur must ultimately succumb to the evidence that smoking causes cancer. None can be competent enough to champion smoking. I expect similar research to overwhelm our economy faster and faster as the Internet makes research more accessible. Today smokers face fees (at least in terms of insurance premiums), and I expect similar fees to arise for other health inefficiencies, more and more, until our lives become pretty much ruled by medical research (instead of by corporations or political parties).
Medicalism is a better answer to the Peter Principle because it is far less costly to have a theory, rather than a corporation or political party, supplanted. Supplanting a corporation or political party entails putting many people out of work, at least some of which are bound to be scarred by the experience. In comparison, rolling-out the next round of medical research might be as subtle as rolling-out an operating system security update. Moreover, as it becomes clear that climbing the corporate ladder does not bring power, promotions may be based less upon competence than upon health factors--something approaching the randomization strategy that performed best for Pluchino, Rapisarda, and Garofalo.
Pareto Principle vs. Butterfly Effect
A pyramid scheme is an employment situation in which your personal income is basically a fraction of your personal sales and of the incomes of any other employees you have recruited. It is called a "pyramid" because employees can get abnormally high income by recruiting employees who recruit employees who sell (i.e. building a hierarchy). Standard employers similarly pay top-level executives abnormally high, but do not transfer as much risk to low-level employees. Pyramid schemes are criticized as "paying in lottery tickets" because it is all too often the case that an employee earns less than they need--a very sad story much less likely to happen with a fixed minimum salary.
In 1906, Vilfredo Pareto noticed that 80% of the peas in his garden came from 20% of the pods, and theorized a connection to the fact that 80% of the land is owned by 20% of the people. Whether you use an 80/20 rule or a 90/10 rule, the Pareto principle basically posits that equality is a fool's dream: most profits will inevitably come from a minority of workers and customers, so managers should maximize profits by targeting the elite. Pyramid schemes are basically a way of maximizing profits by avoiding the risks of hiring non-elite. Sadly, people who create pyramids, instead of standard employment, either don't understand pyramids or else fully expect it to result in very sad stories for many people at the bottom of the pyramid.
Death and Other Hardships
I've discovered a philosopher that I like: Nick Bostrom. A bunch of his ideas coincidentally appeared in science-fiction form in a play I wrote while a playright apprentice for the Theater Artists' Westport of Westport (a sort of off-Broadway Actors' Studio). I figured I should publish the play, just in case it might contain something Nick hasn't yet done better:
Teaching Ethics
To teach a class on ethics seems like a potentially unethical thing to do--what if you get it wrong? You may think you are safe if you just say, "Here are a bunch of ethical questions to consider, and here are the most cited sources in the field," but, even in that case, the structure of the class could lead students astray.
For example, the curriculum of a course on engineering ethics is expected to cover scenarios like "You are working on a product that can save hundreds of lives, and you can double its efficacy by incorporating a discovery you made while working for a former employer, but your non-disclosure agreement with your former employer forbids you to disclose such discoveries (even though your former employer will not implement them)--what do you do?" The question implies that it is an engineer's responsibility to resolve this ethical dilemma, but what if pragmatic ethics is right?
For example, the curriculum of a course on engineering ethics is expected to cover scenarios like "You are working on a product that can save hundreds of lives, and you can double its efficacy by incorporating a discovery you made while working for a former employer, but your non-disclosure agreement with your former employer forbids you to disclose such discoveries (even though your former employer will not implement them)--what do you do?" The question implies that it is an engineer's responsibility to resolve this ethical dilemma, but what if pragmatic ethics is right?
TED Talks
Hopefully, readers of Gadfly Dad already know about TED Talks, but I need to post the link just in case.
Each video is 18 minutes or less, and designed to change the world all by itself. The TED braintrust includes some of the most successful gadflies of our day. They have done an excellent job of soliciting and filtering world-class content. The categories have expanded from just Technology, Entertainment and Design (TED) to also include business, science and global issues. You can sort them by how often they are viewed, emailed or commented upon, and by nine different ratings.
Watch one right now in an area that interests you. If you've already seen one, go watch another. Challenge is good for you.
Each video is 18 minutes or less, and designed to change the world all by itself. The TED braintrust includes some of the most successful gadflies of our day. They have done an excellent job of soliciting and filtering world-class content. The categories have expanded from just Technology, Entertainment and Design (TED) to also include business, science and global issues. You can sort them by how often they are viewed, emailed or commented upon, and by nine different ratings.
Watch one right now in an area that interests you. If you've already seen one, go watch another. Challenge is good for you.
Saving the World
Science is often used to justify decisions. Specifically, it produces (probabilistic) laws that we apply to predict the consequences of potential decisions. It is appropriate to trust scientists, according to the cover-story, because they simply do busy-work for us (i.e. objectively collect observations and run calculations). I disagree--I think that scientists do far more than busy-work and that the appropriateness of trusting scientists relies on them being elites.
I've spent many years trying to improve the cover-story (and thereby empower scientific elites to save the world). Here are some writings from various stages of that endeavour. Together they show an overall arch that may inform anyone tempted to follow a similar path.
I've spent many years trying to improve the cover-story (and thereby empower scientific elites to save the world). Here are some writings from various stages of that endeavour. Together they show an overall arch that may inform anyone tempted to follow a similar path.
Growing Together
I thought of this book as my dissertation, a chance to write for the sake of learning, to advance original thought, and to establish a specialization (in my case, practical philosophy).
Each chapter offers something I want for my kids:
The questions are religious, so I tried to appeal to all faiths, including atheism; I supported every answer with both science and scripture. That might have contributed to the ineffectiveness. Feedback also suggested that people don't like to move through these ideas so quickly (maybe people slow down in interfaith situations).
Each chapter offers something I want for my kids:
- How can we become wise?
- How can we become truly free?
- How can we have the deepest love?
- How can we be at peace with one another?
- How can we gain spiritual experience?
- How can we discover purpose in life?
The questions are religious, so I tried to appeal to all faiths, including atheism; I supported every answer with both science and scripture. That might have contributed to the ineffectiveness. Feedback also suggested that people don't like to move through these ideas so quickly (maybe people slow down in interfaith situations).
Ethics for Artificial Intelligences
Since I published this paper in 2002, it has been cited in several scholarly works and served as required reading for the first course on "machine ethics" (at Yale). The book, Moral Machines (2008), covered most of the same issues with greater detail and less arrogance, and had six more years of scholarship to reference. However, its discussion of my paper could not account for improvements made in subsequent versions. For example, the paper benefited from feedback which showed me that pessimism about the future morality of learning machines is no more justified than pessimism about the future morality of our own children. Therefore, I am republishing the paper as a "knol".
The paper explains why some authorities in relevant fields are concerned that machines will take over the world in the next 10-20 years. It also discusses what we can do to ensure that machines will behave as though instilled with an appreciation for ethics, has implications for human ethics, and may explain why I encourage my kids to figure ethics out for themselves.
The paper explains why some authorities in relevant fields are concerned that machines will take over the world in the next 10-20 years. It also discusses what we can do to ensure that machines will behave as though instilled with an appreciation for ethics, has implications for human ethics, and may explain why I encourage my kids to figure ethics out for themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)