Currently, I'm reading Black Swan. I think the manner in which the book is written is very problematic, and for an illustration of the problem with that book, a similar problem from the book Traffic:
What do you do when you approach a two lane merge? If you are a Good Person you get in the through-going lane as soon as possible and wait your turn to get through the bottleneck. You are at the same time enraged at the Jerks who rush up the lane you've left open and cut in line at the final merge point. You may even become a little (or a lot) angry and refuse to allow them in, drive in both lanes so they can't get by, etc.
Bottle necks are angering and it turns out that the problem is you, Good Person. The traffic will get through more quickly if both lanes fill up and cars alternate at the final merge point. The very best of humaneness and the very best of factuality directly contradict. It is a spin-off of the classic justice and mercy problem, the most vexing problem to Man and God alike.
This particular vexation is false in the grand sense in that it is created by our cultural lack of ability to create a (social) rule that matches the facts and put up proper signage to match that. However it is true in the personal sense each time a Good Person faces this problem and borders on becoming an Insane (enraged, in this case) person.
When I address Black Swan, my core argument will be that it encourages people to become Insane through a similar conflict, though through a different mode.
What the hell does this mean? Are you being cryptic in an effort to confuse me? If so, Mary 1 - Troy 0.
People only have so much working memory. We can hold 7 pieces of information in our head... + or - 2. To handle the complexity of the world, we chunk information in stories, metaphors, models, etc.... All necessary, of course. While that makes information more manageable, it also removes contextuality, detail, nuance, etc.... What are we to do? We can only hold so much in our head.
The Black Swan (assume I underlined that to show it's a book) looks at how all these simplifications of complex systems change how people make decisions, where they have habitual blind spots in their analysis, etc....
This book reminds of me of Kuhn's, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, which I also enjoy.
I really like the bits in The Black Swan that talk about how persuasive we find mathematical models of things that can't be mathematically modeled. Anyone that has sat in a boardroom and heard arguments and seen huge decisions made based upon a 5 year forcast of something unforcastable will recognize the nuttiness induced by narrativizing complexity with numbers...as if that allowed to get our hands around tricky stuff.
Posted by: Troy Skinner | August 11, 2011 at 11:51 AM
I haven't been more specific because I haven't finished Black Swan and detailing exactly the problems between step A and step D is a process that will take some time. Meanwhile, a tangent for my friends who will indulge me for 250 words on the morning commute, and a tickle for my brain that I can identify another path with a similar pothole ("What is the information FOR?" Who is his audience? What does he mean for them to do?--Not think, but do. This is particularly relevant to the Traffic problem.-- His contempt for other people thinking on the same topics--they exist where he writes that they do not and therefore does not have to engage their work-- and apparent contempt for all humanity has caused him to skip these issues... to where I am anyway.) even if I have not described it completely. I promise I'm reading Black Swan with diligence, taking plenty of notes, and will put together something directly relating to Black Swan when I'm finished.
Posted by: loafingcactus | August 11, 2011 at 01:33 PM