Occam's Razor vis-a-vis Theory of Algorithms

This is a brilliant, compelling short film on Occam's Razor.  We may witness something or hear something, and immediately our imagination and fears run amok, and we think the worst of it.  It's the stuff of conspiracy theories.  So, in my reading of Occam's Razor, it's about turning to the simplest, perhaps most common explanation for something.  I love the fact that art - film, in this case - helps us grasp a scientific and philosophical concept.

(image credit)

The origins of what has come to be known as Occam's Razor are traceable to the works of earlier philosophers such as John Duns Scotus (1265–1308), Robert Grosseteste (1175-1253), Maimonides (Moses ben-Maimon, 1138–1204), and even Aristotle (384–322 BC).  Aristotle writes in his Posterior Analytics, "we may assume the superiority ceteris paribus [all things being equal] of the demonstration which derives from fewer postulates or hypotheses."  Ptolemy (c. AD 90 – c. AD 168) stated, "We consider it a good principle to explain the phenomena by the simplest hypothesis possible."

Phrases such as "It is vain to do with more what can be done with fewer" and "A plurality is not to be posited without necessity" were commonplace in 13th-century scholastic writing.  Robert Grosseteste, in Commentary on [Aristotle's] the Posterior Analytics Books (Commentarius in Posteriorum Analyticorum Libros) (c. 1217–1220), declares: "That is better and more valuable which requires fewer, other circumstances being equal... For if one thing were demonstrated from many and another thing from fewer equally known premises, clearly that is better which is from fewer because it makes us know quickly, just as a universal demonstration is better than particular because it produces knowledge from fewer premises. Similarly in natural science, in moral science, and in metaphysics the best is that which needs no premises and the better that which needs the fewer, other circumstances being equal."

Reference: Occam's Razor.

In Theory of Algorithms, I have posited that we encounter difficulties, when we attempt to solve a complex problem with a simple solution and when we attempt to solve a simple problem with a complex solution. This particular algorithm speaks to the importance of matching the level complexity (or simplicity) between problem and solution.

So is Theory of Algorithms antithetical to Occam's Razor?

Not necessarily.  In fact, Theory of Algorithms abides by Occam's Razor to a large extent.  It's about finding the algorithm, that is, the most parsimonious explanation or rule, to account for something, someone, or some situation.  For example, when estimating how long it will take to travel somewhere, finish a task, or complete a project, I use the simple algorithm of multiplying that time by two or three.  For the much of my purpose, I don't need to arrive at more specific or precise figure.  Rather, this simple algorithm has improved my time estimation drastically.

(screen shot)

My cautionary note is this: We must not misinterpret or misapply Occam's Razor?  What Herr Professor says above is crucial.  Finding the simplest solution to a complex problem does not mean we ought to arrive at simplistic or simpler solution.  In other words, an explanation derived from Occam's Razor may be rather complex, but it's the most economical or parsimonious one to help us grasp a particular phenomenon.  In this respect, Theory of Algorithms and Occam's Razor very much resonate with one another.

The Crucial Balance of Reason and Emotion

I have tended to be more of a cerebral guy than an emotional one.  I love to think, to learn, and to solve.  I remember my wife and I having conversation many years ago about which nanny to pick to take care of our little girl.  She asked me, "Do you like her?"  One particular candidate, that is.  I replied, "It doesn't matter whether I like her or not, but the question is whether she is right for Eva."  It was dispassionate decision, in other words, for me, but more of an emotional one for my wife.  A few years later, I went so far as to say to friends that the way to my heart is through my head; if they can stimulate my mind and engaging in an intelligent, thoughtful conversation, then they had my liking.

But to be honest, I, like my wife, felt more than a bit of worry and anxiety at entrusting the care of our daughter to a stranger.  In time I came to appreciate that emotion was an inevitable part of being human and was therefore an inviolable part of the decisions that all of us humans have to make.  What balance to strike between thought and emotion, and how to account for both for any given decision, is a personal one.  By personal, I don't mean it is always an individual decision; but, as was the case with Rebecca Stephens in her TED Talk, how she came to decide to scuttle her job and climb Mt. Everest instead took into account others who were going to climb with her.  The emotional push for Mr. Everest notwithstanding, she did have to think through how she was going to support herself financially.  But note how she navigated tough decisions while on the mountain, that is, taking it step by step, assessing conditions and risk, attending to emotions vis-a-vis the Death Zone. 

The cautionary note from Stephens is a crucial one: Avoid being in an emotional bubble.  Sometimes too much optimism or confidence, underpinning a (false) sense of security, coupled with a narrow view of things and an underlying competitiveness can all conspire to get us into serious trouble, whether on the mountain or in the workplace.  Therefore, much as we ought to include emotion in making decision, we must not let it dominate our thinking but instead keep it in proper balance with reason.

The Crucial Balance of Focus and Notice

(image credit)

Is Too Much Focus a Problem? is an instructive discussion from Working Knowledge of the Harvard Business School.  To hear self help authors and management consultants talk is to think that focus is the pièce de résistance of a successful life, leadership and business.  Not just these, but also friends and colleagues have advised me to do this very thing, because as they see it I'm working on way too many things.  At best, these well meaning folks see just half of the picture:

But sometimes focus can be detrimental to our health, both individually and organizationally. For example, Jerome Groopman, in his book How Doctors Think, advised us as patients to ask what might be the most important question of our lives when consulting with a doctor who has reached, and too often focused mentally on, a diagnosis and method of treatment. The question we patients should but rarely ask is, "What else could it be?" It's a question designed to disrupt focus.

Max Bazerman, in his new book, The Power of Noticing, concludes that excessive focus, among other things, is one of the reasons leaders fail to notice important facts relevant to their decisions. To make his point, he cites the popular example of an audience of leaders asked to focus on counting the number of times that a ball is passed among a group of people being shown on film. In the middle of one version of the film, a woman with an umbrella walks through the middle of group. Invariably, far more than half of viewers focus so intensely on the ball that they fail to see the woman with the umbrella. They are better focusers than noticers.

My take

Whether it's attention and concentration, perception and memory, knowledge and understanding, our capacity to think is limited.  One manager I knew spoke about keeping things simple and practical so frequently that it became clear to many of us that he had a narrow view and weak grasp of things.  But it isn't just someone like him, but rather all of us clamor for simplicity as a natural default in out cognition or intellect.  So it is easier for those self help authors et al. to encourage people simply to focus than to undertake a more complicated review of our wide ranging issues and priorities. 

At the very least, it is also important for people to step back, and notice, and ask What else is there?  Take our eyesight, for one.  We have an ability to direct our attention, but we also have peripheral vision at our disposal.  Young drivers are schooled on this very matter, as they learn to navigate a car through a maze of roadways and traffic.  CEOs, in particular, must abstract such a lesson, and keep their eyes and those of their people on the prize, so to speak, but must also develop their peripheral vision, for example, for emerging market trends, competitive moves and technology developments.  In an optimal scenario, CEOs need to focus and notice at the same time.  But if that simultaneity is impractical or difficult, then I advise them to step back regularly.  Once a quarter, as one reader suggested in the above article, is not enough in this rapidly shifting landscape.  Once a week, or once a day, even for just a few minutes is de rigueur.

Finally, mindfulness meditation may help.  It is about keeping a relaxed hovering attention to things around us and within us.  Practices such as T'ai Chi and yoga develop our skills at focusing and noticing at the same time.  For example, one breathing exercise I do, when meditating, is to imagine my mind is a murky pond to start.  By sitting still, keeping posture, and breathing deeply but naturally, sediments settle slowly to the bottom and the pond, that is, my mind, clears up in minutes.  That clarity is what helps notice things that I may not notice in the rush of day to day activities. 

Unlock Brain Potential, Develop Meta-Brain

(image credit)

In Part 3 - From Split-Brain, to Meta-Brain of my Introduction to Theory of Algorithms, I alluded to an innate ability in our gray and white matter to learn and change, adapt and grow over time. Researchers call it neuroplasticity. The brain, in other words, is not set in stone, but truly a living, evolving thing.

Dr. Matthew Bambling of the University of Queensland, Australia, believes that learning new things stimulates the brain and encourages it to rewire itself and change throughout life. By learning new activities our brain can develop new neural connections and thus alter its physical structure. “The brain is a remarkably flexible and dynamic organ responding structurally to everything we do, the old adage ‘use it or lose it’ might never be more true than for the brain,” he says.

Reference: Neuroscience Reveals the Secrets to Unlocking your Brain's Potential.

In brief, keeping our brains active throughout our lives is a hallmark of health and longevity.  From learning new subjects, to mindfulness meditation and community service, these things do our brain good.

In my article, I explain:

What is The Meta-Brain? It’s what I call the ability of our brain to examine itself, essentially to function as a mirror for itself.

The Meta-Brain is also able to reflect deeply on things. To see what lies below the surface, to see things that are not so visible or discernible.
 
Why is this important?

There will be people who prefer to stick with either Left-Brain or Right-Brain, whichever may be their preferred style. But to grasp, analyze and solve problems more effectively and fully, whether simple or complex, we have to develop our Cross-Brain and Meta-Brain. 

So as Theory of Algorithms aims to help us understand anything and everything, and solve any and all problems, we need not just to optimize our brain functioning, but also maximize its capacity.  There is reason to believe that we can.

At Issue with Marijuana and Tobacco

Compared to non-users, chronic marijuana users show (greater) gray matter density loss in the bilateral orbitofrontal cortex, a part of the brain that is implicated in making decision. On the other hand, users show greater brain activity (i.e. more connections) in the forceps minor, which is the white matter that connects the frontal lobes, thus facilitating communication between these lobes.

Researchers speculate that the greater activity in the forceps minor may serve to compensate for density loss in the orbitofrontal cortex.  In the short term, such compensation probably works in favor of creative types, whose work depends on greater receptivity to their surroundings.  As with any psychoactive substance, however, long term use can undermine any benefits that users see:

So, as with any psychoactive substance, users need to exercise caution, and professionals and authorities find the need to warn the public accordingly:

Many TV and radio commercials on prescription medications prompt us to consult with our physicians and duly warn us of side effects (sometimes via that annoyingly sped-up voiceover).  I imagine that if marijuana does get legalized, it will join the arsenal of pharmaceutical companies and be fashioned in commercials touting faux romanticized benefits.  I imagine such companies have already deployed their multi-billionaire eyes and ears on the legislative process. 

But another issue is more troubling to me: In the midst of legislative squabble, scientific uncertainty and corporate salivation, and also in the face of sociocultural wavering and moral-ethical scorn on the very notion of marijuana, smoking cigarettes is as legal as can be.  There is no great squabble or significant uncertainty around tobacco, and money makers have long ago been put in their place.  For example, it is well known that tobacco alters brain structure and causes health devastation (rf. Smoking harms your brain as well as your body: It leads to sharp decline in mental ability, warns study and DrugFacts: Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products).

  
Wall Street Journal reporter Jason Bellini focused on sugar vs marijuana in the above video, that is, the extent to which Americans rated their relative harmfulness.  But by far Americans saw tobacco was the most harmful among these substances.

So even as advocates work at legalizing marijuana, shouldn't they, or another set of advocates, work at outlawing tobacco?  Or should we simply halt all squabbling, and legalize marijuana, and situate it in the pantheon of substances that, oddly perhaps, speak to our freedom to choose?  After all, we Americans ought to have the final say, maybe the only say, in what we do with our bodies and what we put into it, right?  Or should we simply ban anything and everything that smacks of deleterious effects, including sugar? 

If I were Albert Camus, I'd find something patently absurd and amusing about how we, in various sectors of society, navigate marijuana and tobacco.

At Issue with "Neuromanagement"

In The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, Canadian journalist and social activist Naomi Klein discussed Electroconvulsive Therapy (shock therapy) and sensory deprivation techniques, which were efforts to alter mood and behavior via neuropsychological intervention, that is, direct manipulation of the brain.  Scottish-American psychiatrist Ewen Cameron, for example, sought to make a tabula rasa (blank slate) of the mind, essentially by 

attacking the brain with everything known to interfere with its normal functioning - all at once.  It was "shock and awe" warfare on the mind (p 31). 

Once at tabula rasa, the mind, and hence the individual himself or herself, can be programmed accordingly.  Cameron's work apparently became the foundation for CIA interrogation techniques, such as with prisoners of war. 

Tabula Rasa, by Dale Dunning

So as I read Are We Entering an Era of Neuromanagement? from Harvard Business School, I believe the corrected question is Are we re-entering this era?  Maybe we've never actually left that era, so then we're just reflecting on where we are. 

A recent study of "midlife northeast American adults" raises questions about whether we are entering the next stage in what might be termed an era of neuromanagement. In it, a group of researchers claim to have found that brain structure and the density of cells in the right posterior parietal cortex are associated with willingness to take risks. They found that participants with higher gray matter volume in this region exhibited less risk aversion. The results "identify what might be considered the first stable biomarker for financial risk-attitude," according to the authors.

It's a very thoughtful article, and as readers weigh in, it is clear that neuromanagement is an intriguing but complex subject, one that we hardly have a grip on, never mind agree on.  So, beyond this article, it's crucial to keep reflecting on it.

Human nature defies dichotomy

For decades we've had debates on whether humankind is fundamentally good or bad, saintly or evil, kindly or mean-spirited.  Me, I eschew efforts to dichotomize complex phenomena into simplistic categories, especially if such phenomena may actually span categories or even defy categorization.  My point is this: There are good and bad among us in the populace, and for sure there are degrees of good and bad within each of us.  So whenever we embark on, and utilize, technology advancements, we must account for this dual (i.e. complex) nature of who we are. 

Mind and body in dialectic

The fact is, what we do has an impact to some degree on both our psychological experience and our physiological makeup.  The ensuing impact on our mind and body then serves to influence what we do going forward.  What happens next further changes our experience and makeup, even minutely.  There is an running dialectic, in other words, between mind and body, which thinkers have long spoken about. 

Questions of privacy and intent

What underpins the excitement behind neuromanagement, I imagine, is the unprecedented insight on the brain that new technology affords us.  Increasingly we understand the complex links between what goes on outside us and what goes on inside us.  But what underpins its complexity, in large measure, is the Law of Unintended Consequences, for example, of doing a brain scan in the hiring process: What will it unearth about a candidate, which he or she may not want to unearth?  Given our voluble capacity to do good and do bad, how will an employer work make use of what may be unprecedented insight on a candidate? 

Neuromanagement is inevitable

Development, progress and insight are the hallmarks of our human trajectory over history.  But because technology often seems to outpace our understanding, even our ethics, we must proceed confidently but cautiously, and guard against those who might misuse it, even while in the midst of whatever excitement we might feel.  In brief, then, we must be careful to draw on our advancements to serve the greater good and manage efforts to deploy them for malevolent purpose.