The relationship between the Validity of Natural Language Expressions and the Statistical Concepts of Accuracy and Precision

As you may be aware, I recently started reading a book that was quite the bestseller a few years ago (see e.g. my initial reaction to the quote: “The problem is that the pervasiveness of technology and mass marketing is screwing up a lot of people’s expectations for themselves: the inundation of the exceptional makes people feel worse about themselves, makes them feel that they need to be more extreme, more radical, and more self assured to get noticed or even matter“).

At first, I was very impressed that Mark Manson was apparently able to convey quite complex concepts in a very simple, colloquial language. I am now in the midst of going through the text with a more “fine-toothed comb”, to see whether I still find the ideas to be as impressive as the first time around.

Spoiler alert: Not quite.

Yet at the same time I am acutely experiencing a phenomenon that both enabled this to become such a runaway bestseller, but also is to some degree one of its primary pitfalls.

As I mentioned in the previous (“initial”) review, Mark is prone to making bold statements — and I might also add: in a very simple language, with little sophistication in his mode of expression. He begins by drawing a sketch of a drunkard literary genious — Charles Bukowski. We thereby are confronted with a wanton spirit, flailing about and occasionally hitting a nail on the head (I myself have not read much Bukowski, perhaps little bits and pieces, mainly short quotes noted in passing by some person apparently not secure enough to use their own words).

If we map out the validity of linguistic expressions, we may think of that as a scatter plot, with each expression located somewhere along axes measuring accuracy and precision (at least theoretically — I am not saying this might be simple or easy to measure). I think we can all agree that our immediate gut reaction would be to aim for high degrees of both accuracy and precision. See, for comparison, these images (source: “Accuracy and precision – Wikipedia“):

High accuracy, Low precision
High precision, Low accuracy

The point I particularly notice is what happens when our linguistic expressions are imprecise: In such cases, there may still be sporadic occasions of arguments that seem valid — for example, an expression that in a particular context seems to hit the nail on the head … but which, in a different context may appear completely baseless and untrue.

In this vein, making bold statements in a muddy or colloquial language seems to be less a work of art than making exact statements in a meticulous or scientifically explicit language. Although the former may seem easier to grasp, the latter appear more reliable.

In the meantime, I will continue to withhold judgement on Mark Manson’s words. I remain somewhat mesmerized, but unreliably so. 🙂

Posted in remediary | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

In What We Trust

You may recall a post I made a few months ago .. in which I mentioned that “I am not at all proud of the species I apparently belong to” (“I understand that this is very important to you”). Another way of putting this idea is that I have little trust in the human species (that is very general – perhaps it might be more appropriate to say that I have little trust in the vast majority of humans; there are a very small number of humans in whom I might be able to manage to have a small amount of trust in).

When the so-called “Founding Fathers” framed the Constitution of the United States of America, they were strongly influenced by an idea referred to as “Natural Law” – and it is out of the same historical context that the American currency (the US dollar) received many of its emblematic quotes – one of which is “In God We Trust”, That quote seems increasingly far-fetched as time marches on, but still most people on Earth do seem to need to have something they can trust.

Some trust in news media. Some trust in large corporations. Some trust in religions. Almost everyone trusts in something, be that the hopeful expectation that the sun will also rise tomorrow, or that gravity or similar physical properties will continue to function in the future as they have in the past.

I, myself, have for quite some time increasingly placed trust in something I refer to as “natural language” – even though it seems quite difficult to say exactly what is or isn’t such a so-called “natural” language. It seems to be a technology devised by humans – but according to the Bible, it also seems to be closely associated with the original creation (namely, God seems to have created many things simply by mentioning [or naming] them).

There are, however, a few things that can easily be identified as NOT natural language, the most prominent example being strings governed by intellectual property law. The most common of these are trademarks – commonly referred to as “brand names”, and since all “intellectual property” must comply with intellectual property laws (in the case of trademarks: trademark law), they cannot be said to follow the laws of nature. Natural law is an enticing concept, but codified rules, laws and regulations seem quite the polar opposite to being “freaks of nature”.

Nonetheless, what is deemed “natural” versus what is deemed “artificial” (or “man-made”) is largely a judgment call, much like the decision whether or not to consider humans to be a part of nature itself.

Let me get back to the way many people place trust in currencies and other financial instruments. Some people will “take money to the bank”, others will bank on a currency’s hard value by investing in it (this happens in the “bond” market, and is thereby also closely associated with interest rates).

There is a weird overlap between trust in language and trust in money: very masterful artisans of language have what is referred to as an ability to coin phrases (this is often said to be the case, for example, of William Shakespeare).

Likewise, as I am feeling very confident and bold right now, I will go out on a limb and hypothesize that all financial instruments actually do represent something, whether that is a valuable metal, a piece of livestock, a share of ownership in a corporate entity, or whatever. This is very similar to the way in which words and more generally languages represent things. Words and languages are instruments, tools, … and even more generally: a communications technology. We can invest in communications by investing in words and language. These investments take place in marketplaces — more specifically: linguistic communities.

And this is where I hope to close the circle: Those of us who trust in written language and those of us who trust in the Internet, we trust in the governing bodies of the organizations referred to by the strings we use on a daily basis. I trust in “com” (which is managed by Verisign) and I trust in “blog”(which is managed by Automattic) and also in many other strings (which are managed by a wide variety of registries). Yet I do not trust them equally, any more than I would be so foolish as to trust all currencies or similar financial instruments equally. Some registries are very general organizations, other registries are very specific organizations. Some have very well defined organizational structures, other organizational structures are more loosely circumscribed or even cryptic. They are all very different, and I place different degrees and modes of trust in these different phenomena, just like I differentiate between mountains and machines, mice and men, moons and magnetic fields.

Posted in remediary | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on In What We Trust

Obscurity is an issue we all have to deal with

It’s been almost two decades since Tim O’Reilly wrote “Obscurity is a far greater threat to authors and creative artists than piracy.” That article mainly dealt with issues of copyright and similar intellectual property laws – and one point where his observations and the observations I aim to make here seem to agree is the view (i.e. perspective, opinion, etc.) that the legal framework may not matter as much as the attention (and similar behaviors) of end users, consumers, etc.

I have been thinking about this general topic for several weeks now, and perhaps you may find it surprising to hear that my thought processes along these lines began by thinking long, hard and deep about the marketing concept referred to as “unique selling proposition”. I aim to actually argue that people should not aim to be individuals as much as they should view themselves as members of communities.

What Tim O’Reilly’s quote above says is that authors and other creative artists cannot exist in isolation – their existence crucially depends on interactions with communities of people who are willing to interact with and thereby support their work. Fans, consumers, target audiences, … – whatever you want to call these people, marketplaces, ideas – the community of engaged participation matters a lot.

Being an individual, being unique, separated, censored, cut off or even ostracized may be the worst thing that could happen to an author, a creative artist or even anyone at all.

We do not solve any social or societal problems by removing an individual from our community. A death penalty does not solve anything as much as it creates a new problem: it turns us into murderers. One death does not cancel out another death. Instead: Each and every individual murder adds up – the cumulative total only grows into a larger number, a bigger problem, … — more death.

Let’s imagine how there are about 8 billion people on Earth. In some ways, we already are a global community, and in other ways we aren’t. Each and every person alive is breathing as we speak. Yet each of our own spoken language is a little bit different than the speaking of others. This may be due to our voice, our accent, our dialect, … it may be due to a wide variety of reasons. Indeed, I think it’s quite reasonable to expect that for each and every one of us, there are more people we cannot understand at all than there are people we can understand, be understood by, communicate with sufficiently to have a sense of mutual understanding with.

There is no reason for individuals to take pride in splendid isolation from one another. We ought not to celebrate our unique individuality as much as we should stand in awe, wonder and amazement if and whenever we feel we are able to come to a common understanding, to reach agreement, to collaborate and help each other.

So please: Do not lose sight of your fellow participants in each and every one of our common and shared experiences!

Posted in remediary | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Obscurity is an issue we all have to deal with

Hope & Change: Flipping the F-word & Removing the Old-Fashioned R-word

I have an important announcement to make: I’ve learned something — and what I learned has helped me to change my course.

Many years ago, I started using Facebook (in large part because one of my friends said “facebook” was college slang for ‘[student] directory’ — and indeed, it may have been that at the time [I think ca. 2007] ). Shortly after that, I started using the R-word to describe the way it (and also similar media properties) work(s). However, my description was not well understood, and it caused a lot of confusion (eventually leading me to publish a clarifying article).

Yet the article stuck with the R-word — and therefore it remained disconcerting to most who read it.

Many years went by, and then along came a big man who talked a lot about a big schtick which he referred to as “fake news”. I felt vindicated. The big man became a leader, and then all of a sudden there was much more recognition for the phenomenon referred to by the F-word (which was essentially the same thing I had been referring to for well over a decade with the R-word).

Well, today I am introducing a new and improved R-word: “rational”. There are many positive things about this new R-word — and especially positive is that it already has a widely accepted polar opposite: the negative term “irrational”.

I have never liked the I-word — it didn’t really makes sense to me, because I always thought that there is actually always some sort of logic to irrational thoughts (who knows? maybe this was an irrational idea? 😉 )

But my insight today is indeed newfangled: Maybe “rationality” is not a matter of the way individuals think, much in the same way that “language” is not a matter of the way individuals understand themselves, but rather a matter of how members of a community understand each other.

So from now on I think I will refer to “rational media” vs. “irrational media”. I wonder whether people will immediately understand this to mean that “gobbledygook” like “facebook” and/or “google” are irrational – I hope so!

Posted in remediary | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Hope & Change: Flipping the F-word & Removing the Old-Fashioned R-word

I understand that this is very important to you

One of the texts on my “summer reading” list was “The Plague” (by Albert Camus). I had never read anything of Camus’ before, and I was stunned by his immense ability to explicate intricate details of human thought and behavior, and also very eloquently at that:

this attitude implies that such actions shine out as rare exceptions, while callousness and apathy are the general rule [1]

Albert Camus, “The Plague”

I am at a point right now, where I sense callousness and apathy from all sides, while I go under in a pool of bullshit as if I were sinking in quicksand.

One of my central missions, ideas and struggles over the past couple decades has been raising awareness for the illness I refer to as “retard media” (you would not be severely wrong to equate this with what many other people refer to as “social media”, but you would actually be largely wrong – for more on this, see my definition of “retard media”). Recently, Netflix published a documentary called “The Social Dilemma” – and this documentary echoes a lot of what I have been saying all along (except that the proposed solution is actually quite remarkably along the lines of “more of the same”).

More of the same bullshit: What a dismal outlook for humanity. I have said for many years already, that I am not at all proud of the species I apparently belong to.

Retard media is not the only catastrophic disaster happening in our world, but regretably it’s one most people don’t get — let alone do they realize that it is indeed a catastrophic disaster that works like a catalyst, a steroid to boost the power of humanity’s ignorance of other catastrophic disasters most humans seem very callous and apathetic towards. Boost the power! Boost the power of ignorance – that is what humanity has come to. I distinctly remember sitting on a sofa with my brother and sister, sometime in the last millennium, watching a weather report during a hurricane event. The weatherman was babbling on about some statistics, and then said something like “let’s see what our reporter out on the beach is experiencing” … and I commented “let’s go to the videotape” … and my bother completely cracked up. Of course kids today may have never even heard of the expression “let’s go to the videotape”, but there was an era of sportscasting highlights where this expression was as regular, ordinary and standard as greeting someone on the street with a “hello” or “good day”. Today, the expression shines out like a rare antiquity of a bygone era, but what remains standard is the monetization of the incredible, the sensationalist, the clickbait.

There’s a sucker born every minute” seems as steadfast today as the day P.T. Barnum was alleged to have said it, centuries ago.

This week, an online friend said / wrote to me (essentially – I have slightly changed the wording, in order to protect the privacy of my friend … but the meaning of the statement is, IMHO, still the same): “I understand that this is very important to you” — and added that this is simply not on their radar – not in the slightest (*). At first, I was very appreciative of their apparent empathy, but then on second (or maybe third) thought it slowly began to dawn on me what the significance of “to you” in this expression is (after all, following Zipf’s insights into the economics of expressions [in particular the one known as the “principle of least effort”], there must be something to motivate someone to express those two additional syllables which would alternatively seem superfluous). Also following Gricean maxims of implicature, it must be that “this” in the above expression is apparently deemed not important in the standard case.

Is that callous or apathetic? Or is it really just me?

(*) Here I would like to note that this perspective on my work is not at all a “rare exception”, but rather that it has been the incessantly repeated callousness and apathy I have come to know only too well, staring me in the face non-stop, day in and day out.
[1] The full paragraph reads (in English translation): “But the narrator is inclined to think that by attributing overimportance to praiseworthy actions one may, by implication, be paying indirect but potent homage to the worse side of human nature. For this attitude implies that such actions shine out as rare exceptions, while callousness and apathy are the general rule. The narrator does not share that view. The evil that is in the world always comes of ignorance, and good intentions may do as much harm as malevolence, if they lack understanding.”
Posted in remediary | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on I understand that this is very important to you

Patronizing Patrons Outside Your Own Community vs. Being a Patron Inside Your Own Community

One of my good friends (the kind that actually try to push back on the kinds of things I often say) has been hammering away for some time at my attitude – sort of calling it patronizing.

I beg to differ.

But before I address that, let me note something about “patronage”. I think this general term means vastly different things in different contexts or from different perspectives. I think it has a lot to do with “in-group” (“we” / “us”) vs. “out-group” (“the others”) perspective. From a narcissist’s point of view, patronizing attitude is a “looking down upon” the out-group. I can sense this perspective if / when I think about the others being fooled by propaganda, for example. In this case, they are / become the patrons of propaganda and thereby consume it as factual, unquestionable, etc. Being a patron in the context of communications, understanding or similar exercises in enlightenment means clarifying, contextualizing, contributing to “sense-making” (much in the tradition of Brenda Dervin’s use of the term).

Much of what I say here was precipitated on a discussion between Joe Rogan and Melissa Chen, broadly about free speech, but in particular and quite poignantly their agreement that if people shut down free speech, then it is often because of an attitude of patronizing others (i.e., to use Joe Rogan’s words):

“Those people are dumber than you; you’re smarter; you know better; you need to stop these people from being tricked [by propaganda]” [#1427 “Melissa_Chen”, 1:01:55; the discussion of this topic begins @ just shy of 58 min.].

Another primary factor in this analysis is the separation into “in-group” vs. “out-group”. For our purposes here, we will simplify this as a simple demarcation of linguistic communities – and we need not get into the precise specification of dialect, slang, jargon,etc. sub-communities. For us, it will suffice to paint the picture in broad strokes without getting caught up in the fine details of ands, ifs, buts, etc.

Now if people look at others and point fingers, saying the other people think this way or that way, then I think this is patronizing. I feel this must happen when anyone functions as (takes on the role of) writers or readers. The writer or the reader treats each other as others – as dialectical partners. If communication channels are closed (as they typically are in the case of retard media), then the linguistic communities are separated. If, on the other hand, communication channels are open to participation, if community engagement is possible, welcomed, even desired and warm invitations are expressed and clearly communicated, then participants who actually do engage and communicate are thereby contributing to the discourse and engaging in the development of the shared, common language. I believe my own work (i.e., what I refer to as engagement with “rational media”) falls into the latter category. The former is patronizing, the latter is being / acting as a patron of the shared / common language – in the development of mutual understanding, by engaging in negotiation of meaning.

If / When I point out that retard media is built on a “propaganda” model, I do not patronize the patrons of that business model – they inflict that upon themselves by engaging / participating in that community. The institutions patronizing them are the advertisers (those who are responsible for the advertisements), not the persons who observe / point out the way advertising industry works, the way the participants in that industry are behaving, engaging, interacting, etc. with their targets.

Posted in remediary | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Patronizing Patrons Outside Your Own Community vs. Being a Patron Inside Your Own Community

Automatism + Automaticity – What is my role?

While writing the previous episodes, I wondered how other people would react to them. I decided to publish them even though I think most people are not very concerned about the well-being of others. I expect most people will react with something like “what do I care what happens after I die? I only want money here + now while I’m alive”.

Whether that’s labeled as “self-centered” or “egotistical”, I don’t care to make that judgment call – many will gladly refer to something like Adam Smith’s notion of “enlightened self-interest” (or more current might be Lily Allen’s “Everyone’s at it” 😉 ).

What has become more clear to me is how people’s behavior probably masks some much more deeply held beliefs (in the sense of repressed thoughts). People do not so much try to defy nature or evolution as they try to cover up their own fears or discomfort with feeling small or insignificant. They do not want to go out on a limb and risk being laughed out of the room.

Therefore, they will not play the Holy Fool, but rather play it safe and agree with the majority. The bandwagon effect capitalizes on these fears and insecurities to foster compliance with the proposed propaganda regime.

I am happy that I have now figured out an explanation for the observed mainstream compliance that does not require me to explain it with illiteracy. This allows me to maintain that it is at least possible that some people are not illiterate, but rather that they perhaps simply choose to make what seems to be irrational decisions for some other reason.

Posted in remediary | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Automatism + Automaticity – What is my role?

Automatism + Automaticity – Let’s do this right!

In the previous episode, I raised some concerns about how automatism and automaticity affect us, our technologies and therefore also the world in general. I quoted a line from Malcolm Gladwell’s most recent book, “Talking to strangers” – but I didn’t mention how he noted that although Holy Fools (people who are foolish enough to criticize the social order when they sense that something is wrong) are necessary, they are not sufficient (in his words: “we can’t all be Holy Fools” [19:10] ).

Mr. Gladwell’s book is mostly about communication between individual humans (this is also known as “interpersonal communication”). This is a very important technology, but it is not the only technology we need to think about. Automatism is also a crucial technology – and I think we need to pay more attention to it.

We can hopefully all still recall from our biology classes in school that the process of evolution includes several aspects. One fundamental pillar to the way evolution works is the aspect of variation – and this does indeed echo Gladwell’s sentiment that a homogeneous population of only Holy Fools would probably not work very well. In the theory of evolution, survival of a species depends on enough variation within the species to ensure that the species does not completely succumb to an attack from one vector.

My understanding of computers leads me to believe that this is a significant difference between machines and evolutionary technology (also known as “life” 😉 ). While life thrives on variation, machines thrive on standardization. Half a century ago, the pioneers of the Internet Age made a decision that recognizes this vulnerability inherent in computer technology – and therefore they built an Internet that was based on a principle of decentralization (and thereby implicitly also a system based on trust in the evolutionary principle of strengthening by variation).

While it may be acceptable to dismiss the occasional Bernie Madoff as a cost of doing business, a Bernie Madoff every day is a different thing. Or even worse: an existential threat. In any case, relying on one monopolistic technology is not a recipe for success – or even survival.

We have years, decades, even centuries long legacies of technologies based on “one right way” of thinking – and it’s easy to see why. Against a medieval backdrop of unenlightened quackery, witchcraft and whatnot, the Enlightenment delivered astoundingly reliable results. Newton and the like delivered mathematical formulas, scientific methods, accuracy and precision. True and false became undeniable facts.

Folk psychology is the kind of crude psychology we glean from cultural sources such as sitcoms — but that is not the way things happen in real life.

Malcolm Gladwell, “Talking to Strangers”, chapter 6, audio version 26:20

In real life, true and false are very far from being undeniable facts. One might even argue that undeniable facts are not undeniable facts. Today the widespread fanatical devotion to data is no longer tempered with a reasonable understanding of how data collection actually works.

The expression “it’s complicated” is perhaps the quintessential embodiment of the kind of insight we need more of now – more than ever. We need to say goodbye to “one right way” and we need to say hello to diversity, variations from norms and differentiation in algorithms.

Differentiating in algorithms means becoming aware of context, realizing that different perspectives require different qualifications, understanding that variation in nature requires variation in (and in particular: qualitative) measurement. Otherwise, all those numbers will only glaze over and we won’t be able to distinguish apples from oranges.

Doing this right requires many right ways, not one right way.

This also means that an essential requirement for doing this right is that we need to accept and embrace complexity. This is something that has traditionally become ever more marginalized in the modern scientific method – modern science has traditionally preferred simplicity to complexity. Is that because of our own way of thinking? Is human automatism at odds with the automatism of natural evolution?

[thank u, next]

Posted in remediary | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Automatism + Automaticity – Let’s do this right!

Automatism + Automaticity – 20th Century

If you thought my previous introduction was dark, then if you use your imagination a little to color in the details of what comes next, then you may actually begin to lose your faith in humanity – but I choose to spare you such sketches, because I myself don’t even want to have to stomach such gory images of reality. *

Throughout the 20th Century, there was much interest in automatism and automaticity. The beginnings of this interest can easily be traced far back into the 19th Century, but rather than meticulously detailing the historical background, let me point out that the interest in these topics was from several different sources. Industrialization generally raised interest in machinery and automation. At the same time, Marxist ideas contrasted capital with labor. There was also much scientific interest in logic and reasoning, and finally there were also significant scientific advances in medicine and also in related fields such as psychology.

By the middle of the 20th Century, a new industry known as “media” had become established – and this new industry (with roots in publishing dating back several hundred years, ultimately to the invention of Gutenberg’s printing press) was strongly aligned with and likewise strongly based in capitalism. This led to much research and development in promoting and increasing the productivity of capital investment, resulting in less interest in human-centered (“humanist”) analyses (final result: more interest in profit maximization).

In this context, there was an increasing divergence between machinery and automation on the one hand, and human interests (including notions of “humanity” and “humane behavior”) on the other. Increasingly, humans became an input into algorithms focused on maximizing other measures, such as output or profit. Today, automatism is popularly viewed as a dystopic Luddite horror story rather than in a context of scientific fascination with natural phenomena.

The ideal scenario in this scheme is the “making money while you sleep” image, that of a fat slob sipping a drink, gazing at bathing beauties, while relaxing under a palm tree along the beach on some remote island beside a laptop tallying up the money rolling in as dumb laborers in some grungy industrial town far away work in sweatshops to scratch together enough money for rent, food, clothing and maybe every now and then a cigarette.

You just assumed that someone was paying attention.

Nat Simons of Renaissance Technologies, quoted in Malcolm Gladwell, “Talking to Strangers”, chapter 4, audio version 12:52 [talking about the Bernie Madoff ponzi scheme fiasco]

Apparently, no one was paying attention to the ponzi scheme fraud perpetrated by Bernie Madoff – nor to any of the dozens of cases of crimes against humanity documented in Malcolm Gladwell’s book. There are many many more cases throughout the 20th Century where apparently no one was paying attention. In most industrial countries a large portion of the population ingest chemicals to help them pay less attention, produced by industries making ever more profits. Is this a case of automaticity in action? Is this good or bad, right or wrong?

Many industries reap large profits by manipulating information such that humans automatically behave in ways reminiscent of Pavlov’s experiments with dogs. These industries are able to reap so much profit, that they are willing and able to invest large sums into research and development – not about products or services, but rather about marketing products and services to consumers willing and able to pay for them, leading to more profits for these industries. Is this a case of automaticity in action?

When we utilize a search algorithm, are we aware of the way that search algorithm works? A few years ago, I asked Matt Mullenweg to pay attention to this question. There were thousands of software developers in the room – you could hear a pin drop. Later, several developers spoke with me and laughed at how absurd it was for me to question Google’s authority in this field. Is this a case of automaticity in action?

The 20th Century is over, but we need to be aware of our roots. There are legacy technologies. Each legacy technology potentially gives rise to its own distinct legacy automaticity. We are morally accountable for our decisions to use a technology, or to refrain from using it. If Greta Thunberg can choose to cross the Atlantic Ocean in a boat, you can choose to behave rationally the next time you search for information.

We are free to choose. Will we choose the automatism of a Pavlov dog? Sometimes, yes. Always? Well, maybe we ought to ponder the alternatives a little more….

* I am reminded here of Susan Sontag’s excellent “Regarding the Pain of Others” – if you need a little more disgust in your life, I recommend picking up a copy.

[thank u, next]

Posted in remediary | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Automatism + Automaticity – 20th Century

Automatism + Automaticity – First Thoughts

Automatism and automaticity are “real concepts”, but they are not widely used … or at least not widely used everywhere in the same way.

One of the fields where these concepts are most widely used is in the broad field of medicine (or even more broadly biology). Here, the conceptual nomenclature is sometimes more focused on automatism, sometimes more on automaticity – but in either case it is primarily concentrated on how the central nervous system signals certain processes to function automatically. This might involve simple things like breathing or regular heart functioning, or also more complex behaviors such as jumping when startled or walking without precisely being aware of the movements of our limbs, feet, the muscles involved, etc. Although I am by no means a specialist in these fields, my impression is that such automatism / automaticity are very fundamental, basic functioning – closely associated with the brain stem, the amygdala, “lizard brain” thinking, etc. My gut feeling impression also leads me to believe that there are good reasons for such automatism / automaticity to have been useful from an evolutionary perspective (e.g. jumping up into a tree might have been a good way to survive at one point in time).

Let me fast forward hundreds of millennia, or maybe even a couple million years to the present. A few hundred years ago, there were many technological breakthroughs (for example: the printing press). Soon thereafter, many related developments led to what many people today refer to as “democratic government” – what is usually referred to here is what Tom Paine meant when he wrote “in America, law is king”. Of course the Magna Carta was also a law that could be relied on, but these new forms of government introduced and expanded constitutions and similar legal rule-based systems greatly. Today, we live in a world that is to a very significant degree based on written laws. Oddly, human lives are from this perspective actually controlled by written codes.

The way I see it, both of these phenomena are about automatism / automaticity. In both cases, things that happen … happen automatically.

Indeed, there are (in my humble opinion) many phenomena throughout the everyday lives of humans, perhaps throughout all of life in general which are embedded with principles of automatism / automaticity. One of the primary reasons we aren’t talking a whole lot about them is that these things seem invisible to our awareness, or perhaps so blatantly obvious that we don’t ever mention them because we’re convinced they must be plain and simple “common sense”.

These days, such “common sense” attitudes seem to becoming more widespread. People who have been following my writings for a while will probably not be shocked to hear me say that I have been becoming increasingly alarmed at the apparently unbridled naiveté with which the vast majority of the online population surfs the World-Wide Web.

Yet my incessant discussions with friends about issues related to my exasperation over the overwhelming degree of illiteracy and the continued lack of enlightenment with respect to rational information-seeking behaviors have now led me to what I consider to be a truly rewarding outcome: Automation is not inherently good or evil; and it is a human moral imperative to pay attention to “right automation”.

What does that mean?

I don’t know yet, but I want to find out. One method I would suggest to start off with is by process of elimination – right automation is not wrong automation. I would say that first hypnotizing someone and then commanding the hypnotized patient to drink a lethal dose of poison ought to obviously qualify as wrong automation – and I would add that there do seem to be such prohibitive laws in cases of torture, inhumane acts, etc.

I hope that such extremely dire cases of depressing despotism are rare. I expect that we will increasingly pay attention to increasingly reasonable logic, rationality and reasoning as we think more and more about methods that could be automated, that ought to be automated and so on.

For example, consider search algorithms: Do we want search results to show links to any result based simply upon how much money will be paid (whether by us or by someone else)? Or based upon whether sufficient money is paid and whether the person (or computer or smartphone or robot or whatever) searching is in the United States, Europe or some other location? Do we always want the same results, or do we want the types of results we get to depend also on our own wishes? In other words, do we want to have several algorithms at our disposal – such that we would be free to choose which algorithm we want to use right here, right now, right for us? These are just some more or less random examples; I hope I will be able to figure out a somewhat more rational approach to the vast field of possibilities in some kind of reasonable way.

Let me end this first essay with such an exercise in rationality. I will use the term “automatism” to refer to the actual automation development process. For individual instances of automation, I will use “automaticity”. I think this will be roughly equivalent to the evolutionary terms “ontogenesis” (or here, “automaticity”) and “phylogenesis” (in this case, “automatism”). I think this distinction is worthwhile because I expect there might be cases in which it would make sense to think about the principles that underlie the evolution of automation versus the automaticity of any particular automaton.

[thank u, next]

Posted in remediary | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Automatism + Automaticity – First Thoughts