“Forbidden Planet”, the Movie: a Metaphor for our times
and a Cautionary Tale for “Cognitive Assistants”1, 2?
In the 1956 movie, the extinct Krell are described as having had highly moral conscious minds, and vastly advanced technology that they developed to provide huge benefits to their race. However, they failed to take into account their unconscious minds that could control the destructive uses of their powerful technology. The inadvertent empowering of their unconscious resulted in the destruction of their species.
The human race, although striving to develop science and technology in ways that can empower the individual and society, fails to take into account that they’re also empowering the primitive, lawless, darker sides of humanity (criminals, terrorists, and other predators) whose aim is to enslave or destroy any and all groups that stand in the way of their power or are identified as “the other”. Is the Global War on Terror an ultimately doomed attempt to roll back the indiscriminately empowering technological clock?
There are some very brilliant and thoughtful people warning us of the dangers of Artificial Intelligence (AI)3. Is the harnessing, and possible enhancement, of the power of the conscious and unconscious minds from the development of Cognitive Assistants endangering our existence through empowering our dark sides as a result of these linkages? More specifically, should access to some types of Cognitive Assistants be tightly controlled to prevent exploitation by predatory governments, companies, criminals and terrorists?
1 A Very Brief History of Cognitive Assistants (http://service-science.info/archives/3618) by Jim Spohrer
2 Help Wanted: Creating a New Era of Computing (http://www.slideshare.net/spohrer/aaai-talk-on-cognitive-110714b) by Jim Spohrer at 2014 AAAI Fall Symposium
3 However, I’m here NOT referring to artificial intelligence “consciousness” (whatever that is)
Harvard Business School Sociologist Amy Cuddy’s TED Talk has been viewed over 9 million times
She speaks about how “Body language affects how others see us, but it may also change how we see ourselves.” and how ” ‘power posing’ — standing in a posture of confidence, even when we don’t feel confident — can affect testosterone and cortisol levels in the brain”. She specifically addresses how various forms of ‘power posing’ affect ourselves, not how they may affect others, as the latter may have both positive and negative consequences, depending on the circumstances.
“I don’t sing because I’m happy; I’m happy because I sing”. — Wiliam James.
Pastor Randy Willis asks: “how this fits with religions/cultures that emphasize postures of humility such as bowing, kneeling, laying prostrate, etc.” (Cuddy responds that she is VERY interested in this question)
My comment in the TED discussion, in response to Willis’s question:
In my 2006 AIAA presentation on a “Value Proposition for Space Programs” (discussing how to get people to commit to a multi-generational Space Program, a vision and a cause greater than their individual self-interests) I suggested considering “Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs in which the lower ‘deficiency needs’ are complemented by the higher ‘growth needs’. Maslow’s later Hierarchy included the need to know, understand, and transcend one’s individual needs through connecting to something beyond oneself.” Maslow believed that “Self-actualization preceded self-transcendence”, hence the very top of his later pyramid is “Transcendence”.
Perhaps the lower 7 ‘needs’ require more pride, confidence, and power (hence the corresponding body language), whereas the top level, the “need to connect to something beyond oneself”, to transcend oneself, requires humility and the wisdom to merge one’s identity into a “higher power”. The body language of humility helps to affirm, especially to oneself, that connection and release of the ego.
I like to say “there’s a yin and yang of everything”. Perhaps humility is part of the yin that is actually more powerful than the ‘yang’ power required for the lower 7 levels of the pyramid. Lao Tzu describes this eloquently in the Tao Teh Ching, e.g. “Nothing in the world is softer and weaker than water, yet for attacking the hard and strong, nothing can be better”.
In a way, bodily expressions of humility may, in some circumstances, be much more “meaningful” (hence empowering?) than bodily expressions of power.
My tweet a few days ago: Why it shapes you? Maybe our Unconscious is being programmed, by ourselves, in two ways.
1) our Conscious Decision to assume a ‘power pose’ is both a result of an unconscious intention which then “feeds back” a message to our unconscious that we, also consciously, have chosen to be more powerful, and
2) our body language sends a (positive feedback) message to both our conscious mind and unconscious that we are in fact more powerful.
This may imply that the programming of our unconscious by our conscious decision to be more powerful may be sufficient to make us feel, and be, more powerful, even whithout changing our body language.
Going one step further Dumi Pyo asks Cuddy: Can only ‘imagining’ powerful body language change ourselves, too?
Cuddy answers: “we’re running that study right now. There is good reason to hypothesize that simply imagining oneself in a power pose may produce similar effects”
Here’s my “anecdotal evidence” in support of that hypothesis, just one data point for that study: When I was first learning to teach, to make speeches, and give presentations at conferences, in order to overcome the fear of public speaking, I taught myself to imagine I was “leaning into it”, to address the audience. It feels like a rotation of a facet of my mind (as well as my body) to bring forward what I call my “public speaking persona”. It subjectively feels very kinesthetic, including a feeling that my face as well as my body are involved in projecting power and mastery. It definitely works. It’s very effective in changing my state of consciousness, and reducing my nervousness. A cousin of mine who’s a psychiatrist told me it sounds like I’m describing self-hypnosis.
- TED talk by Amy Cuddy: “Your body language shapes who you are”, on.ted.com/dRyQ
- “Rediscovering the Later Version of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs: Self-Transcendence and Opportunities for Theory, Research, and Unification”
by Mark E. Koltko-Rivera Review of General Psychology 2006, Vol. 10, No. 4, 302–317 http://goo.gl/ZUptl
“I think that blithe optimism about technology’s powers has evaporated as big problems that people had imagined technology would solve, such as hunger, poverty, malaria, climate change, cancer, and the diseases of old age, have come to seem intractably hard.
I. Who says we can’t solve big problems? If I measured my child’s height, and then measured it again a week later, my friends would laugh at me if I complained to them that my child wasn’t growing. Who’s to say what the appropriate time-constants for change are, in such a huge dynamical system as our World? About a hundred years ago (only a hundred years!) the son of a President of the United States died because his blister became infected, and there were no antibiotics. That our progress isn’t shared by all is indeed a tragedy, but there’ve been many huge problems solved in the past 100 years.
II. Who’s to say that we can choose which problems are solved first, and legislate when they must be solved? That level of control over nature and mankind is indeed a very Western conceit. The “illusion of control” makes us impatient with all the small incremental steps we take as we slog through the swamp of reality, one step back for each one+ step forward. cf. The Tao Teh Ching
III. Perhaps there are seeds of an answer in Pontin’s MIT Technology Review article “Why We Can’t Solve Big Problems“? I suggest looking at the 3 orthogonal dimensions: 1) Leadership, 2) Technology, and 3) Stakeholders. The Technology is probably almost there, no? The Stakeholders are extremely diverse, many perceiving that they’re involved in zero-sum games, hence hindering cooperation. Finally, could it be that the Leadership is sorely lacking. A Leader (or Leaders) must have the charismatic power and legitimacy (of a JFK) to craft and impart a Vision that can mobilize the stakeholders’ buy-in, and the economic and political power to galvanize the Technological machines of government, education, and industry.
“Without vision, the people perish” — Proverbs
From the above ruminations, I suggest that the issues are more a matter of Will, Leadership, and Sustainable Commitment to a Vision, rather than technology, education, or short-sighted venture capitalists. We’re now in a period of technological consolidation. With hindsight, you wouldn’t want to fault the likes of Bill Gates, Richard Branson, or Warren Buffett when they were amassing their huge fortunes, that are now being directed to the betterment of mankind.
One day, one of Socrates’ students came to him asking, “a friend is thinking of getting married, would you advise him to marry or not?” Socrates replied, “by all means he should marry. If she’s a good wife he’ll be very happy, if she’s a bad wife, he’ll become a philosopher.” Socrates was well known to have a shrewish wife. The story tells us quite a bit about Socrates, himself. Taken at face value, it clearly indicates that his marriage problems stimulated his efforts to elevate his mind above personal circumstances. Although he probably inherited his very strong constitution from his parents, he may have developed his extremely strong mind through coping with his domestic life. In any case we can speculate that, in some sense, his students constituted his family.
“Adversity makes men, prosperity makes monsters” — Victor Hugo
Socrates’ trade was stone-cutting. From Xenophon’s and others’ reports, we know that he was physically very strong and stoic, along with his strong constitution. In addition there likely wouldn’t have been an expectation that he’d become rich, famous, or a leading politician of Athens. Hence he was free to think his own thoughts, make his own path, and not be embarrassed by his lack of wealth or other forms of worldly success. There were little or no constraints on his life-choices. Furthermore, he had no need for others to agree with his ideas.
Socrates’ value system included friendship as one of the greatest ‘possessions’. Freedom and independence must have also been high on his list. One surmises from his refusal to accept payment for his teachings that the very act of discourse was highly satisfying to him. He may well have been extremely verbal and extroverted.
I think that the following story, demonstrating Socrates’ strength of mind is particularly interesting and inspiring. A contemporary observed that following a military defeat of the Athenians, as the soldiers retreated back to Athens, almost everyone appeared very dejected and depressed, as one might expect. But not Socrates; Socrates walked upright, with a strong bearing that gave no indication of defeat. (I’ve sometimes said: “Don’t be so weak minded that your attitude is completely determined by your circumstances”) His self-discipline was clearly not limited to his physical behavior, but extended to all aspects of his mind. Socrates never stopped acting as a mentor and role model for those around him.
Socrates observed that food, sex, wealth, and other apparently pleasurable and valuable things can make a prisoner of the person who enjoyed them. In fact, he noted that they often lead to problems and pain, after the initial pleasure. His mind and will were so strong and logical, that he was able to act upon his conscious observations and conclusions. Very few people are able to control themselves and exert such strong self-discipline. One might say that he had an undivided will. There seems to be no indication of one part of him warring against another part. When Socrates ‘made up his mind’, he made up his entire mind. Confucius (who died 9 years before Socrates was born) would have described him as a complete man.
“If a man remembers what is right at the sign of profit, is ready to lay down his life in the face of danger, and does not forget sentiments he has repeated all his life when he has been in straitened circumstances for a long time, he may be said to be a complete man”
— Confucius, Analects, XIV.12
References: (examples of Leaders & Wise Men ‘made’, not ‘born’)
- The Dalai Lama and Krishnamurti were chosen as young children to be raised as world leaders of religion. Their upbringing molded and formed them, successfully! (Alternatively you may choose to believe that Krishnamurti’s “aura” alerted the Theosophists to his destiny, and the Dalai Lama is truly a reincarnate spirit. Frankly “I don’t know”)
- Intelligence and How to Get It: Why Schools and Cultures Count Book by Richard E. Nisbett
This post includes the October, 2012 response I submitted to the US “Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity” (IARPA) Request for Information (RFI), IARPA-RFI-12-04
The RFI was in support of “Strengthening Human Adaptive Reasoning and Problem Solving (SHARP)”
“A Humanistic Art of Thinking: Better”
Based on interviews I conducted with over 20 leaders of Modeling & Simulation, Systems Analysis, and Analytical Techniques for a number of multi-billion dollar Space and Defense Programs, it became clear to me, and to them, that there is a pressing need to re-evaluate and make explicit the common baseline of definitions, assumptions, methodologies & models, and analytical techniques for problem-solving. This was true even for those very highly qualified upper level managers and subject matter experts (SME’s).
How people think is a very personal, often sensitive topic usually jealously guarded and shrouded in mystery, even to the individuals themselves. Nonetheless, there is a teachable Art of Thinking, as attested to by many books and essays throughout history. What distinguishes a great mind is beliefs, images, passions, attitudes, and habits of thought, with the willingness to consciously choose techniques that work, setting aside those that don’t, even if it forces them out of their “comfort zone”.
“The difference in the success of men, is the difference in their methods.” — Ernest Dimnet in “The Art of Thinking”
Our suggestions are pragmatic, psychological, and pedagogical rather than scientific and technical. In defining what we suggest as the meta-system of interest, we consider the relationship of what’s often described as “hardware”, “software”, and “wetware” (the latter being the physical brain), plus the “Database” of relevant models, facts, relationships, tricks and techniques. By “software” we include the programming within the conscious and unconscious mind. We also include in the meta-system the mentor, guide, or instructor who conveys (and ‘models’) that body of knowledge and practice in direct interaction with the students, possibly in a supportive community of learners.
We all have access to thousands of years of human experience, research, and analysis regarding how to think well. Our premise is that although much of that is well-known to those of an academic, philosophical, or intellectual bent, it isn’t necessarily widely disseminated in usable, pragmatic form among “thinking-practitioners”. The admonition that “when all else fails, read the manual” seems appropriate here. The “low hanging fruit” in strengthening human problem solving is not (only) to focus on increasing potential raw intelligence (wetware), but in identifying the useful “manuals” for human reasoning, combining useful parts into a course syllabus and organized content, and with an appropriate ‘guide/mentor/instructor’ conveying that material in what’s as much a “training” as an “education” course. In such a course, the students would have the opportunity to “model” the teacher’s thought-attitudes, methods, and processes. We suggest that the high-leverage, near-term achievable approach is to improve the brain’s “software” using a very humanistic, inter-personal classroom experience.
“The mind is a wonderful servant, but a terrible master” — Goethe
Observation: There is too much reliance on their high-intelligence among problem-solvers, and too much trying to prove how smart they are, rather than what we should be doing, which is trying to prove how well we deal with our own intellectual and emotional limitations. A basic premise here is that there are specific thinking and problem-solving knowledge and skills that can be learned, with a practical outcome of enhanced problem-solving in practice, i.e. improving the “programming” and “software” of the mind, rather than increasing the power of the mind’s “wetware”.
“to be an inventor you need a good imagination, and a pile of junk” — Thomas Edison
The “guide/mentor/role-model/instructor/facilitator” must have the appropriate knowledge, personality, and sensitivity. This includes background knowledge of such topics as Meyers-Briggs Personality profiles, research into ‘styles of thinking’, and possibly possessing a very right-brain, humanistic approach to teaching . We suggest designing a course that includes much of the material in a number of “Art of Thinking” books, including Edward de Bono’s books, Socrates and Lao Tzu’s perspectives, and many others’.
Harrison and Bramson, in their “Art of Thinking“ book, report that the ‘synthesist’ (dialectic) is the most rare style of thinking in the US. Perhaps Western Culture, especially US culture, would benefit from emphasis on teaching dialectic/synthesis-styles of thinking as part of improved whole-brain thinking skill development. This is particularly relevant with the increasing importance of Asian Nations, whose cultural background arguably gives them a more right-brain, synthesist style of thinking. (cf. the two Nisbett books referenced below)
“The ability to hold two opposing ideas in the mind and suspend them there without becoming confused, is the mark of a mature intelligence”
– F. Scott Fitzgerald
To develop “habits of thinking” it’s not sufficient to just know this material intellectually or academically. The thinker must “own the process”, have a firm commitment to it. Be willing to get out of their comfort zone*, ‘slow down’, avoid premature closure, value the ‘process’ as much as the ‘solution’, try to NOT be the quickest, and consciously look for how to apply a large and diverse set of potential methods and tools, e.g. look for the Yin & Yang of each new situation.
“Many of the tools of thinking are simply attention-directing tools.” — de Bono “Teach Your Child to Think”
* “If you’re not out of your comfort zone you may be learning, but you’re not growing” — ebr
1. “The Art of Thinking”
2. “Naval Operations Analysis” 3rd Edition (includes my materials on Measures of Effectiveness)
3. “Notes on Measures of Effectiveness” by E. Rockower, 1985. http://www.rockower.net/articles/MOEs_Rockower.pdf
4. “The Art of Doing Science and Engineering: Learning to Learn” by Richard W. Hamming, Gordon and Breach 1997
5. “Six Thinking Hats” 2nd Edition by Edward de Bono, Back Bay Books, 1999
6. “Teach your child How to Think” by Edward de Bono, Penguin Books 1994
7. “Systems Thinking. Applied. A Primer” by Robert Edson, 2008; Asysti.org http://www.anser.org/asyst http://www.anser.org/docs/systems_thinking_applied.pdf
8. “The memorable Thoughts of Socrates” by Xenophon
9. “Solitude: A Return to the Self” by Anthony Storr, Ballantine Books; 3rd edition (May 6, 1989)
10. “It’s not that I’m so smart, it’s just that I stay with problems longer”. – Albert Einstein
11. The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently…and Why by Richard Nisbett
12. Intelligence and How to Get It: Why Schools and Cultures Count by Richard Nisbett
13. A “Mind Map” for An Art of Thinking, Better (cf. “a bag of tricks” for problem-solving)
Consider 3 models of Systems of individual entities (think: people, computers, companies, Social Network Analysis, Network Theory, Dark Networks, … )
1) In the Analysis I offered regarding Large Organizations becoming out of touch with reality, there was the tacit assumption that individuals ‘inside’ the organization were somewhat blocked from seeing and interacting with the outside world, possibly because of more internal demands on their time, lack of visibility to the outside, lack of empowerment to deal with the outside, and an illusion of being protected from the external world.
2) In the realm of the “Network Effect”, the tacit assumption is that the individuals are not limited in their interactions with the outside by their connections. The focus is on the increased channels of communication, possibilities for collaboration, a flat organizational structure… The additional noise, spam, distractions are not usually considered (although I will address that regarding the importance of boundaries, solitude, privacy)
3) Small or large organizations where there is a strong culture of entrepreneurship, individual responsibility and ownership. Here survival is important, but the sense of urgency for innovation and growth is paramount. In an ideal situation, the organization is relatively more ‘flat’ in terms of lack of hierarchy, fewer ladders to climb, and greater exposure to the environment. There is no sense of a “zero sum game”. This is very much what I experienced at PayPal in 2000 – 2001. The company was mostly ‘surface’ (as compared to my ‘sphere’ analogy in a previous blog)… with little indication of an insulated ‘inside’ cut-off from the market.
Next, I’ll review the network effect paper I wrote in 2001 at PayPal, its relation to eBay and leveraging eBay’s Network Effect, Lanchester Theory of Markets, and concentration of power. I concluded that the best expansion strategy to leverage the network effect, and concentration of effort, was to go after one region or market at a time. Then one would more rapidly reach the ‘tipping point’ and develop an advantage that would be hard to lose.
My theory of “why large organizations are so susceptible to getting out of touch with reality?” First, a little math background:
think of the number of internal parts of the organization, the number of people ‘inside’, the number of offices, departments, and so on
think of the number of people in regular contact with the outside world, the external neighborhood, the current and potential customers, suppliers, regulators, and all of the external environment of the organization
- The fraction of the organizations people, time, and opportunities to be “in touch with reality” (as opposed to being involved with the artificial environment internal to the organization) is then the ratio of “Area” divided by “Volume”. This is then ~ R-square/R-cubed, i.e. 1/R.
Hence, the members of an organization that’s twice as large* as another will have only 1/2 the rate of contact with the external reality.
- What this means is fewer people involved with a sense of urgency for survival and growth of the organization, and relatively more motivation to “climb the corporate ladders”, and compete in a “zero-sum game” with other members of the organization.
Later, we’ll discuss the relation of this topic, with that of the “Network Effect” aka Metcalfe’s Theorem.
* 1/R if ‘size’ is based on a linear dimension. If ‘size’ is based on Volume, V then