Thursday, August 23, 2012
Sunday, July 22, 2012
Increasing Communication SNR
Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism
- Neil Postman (Amusing Ourselves to Death)
Signal to Noise Ratio can be calculated a variety of ways, depending upon the discipline, but the concept is the same. If you are transmitting data, the energy in the medium used will create additional, non-data, transmissions. We define noise as unstructured information, of which we cannot obtain usable data. Hence, the desired "signal" suggests structured and usable information. The more noise in relation to signal, the less usable the data is.
Anyone who has attended an event with a PA system is familiar with feedback. When feedback exceeds a certain level, or when chatter amongst event goers exceeds a certain level, it becomes difficult to understand the speaker. Unwanted data, however, can also create problems in our perception.
Imagine that you are driving across country, listening to a classic rock station. At some point you will cross the magical and invisible borders that are FCC broadcast domains. You may hear another local station broadcasting a Cumbia on the same frequency (channel). As you try to listen to the classic rock song, filtering out the white noise (pure unstructured data) and the Cumbia (competing data), you find that you can’t. Unfortunately you can’t enjoy the Cumbia either because it is equally impeded upon. You shut off the radio in frustration or search for another station.
If you have played around with recording equipment, or wireless data transmission, then you are also aware of the perils of excess signal. At some point increasing the amplitude (power) of the transmission exceeds the capabilities of the system and data (in this case music) becomes distorted. Not only can the increase in signal bleed over to other data, but the system can only handle so much at once. Proof that you can have too much of a good thing.
That is the situation that we find ourselves in with modern communication.
We have the ability to send large amounts of information in a short period of time; and to many people. We can send 5 IMs with machine gun speed; tap out a succession of texts that make us LOLZ to the WALLZ; post every waking thought to our facebook page; and attach a compendium of information to support our latest emailed request.
We can also tune into 24 hour news, get a million search results on practically any subject, and engage in anonymous conversations with people from around the world.
What happens when the news becomes a repetitious narrative, the search results become a sea of re-posts, and every other word used in our conversation is an expletive?
What happens when we include so much unnecessary , unorganized, or irrelevant information in our communication that people either cease to listen or the original intention gets obscured?
Communication is becoming increasingly synchronous. The onus is on each of us to consider our audience, and context, when communicating; to organize information in such a way that it can be understood and acted upon.
New tools for collaboration are coming out every-day to help us solve these issues; but tools are only useful when used correctly. Therefore, we should ask ourselves the following before we hit send:
- Is the information organized in a way that it can be easily scanned, understood, and transferred?
- Which is the best format and medium for providing this information?
- What other information will be required? Is it currently available? If not, when will it be?
- Is the communication consolidated and concise?
- Is a specific action requested?
- Is this time sensitive?
Most importantly… AM I LISTENING MORE THAN I AM SPEAKING?
Sunday, May 6, 2012
Of Language and Logic
These days I'm learning that words have power, so I'ma be specific
There was a horrible feeling I had growing up; a sudden realization that the words that I had been using, in their common context, had little to nothing to do with what I was trying to express. While this seems purely academic, let's consider a few possible ramifications of this situation:
I don't mean the difference between "verbage" and "verbiage"; nor do I care about obscure etymology or historical footnotes. I care about the exchange of ideas. We are using 20th century vocabulary to describe 21st century realities; and using language as a means of implying correlations that may not exist. This, coupled with an "Argument from Intimidation", has become a primary means of discourse that is prevalent across social, economic, and educational strata.
Having just leapt off the the precipice, into the 21st century, we better learn to fly fast.
The modern paradigm of struggle isn't one of Marxist Radicals vs Free Market Robber Barons. It certainly isn't Proletariat vs Bourgeois. Immigration reform and/or enforcement is not inherently subversive or xenophobic. Discussion of race in America is no longer "Black and White," regardless of what the media and the census might have you believe.
The ideas of the 21st century will be a deconstruction and reassembly of previous ideas; but reusing the old Opera House's windows in the new library doesn't turn a computer lab into an auditorium. Social safety nets (Food programs for working mothers, Social Security for Elderly, Medicare) need not bring about marxism. Externalizing some costs of business (roads, infrastructure, judicial system, protection of IP, education of workers, IT Backhaul) need not guarantee corporate oligarchy.
- Talib Kweli
There was a horrible feeling I had growing up; a sudden realization that the words that I had been using, in their common context, had little to nothing to do with what I was trying to express. While this seems purely academic, let's consider a few possible ramifications of this situation:
- The receiving party assumes a different meaning than what was originally implied
- Both parties share a common understanding, but a third party does not
- Unintended affiliations are made by the receiving or third party
- Ultimately we end up playing with ideas that we don't understand
I don't mean the difference between "verbage" and "verbiage"; nor do I care about obscure etymology or historical footnotes. I care about the exchange of ideas. We are using 20th century vocabulary to describe 21st century realities; and using language as a means of implying correlations that may not exist. This, coupled with an "Argument from Intimidation", has become a primary means of discourse that is prevalent across social, economic, and educational strata.
Having just leapt off the the precipice, into the 21st century, we better learn to fly fast.
The modern paradigm of struggle isn't one of Marxist Radicals vs Free Market Robber Barons. It certainly isn't Proletariat vs Bourgeois. Immigration reform and/or enforcement is not inherently subversive or xenophobic. Discussion of race in America is no longer "Black and White," regardless of what the media and the census might have you believe.
The ideas of the 21st century will be a deconstruction and reassembly of previous ideas; but reusing the old Opera House's windows in the new library doesn't turn a computer lab into an auditorium. Social safety nets (Food programs for working mothers, Social Security for Elderly, Medicare) need not bring about marxism. Externalizing some costs of business (roads, infrastructure, judicial system, protection of IP, education of workers, IT Backhaul) need not guarantee corporate oligarchy.
There are no poles, only spectra.
There are no static institutions, but dynamic and cyclical notions. Collectivism and personal property existed before Marx and Smith; they will exist after. Secularism of society does not inherently require the elimination of religious thought. The unfolding revolutions at the end of the 20th century had as much to do with realizing enlightenment era goals as it did with social change.
Now that the world has (mostly) adopted the sovereign nation state as institution; and globalization has created the need for universal platforms for trade and travel; the new frontiers will be in ideology, knowledge, control, and execution. Whereas we previously cleared indigenous populations to make way for new societies; we will be at war for access to resources and against anything that is deemed to slow progress or upset balance of power.
I speak of this rather amorally, but there will be ethical considerations that stretch beyond where to buy your coffee and shoes. They exist beyond the scope of this article.
Government will flux between keynesian and laissez-faire tactics... Individuals will flux between cosmopolitan and parochial concerns. Theory is allowed to be radical and absolute; but execution will always require pragmatism
Furthermore, all of those "101" classes gave us a wikipedia understanding of the world; they do not make us fully informed.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Why Conspiracy Theories are Awesome
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
There was once a time in which people, who quoted conspiracy theories, viewed the world from a very singular perspective. Then the "History" Channel ran out of ideas. Now I find that the most seemingly normal people attach themselves to the most seemingly odd notions. When I quietly shrug my shoulders in skepticism, they seem surprised at how much I know about the conspiracy cannon in the first place. Right now, a middle aged insurance salesman is probably telling his wife about the times that he met one of "them".
My skepticism is the product of a somewhat entropic world-view. Most higher end conspiracy theories require an acceptance of absolute power and/or capabilities. That doesn't mean that we don't all conspire all of the time. We conspire to create a new product, for a specific market, at a specific time. We conspire to win elections, wars, game-shows, jobs, and a second free sample at Costco. It may not always be evil, but there is generally a winner and a loser. Sometimes life is a zero sum game; or at-least "winner takes most". The higher the value of the desired object, the more dire the straights, and the more power that the aggressor holds will generally dictate how unethical or covert they will behave.
Why then, as a routine shenanigans caller, do I even waste my time? Simple:
The best conspiracy theory, is the one that is retold extemporaneously. All of the little bits of excess, half-synthesized, information finds its way into the mix. It is usually not a full revelation; but rather a side-note that is innocently inserted into an otherwise rational conversation. Listen closely, however, and you automatically receive an abundance of information about the other person. You know what they fear, what sides they choose regarding various social spectrums, what history is considered most pertinent to them, and what they are willing to accept with little to no valid corroborating evidence.
The daytime talk radio pundits are the best at this; and usually stay the truest to form. In a single diatribe you will hear that a national ID is the harbinger of the end times, but we need stricter passport laws to protect from terrorism. They sell credit lines to buy new furniture; but the global economic system (held up by fiat currency of-course) is designed to perpetuate slavery of 1st world citizens.
Intelligent discussion regarding culture, science, current events, religion, etc usually takes pro-active research and reading. A conspiracy theory, however, requires 15 minutes on You Tube. Since some posters want to protect their identity, you will often find a series of images; spooky music; and words displayed in a few minutes worth of editing.
The below info-graphic gives you everything you need to "reveal what the masses have yet to see".
Not all conspiracy theories complete all of the boxes, but the best ones always do.
- Robert J Hanlon
There was once a time in which people, who quoted conspiracy theories, viewed the world from a very singular perspective. Then the "History" Channel ran out of ideas. Now I find that the most seemingly normal people attach themselves to the most seemingly odd notions. When I quietly shrug my shoulders in skepticism, they seem surprised at how much I know about the conspiracy cannon in the first place. Right now, a middle aged insurance salesman is probably telling his wife about the times that he met one of "them".
My skepticism is the product of a somewhat entropic world-view. Most higher end conspiracy theories require an acceptance of absolute power and/or capabilities. That doesn't mean that we don't all conspire all of the time. We conspire to create a new product, for a specific market, at a specific time. We conspire to win elections, wars, game-shows, jobs, and a second free sample at Costco. It may not always be evil, but there is generally a winner and a loser. Sometimes life is a zero sum game; or at-least "winner takes most". The higher the value of the desired object, the more dire the straights, and the more power that the aggressor holds will generally dictate how unethical or covert they will behave.
Why then, as a routine shenanigans caller, do I even waste my time? Simple:
Conspiracy theories are the ultimate modern form of redaction.
The best conspiracy theory, is the one that is retold extemporaneously. All of the little bits of excess, half-synthesized, information finds its way into the mix. It is usually not a full revelation; but rather a side-note that is innocently inserted into an otherwise rational conversation. Listen closely, however, and you automatically receive an abundance of information about the other person. You know what they fear, what sides they choose regarding various social spectrums, what history is considered most pertinent to them, and what they are willing to accept with little to no valid corroborating evidence.
The daytime talk radio pundits are the best at this; and usually stay the truest to form. In a single diatribe you will hear that a national ID is the harbinger of the end times, but we need stricter passport laws to protect from terrorism. They sell credit lines to buy new furniture; but the global economic system (held up by fiat currency of-course) is designed to perpetuate slavery of 1st world citizens.
Intelligent discussion regarding culture, science, current events, religion, etc usually takes pro-active research and reading. A conspiracy theory, however, requires 15 minutes on You Tube. Since some posters want to protect their identity, you will often find a series of images; spooky music; and words displayed in a few minutes worth of editing.
The below info-graphic gives you everything you need to "reveal what the masses have yet to see".
Not all conspiracy theories complete all of the boxes, but the best ones always do.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Becoming Ferrous
As iron sharpens irons
So a man sharpens the wit (face) of his friend. TANAKH - Proverbs 27:17
I recently had a discussion, with a friend of mine, regarding the secret of success. Granted this was a short conversation, in which the definition of success was ill defined. Even with this lack of dialectic process, we were able to agree on the following:
Success requires leadership; and often we place too much emphasis on the "leader."
In other words; we need more "Mensch" and less "Übermensch." Assuming that "Iron sharpens iron"; one should awake, every morning, asking the question, "How will I serve as iron for someone today?"
I was once listening to a real-estate investment show, in which the host began decrying the "get rich quick" industry. As he stated, the message is one of condescension. These programs sell the concept that "You are smarter than everyone else, you have it figured out. Lets go out and prove that we are better than everyone else, because they must be stupid." He then went on to explain that there is no narcissism in success. People only provide money, goods, and services to you because of the relationship, responsibilities, and services you provide to them. If you don't know how to create symbiotic relationships with others, then you have ZERO chance of success.
Now we must define how to be iron. Since I am reading the direct hebrew translation, I understand that the word "face" is metaphorical; it still prompted my English based mind to consider how we face the world everyday. The metrics by which we are judged are derived from our relationships. Therefore we must strive not just to help each-other improve; but rather to help each other excel in the context of broader relationships.
There is no true hierarchy above. Each entity is both inclusive of, and interfaces with each-other. There is a clear proximity in how deeply each component interacts on a regular basis; and that is where the majority of your efforts will lie.
Your ecosystem partners must realize a benefit, when interfacing with the industry at large, by working with your company. Your customer is very likely relying on you to bring benefit to their customers. Both your direct reports, and the people you report to, must succeed in their goals. Every "petal" above, has responsibilities to, and expectations of, the others.
To summarize: When you help others, they help you. When determining the best way to support others, you must consider their needs; including those outside the immediate scope of your task or relationship. This is how you become ferrous. This is how you become successful.
So a man sharpens the wit (face) of his friend. TANAKH - Proverbs 27:17
I recently had a discussion, with a friend of mine, regarding the secret of success. Granted this was a short conversation, in which the definition of success was ill defined. Even with this lack of dialectic process, we were able to agree on the following:
Success requires leadership; and often we place too much emphasis on the "leader."
In other words; we need more "Mensch" and less "Übermensch." Assuming that "Iron sharpens iron"; one should awake, every morning, asking the question, "How will I serve as iron for someone today?"
I was once listening to a real-estate investment show, in which the host began decrying the "get rich quick" industry. As he stated, the message is one of condescension. These programs sell the concept that "You are smarter than everyone else, you have it figured out. Lets go out and prove that we are better than everyone else, because they must be stupid." He then went on to explain that there is no narcissism in success. People only provide money, goods, and services to you because of the relationship, responsibilities, and services you provide to them. If you don't know how to create symbiotic relationships with others, then you have ZERO chance of success.
Now we must define how to be iron. Since I am reading the direct hebrew translation, I understand that the word "face" is metaphorical; it still prompted my English based mind to consider how we face the world everyday. The metrics by which we are judged are derived from our relationships. Therefore we must strive not just to help each-other improve; but rather to help each other excel in the context of broader relationships.
I am going to restrict the following examples to a (generically structured) professional setting; but it can be applied anywhere. The key is not simply to help someone perform better, or improve their skills, but to help them apply the results effectively.
Your ecosystem partners must realize a benefit, when interfacing with the industry at large, by working with your company. Your customer is very likely relying on you to bring benefit to their customers. Both your direct reports, and the people you report to, must succeed in their goals. Every "petal" above, has responsibilities to, and expectations of, the others.
To summarize: When you help others, they help you. When determining the best way to support others, you must consider their needs; including those outside the immediate scope of your task or relationship. This is how you become ferrous. This is how you become successful.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Pop Stardom by Numbers
At 15, I bought a guitar with the money I saved from my part-time job. I was going to be the rebirth of cool; I was going to be the bridge between jazz, prog rock, and hip hop in a cool funk shell. Once I started actually hanging around musicians, I realized that it may actually be hip to be square.
The cycle, however, continued. Nephews and Nieces are now approaching the age where they want to be the next American Idol (or whatever these kids are into nowadays). I find myself wanting to give advice; but not wanting to seem dated.
There is one thing that will never go out of style. Song Structure.
It seemed passe in the 90s, and the over-rigid bane of the 00's, but good song structure takes a mediocre song and makes it good for repeat listening. Everything that has come out for that last 12 years has been so horribly mediocre, and rigid in pop repetition, that the more "experimental" artists don't really have to work that hard for our attention.
So I decided to take a relatively pop-styled song, and deconstruct it.
That's right; Amy Winehouse. Why not? it's not like she can posthumously call me a wanker; her record label has an official link that allows me to share without catching the ire of the RIAA; and this collaboration with the DAP Kings is as tightly produced as a pop song can get.
If you are listening along, via the video, you should be able to follow the chart pretty closely. Pay particularly close attention to the relationship between the drums and the horns. They are two opposite ends of the color spectrum.
So there you are kids. Sing a couplet that lasts for four bars - repeat twice. Add a refrain that compliments the original couplet (4 bars) - then repeat with a little more emphasis (another 4 bars). Next, cut to the chorus, add some flare, and learn when to remove a few elements. Congratulations, you have a song.
Oh... I should probably mention that talent, discipline, and good marketing sense help.
The cycle, however, continued. Nephews and Nieces are now approaching the age where they want to be the next American Idol (or whatever these kids are into nowadays). I find myself wanting to give advice; but not wanting to seem dated.
There is one thing that will never go out of style. Song Structure.
It seemed passe in the 90s, and the over-rigid bane of the 00's, but good song structure takes a mediocre song and makes it good for repeat listening. Everything that has come out for that last 12 years has been so horribly mediocre, and rigid in pop repetition, that the more "experimental" artists don't really have to work that hard for our attention.
So I decided to take a relatively pop-styled song, and deconstruct it.
That's right; Amy Winehouse. Why not? it's not like she can posthumously call me a wanker; her record label has an official link that allows me to share without catching the ire of the RIAA; and this collaboration with the DAP Kings is as tightly produced as a pop song can get.
If you are listening along, via the video, you should be able to follow the chart pretty closely. Pay particularly close attention to the relationship between the drums and the horns. They are two opposite ends of the color spectrum.
So there you are kids. Sing a couplet that lasts for four bars - repeat twice. Add a refrain that compliments the original couplet (4 bars) - then repeat with a little more emphasis (another 4 bars). Next, cut to the chorus, add some flare, and learn when to remove a few elements. Congratulations, you have a song.
Oh... I should probably mention that talent, discipline, and good marketing sense help.
Monday, February 20, 2012
The Chi of Getting Stuff Done
"I don't remember ever being forced to accept compromises, but I have happily accepted constraints."
I saw the best projects of my generation, destroyed by an unlimited number of ideas, starved of execution.
Our wants are dynamic. Without acknowledging constraints; we cannot get what really need. Thus; I have decided that for every requirement, I will have a constraint. The Yin and Yang of good project management.
In interest of providing an example; I used a standard "honey-do" project...building a simple birdhouse. Your personal endeavors may prove more ambitious; but will be just as in need of constraint as the mundane.
---Charles Eames
In the documentary, "Eames: The Architect and the Painter", we get a glimpse into the lives of the designers of iconic furniture; futuristic educational films; military splints; and a host of other innovations. So what lesson do the creative minds of this "super couple" have to offer?
Their process was just as much about constraint as it was creativity.
I know that it may seem cliche on the surface...but how often do we really consider constraint as a positive? Constraint keeps us from wasted resources; it turns idealism into pragmatism. Without specifying constraints, the perfectionist in us would keep our projects from being thrust into completion. After all, progress is incremental right?
I know that it may seem cliche on the surface...but how often do we really consider constraint as a positive? Constraint keeps us from wasted resources; it turns idealism into pragmatism. Without specifying constraints, the perfectionist in us would keep our projects from being thrust into completion. After all, progress is incremental right?
I saw the best projects of my generation, destroyed by an unlimited number of ideas, starved of execution.
Our wants are dynamic. Without acknowledging constraints; we cannot get what really need. Thus; I have decided that for every requirement, I will have a constraint. The Yin and Yang of good project management.
In interest of providing an example; I used a standard "honey-do" project...building a simple birdhouse. Your personal endeavors may prove more ambitious; but will be just as in need of constraint as the mundane.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)