an Can a Company be pro-regulation and pro-commerce? Gregg Renfrew from Beautycounter thinks so By brandleadership.wordpress.com Published On :: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 18:59:09 +0000 It’s the middle of an election year and, according to the Pew Research Center, the country hasn’t been this polarized since the Civil War. In such a climate, it would seem to be an oxymoron for a company to push for both financial growth and tighter regulations. Gregg Renfrew, CEO & Founder of Beautycounter, wouldn’t […] Full Article *Gabriela Torres Patiño Brand Strategy Business Values Customer Experience Event Marketing
an Reflections on Business, Leadership, and Branding: Shelly Lazarus ’70 By brandleadership.wordpress.com Published On :: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 15:20:02 +0000 Much has changed in the world of advertising from the picture painted by Mad Men. Shelly Lazarus ’70, Chairman Emeritus, Ogilvy & Mather, was one of the women helping pioneer these changes. Making the journey from ‘the only woman in the room’ to CEO and Chairman of Ogilvy gives Lazarus a lot to reflect on […] Full Article *Matthew Quint Brand Strategy Business Values Leadership Uncategorized BRITE Conference Ogilvy & Mather Shelly Lazarus
an Thinking with AND: Insights from KIND’s story By brandleadership.wordpress.com Published On :: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 16:29:46 +0000 “I’m a confused Mexican Jew.” So says Daniel Lubetzky, Founder and CEO of KIND Snack, in his very personal interview with Columbia faculty member David Rogers at BRITE ’16. Their discussion touched on the many ideas behind KIND Snacks, from the beginnings of the company, to the strategic thinking that forces Lubetzky to stay away […] Full Article *Gabriela Torres Patiño Brand Strategy Brand Value Business Values Consumer Insights Event Leadership Marketing Video
an Algorhythms for Marketing Transformation By brandleadership.wordpress.com Published On :: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 17:24:16 +0000 We all understand that digital media, data, and analytics are driving transformations in society and business. Most marketers are now armed with case studies of what can be done differently, but many are still challenged with how to truly develop new ideas and execute new strategies to grow their business. Mitch Joel, President of Mirum […] Full Article Uncategorized
an Evaluating the Effect of U-500 Insulin Therapy on Glycemic Control in Veterans With Type 2 Diabetes By clinical.diabetesjournals.org Published On :: 2015-01-01 Joseph A. GranataJan 1, 2015; 33:14-19Feature Articles Full Article
an Cutaneous Manifestations of Diabetes Mellitus By clinical.diabetesjournals.org Published On :: 2015-01-01 Michelle DuffJan 1, 2015; 33:40-48Practical Pointers Full Article
an The Diabetes Attitudes, Wishes and Needs Second Study By clinical.diabetesjournals.org Published On :: 2015-01-01 Martha M. FunnellJan 1, 2015; 33:32-36Translating Research to Practice Full Article
an Effects of Glycemic Control on Diabetes Complications and on the Prevention of Diabetes By clinical.diabetesjournals.org Published On :: 2004-10-01 Jay S. SkylerOct 1, 2004; 22:162-166Feature Articles Full Article
an Diabetes and Periodontal Infection: Making the Connection By clinical.diabetesjournals.org Published On :: 2005-10-01 Janet H. SoutherlandOct 1, 2005; 23:171-178Feature Articles Full Article
an Medical Nutrition Therapy: A Key to Diabetes Management and Prevention By clinical.diabetesjournals.org Published On :: 2010-12-01 Sara F. MorrisDec 1, 2010; 28:12-18Feature Articles Full Article
an Diabetes and Back Pain: Markers of Diabetes Disease Progression Are Associated With Chronic Back Pain By clinical.diabetesjournals.org Published On :: 2017-07-01 Lorenzo RinaldoJul 1, 2017; 35:126-131Feature Articles Full Article
an Diabetes Self-management Education and Support in Type 2 Diabetes: A Joint Position Statement of the American Diabetes Association, the American Association of Diabetes Educators, and the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics By clinical.diabetesjournals.org Published On :: 2016-04-01 Margaret A. PowersApr 1, 2016; 34:70-80Position Statements Full Article
an Clarifying the Role of Insulin in Type 2 Diabetes Management By clinical.diabetesjournals.org Published On :: 2003-01-01 John R. WhiteJan 1, 2003; 21:Feature Articles Full Article
an Diapression: An Integrated Model for Understanding the Experience of Individuals With Co-Occurring Diabetes and Depression By clinical.diabetesjournals.org Published On :: 2011-04-01 Paul CiechanowskiApr 1, 2011; 29:43-49Feature Articles Full Article
an SGLT-2 Inhibitors: A New Mechanism for Glycemic Control By clinical.diabetesjournals.org Published On :: 2014-01-01 Edward C. ChaoJan 1, 2014; 32:4-11Feature Articles Full Article
an PROactive: A Sad Tale of Inappropriate Analysis and Unjustified Interpretation By clinical.diabetesjournals.org Published On :: 2006-04-01 Jay S. SkylerApr 1, 2006; 24:63-65Commentary Full Article
an Interdisciplinary Team Care for Diabetic Patients by Primary Care Physicians, Advanced Practice Nurses, and Clinical Pharmacists By clinical.diabetesjournals.org Published On :: 2011-04-01 David WillensApr 1, 2011; 29:60-68Feature Articles Full Article
an Opportunities and Challenges for Biosimilars: What's on the Horizon in the Global Insulin Market? By clinical.diabetesjournals.org Published On :: 2012-10-01 Lisa S. RotensteinOct 1, 2012; 30:138-150Features Full Article
an Diabetes Management Issues for Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease By clinical.diabetesjournals.org Published On :: 2007-07-01 Kerri L. CavanaughJul 1, 2007; 25:90-97Feature Articles Full Article
an Health Care Transition in Adolescents and Young Adults With Diabetes By clinical.diabetesjournals.org Published On :: 2010-06-01 Michael E. BowenJun 1, 2010; 28:99-106Feature Articles Full Article
an Management of Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy By clinical.diabetesjournals.org Published On :: 2005-01-01 Andrew J.M. BoultonJan 1, 2005; 23:9-15Feature Articles Full Article
an Application of Adult-Learning Principles to Patient Instructions: A Usability Study for an Exenatide Once-Weekly Injection Device By clinical.diabetesjournals.org Published On :: 2010-09-01 Gayle LorenziSep 1, 2010; 28:157-162Bridges to Excellence Full Article
an Engaging Patients in Education for Self-Management in an Accountable Care Environment By clinical.diabetesjournals.org Published On :: 2011-07-01 Christine A. BeebeJul 1, 2011; 29:123-126Practical Pointers Full Article
an Helping Patients Make and Sustain Healthy Changes: A Brief Introduction to Motivational Interviewing in Clinical Diabetes Care By clinical.diabetesjournals.org Published On :: 2008-10-01 Michele HeislerOct 1, 2008; 26:161-165Practical Pointers Full Article
an Hospital Management of Hyperglycemia By clinical.diabetesjournals.org Published On :: 2004-04-01 Kristen B. CampbellApr 1, 2004; 22:81-88Practical Pointers Full Article
an Diabetes Self-Management in a Community Health Center: Improving Health Behaviors and Clinical Outcomes for Underserved Patients By clinical.diabetesjournals.org Published On :: 2008-01-01 Daren AndersonJan 1, 2008; 26:22-27Bridges to Excellence Full Article
an Cardiac Manifestations of Congenital Generalized Lipodystrophy By clinical.diabetesjournals.org Published On :: 2016-10-01 Vani P. SanonOct 1, 2016; 34:181-186Feature Articles Full Article
an Hypoglycemia in Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes: Physiology, Pathophysiology, and Management By clinical.diabetesjournals.org Published On :: 2006-07-01 Vanessa J. BriscoeJul 1, 2006; 24:115-121Feature Articles Full Article
an Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes--2019 Abridged for Primary Care Providers By clinical.diabetesjournals.org Published On :: 2019-01-01 American Diabetes AssociationJan 1, 2019; 37:11-34Position Statements Full Article
an Perspectives in Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: A Review of Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment By clinical.diabetesjournals.org Published On :: 2007-04-01 Jennifer M. PerkinsApr 1, 2007; 25:57-62Feature Articles Full Article
an Amylin Replacement With Pramlintide in Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes: A Physiological Approach to Overcome Barriers With Insulin Therapy By clinical.diabetesjournals.org Published On :: 2002-07-01 John B. BuseJul 1, 2002; 20:Feature Articles Full Article
an Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes--2016 Abridged for Primary Care Providers By clinical.diabetesjournals.org Published On :: 2016-01-01 American Diabetes AssociationJan 1, 2016; 34:3-21Position Statements Full Article
an What's So Tough About Taking Insulin? Addressing the Problem of Psychological Insulin Resistance in Type 2 Diabetes By clinical.diabetesjournals.org Published On :: 2004-07-01 William H. PolonskyJul 1, 2004; 22:147-150Practical Pointers Full Article
an Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes--2018 Abridged for Primary Care Providers By clinical.diabetesjournals.org Published On :: 2018-01-01 American Diabetes AssociationJan 1, 2018; 36:14-37Position Statements Full Article
an Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes--2017 Abridged for Primary Care Providers By clinical.diabetesjournals.org Published On :: 2017-01-01 American Diabetes AssociationJan 1, 2017; 35:5-26Position Statements Full Article
an Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes--2015 Abridged for Primary Care Providers By clinical.diabetesjournals.org Published On :: 2015-04-01 American Diabetes AssociationApr 1, 2015; 33:97-111Position Statements Full Article
an Empowerment and Self-Management of Diabetes By clinical.diabetesjournals.org Published On :: 2004-07-01 Martha M. FunnellJul 1, 2004; 22:123-127Feature Articles Full Article
an Microvascular and Macrovascular Complications of Diabetes By clinical.diabetesjournals.org Published On :: 2008-04-01 Michael J. FowlerApr 1, 2008; 26:77-82Diabetes Foundation Full Article
an Heroic Consciousness: What it is and How to Acquire it By blog.richmond.edu Published On :: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 13:03:26 +0000 By Scott T. Allison This blog post is excerpted from: Allison, S. T. (2019). Heroic consciousness. Heroism Science, 4, 1-43. The philosopher Yuval Noah Harari (2018) recently described consciousness as “the greatest mystery in the universe”. What exactly is heroic consciousness? It is a way of seeing the world, perceiving reality, and making decisions … Continue reading Heroic Consciousness: What it is and How to Acquire it → Full Article Commentary and Analysis enlightened consciousness heroic consciousness nondualistic thinking the hero's consciousness transrational phenomena unitive consciousness
an COVID-19 Pandemic Turns Heroism Upside-Down By blog.richmond.edu Published On :: Sat, 04 Apr 2020 03:12:21 +0000 By Scott T. Allison William James, who authored the first psychology texbook, was taken and moved by the quiet heroism in everyday working people. He noticed “the great fields of heroism lying round about” him. He was mesmerized by small, seemingly inconsequential everyday acts that, in effect, exemplified unsung heroism in everyone. Before the COVID-19 … Continue reading COVID-19 Pandemic Turns Heroism Upside-Down → Full Article Commentary and Analysis
an 10 Examples of Heroism Arising From the COVID-19 Pandemic By blog.richmond.edu Published On :: Sat, 04 Apr 2020 20:26:56 +0000 By Scott T. Allison In any tragedy or crisis, you will see many people standing out and stepping up to save lives and make the world a better place. These heroic individuals can range from leaders of nations to ordinary citizens who rise to the occasion to help others in need. During this COVID-19 pandemic, … Continue reading 10 Examples of Heroism Arising From the COVID-19 Pandemic → Full Article Commentary and Analysis COVID19 heroes
an The Miniseries ‘Devs’ Delivers a Delicious Dose of Heroism and Villainy By blog.richmond.edu Published On :: Mon, 20 Apr 2020 13:06:15 +0000 By Scott T. Allison Devs is the ideal TV mini-series for people to sink their teeth into, for many reasons: (1) It’s both science and science-fiction; (2) it’s brilliant mix of psychology, philosophy, religion, and technology; (3) it tantalizes us with the mysteries of love, life, death, time, and space; and (4) it features a … Continue reading The Miniseries ‘Devs’ Delivers a Delicious Dose of Heroism and Villainy → Full Article Commentary and Analysis
an No-Failure Design and Disaster Recovery: Lessons from Fukushima By decisions-and-info-gaps.blogspot.com Published On :: Tue, 09 Aug 2011 10:21:00 +0000 One of the striking aspects of the early stages of the nuclear accident at Fukushima-Daiichi last March was the nearly total absence of disaster recovery capability. For instance, while Japan is a super-power of robotic technology, the nuclear authorities had to import robots from France for probing the damaged nuclear plants. Fukushima can teach us an important lesson about technology.The failure of critical technologies can be disastrous. The crash of a civilian airliner can cause hundreds of deaths. The meltdown of a nuclear reactor can release highly toxic isotopes. Failure of flood protection systems can result in vast death and damage. Society therefore insists that critical technologies be designed, operated and maintained to extremely high levels of reliability. We benefit from technology, but we also insist that the designers and operators "do their best" to protect us from their dangers.Industries and government agencies who provide critical technologies almost invariably act in good faith for a range of reasons. Morality dictates responsible behavior, liability legislation establishes sanctions for irresponsible behavior, and economic or political self-interest makes continuous safe operation desirable.The language of performance-optimization − not only doing our best, but also achieving the best − may tend to undermine the successful management of technological danger. A probability of severe failure of one in a million per device per year is exceedingly − and very reassuringly − small. When we honestly believe that we have designed and implemented a technology to have vanishingly small probability of catastrophe, we can honestly ignore the need for disaster recovery.Or can we?Let's contrast this with an ethos that is consistent with a thorough awareness of the potential for adverse surprise. We now acknowledge that our predictions are uncertain, perhaps highly uncertain on some specific points. We attempt to achieve very demanding outcomes − for instance vanishingly small probabilities of catastrophe − but we recognize that our ability to reliably calculate such small probabilities is compromised by the deficiency of our knowledge and understanding. We robustify ourselves against those deficiencies by choosing a design which would be acceptable over a wide range of deviations from our current best understanding. (This is called "robust-satisficing".) Not only does "vanishingly small probability of failure" still entail the possibility of failure, but our predictions of that probability may err.Acknowledging the need for disaster recovery capability (DRC) is awkward and uncomfortable for designers and advocates of a technology. We would much rather believe that DRC is not needed, that we have in fact made catastrophe negligible. But let's not conflate good-faith attempts to deal with complex uncertainties, with guaranteed outcomes based on full knowledge. Our best models are in part wrong, so we robustify against the designer's bounded rationality. But robustness cannot guarantee success. The design and implementation of DRC is a necessary part of the design of any critical technology, and is consistent with the strategy of robust satisficing.One final point: moral hazard and its dilemma. The design of any critical technology entails two distinct and essential elements: failure prevention and disaster recovery. What economists call a `moral hazard' exists since the failure prevention team might rely on the disaster-recovery team, and vice versa. Each team might, at least implicitly, depend on the capabilities of the other team, and thereby relinquish some of its own responsibility. Institutional provisions are needed to manage this conflict.The alleviation of this moral hazard entails a dilemma. Considerations of failure prevention and disaster recovery must be combined in the design process. The design teams must be aware of each other, and even collaborate, because a single coherent system must emerge. But we don't want either team to relinquish any responsibility. On the one hand we want the failure prevention team to work as though there is no disaster recovery, and the disaster recovery team should presume that failures will occur. On the other hand, we want these teams to collaborate on the design.This moral hazard and its dilemma do not obviate the need for both elements of the design. Fukushima has taught us an important lesson by highlighting the special challenge of high-risk critical technologies: design so failure cannot occur, and prepare to respond to the unanticipated. Full Article
an Baseball and Linguistic Uncertainty By decisions-and-info-gaps.blogspot.com Published On :: Sun, 21 Aug 2011 14:00:00 +0000 In my youth I played an inordinate amount of baseball, collected baseball cards, and idolized baseball players. I've outgrown all that but when I'm in the States during baseball season I do enjoy watching a few innings on the TV.So I was watching a baseball game recently and the commentator was talking about the art of pitching. Throwing a baseball, he said, is like shooting a shotgun. You get a spray. As a pitcher, you have to know your spray. You learn to control it, but you know that it is there. The ball won't always go where you want it. And furthermore, where you want the ball depends on the batter's style and strategy, which vary from pitch to pitch for every batter.That's baseball talk, but it stuck in my mind. Baseball pitchers must manage uncertainty! And it is not enough to reduce it and hope for the best. Suppose you want to throw a strike. It's not a good strategy to aim directly at, say, the lower outside corner of the strike zone, because of the spray of the ball's path and because the batter's stance can shift. Especially if the spray is skewed down and out, you'll want to move up and in a bit.This is all very similar to the ambiguity of human speech when we pitch words at each other. Words don't have precise meanings; meanings spread out like the pitcher's spray. If we want to communicate precisely we need to be aware of this uncertainty, and manage it, taking account of the listener's propensities.Take the word "liberal" as it is used in political discussion.For many decades, "liberals" have tended to support high taxes to provide generous welfare, public medical insurance, and low-cost housing. They advocate liberal (meaning magnanimous or abundant) government involvement for the citizens' benefit.A "liberal" might also be someone who is open-minded and tolerant, who is not strict in applying rules to other people, or even to him or herself. Such a person might be called "liberal" (meaning advocating individual rights) for opposing extensive government involvement in private decisions. For instance, liberals (in this second sense) might oppose high taxes since they reduce individuals' ability to make independent choices. As another example, John Stuart Mill opposed laws which restricted the rights of women to work (at night, for instance), even though these laws were intended to promote the welfare of women. Women, insisted Mill, are intelligent adults and can judge for themselves what is good for them.Returning to the first meaning of "liberal" mentioned above, people of that strain may support restrictions of trade to countries which ignore the health and safety of workers. The other type of "liberal" might tend to support unrestricted trade.Sending out words and pitching baseballs are both like shooting a shotgun: meanings (and baseballs) spray out. You must know what meaning you wish to convey, and what other meanings the word can have. The choice of the word, and the crafting of its context, must manage the uncertainty of where the word will land in the listener's mind.Let's go back to baseball again.If there were no uncertainty in the pitcher's pitch and the batter's swing, then baseball would be a dreadfully boring game. If the batter knows exactly where and when the ball will arrive, and can completely control the bat, then every swing will be a homer. Or conversely, if the pitcher always knows exactly how the batter will swing, and if each throw is perfectly controlled, then every batter will strike out. But which is it? Whose certainty dominates? The batter's or the pitcher's? It can't be both. There is some deep philosophical problem here. Clearly there cannot be complete certainty in a world which has some element of free will, or surprise, or discovery. This is not just a tautology, a necessary result of what we mean by "uncertainty" and "surprise". It is an implication of limited human knowledge. Uncertainty - which makes baseball and life interesting - is inevitable in the human world.How does this carry over to human speech?It is said of the Wright brothers that they thought so synergistically that one brother could finish an idea or sentence begun by the other. If there is no uncertainty in what I am going to say, then you will be bored with my conversation, or at least, you won't learn anything from me. It is because you don't know what I mean by, for instance, "robustness", that my speech on this topic is enlightening (and maybe interesting). And it is because you disagree with me about what robustness means (and you tell me so), that I can perhaps extend my own understanding.So, uncertainty is inevitable in a world that is rich enough to have surprise or free will. Furthermore, this uncertainty leads to a process - through speech - of discovery and new understanding. Uncertainty, and the use of language, leads to discovery.Isn't baseball an interesting game? Full Article
an Robustness and Locke's Wingless Gentleman By decisions-and-info-gaps.blogspot.com Published On :: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 07:49:00 +0000 Our ancestors have made decisions under uncertainty ever since they had to stand and fight or run away, eat this root or that berry, sleep in this cave or under that bush. Our species is distinguished by the extent of deliberate thought preceding decision. Nonetheless, the ability to decide in the face of the unknown was born from primal necessity. Betting is one of the oldest ways of deciding under uncertainty. But you bet you that 'bet' is a subtler concept than one might think.We all know what it means to make a bet, but just to make sure let's quote the Oxford English Dictionary: "To stake or wager (a sum of money, etc.) in support of an affirmation or on the issue of a forecast." The word has been around for quite a while. Shakespeare used the verb in 1600: "Iohn a Gaunt loued him well, and betted much money on his head." (Henry IV, Pt. 2 iii. ii. 44). Drayton used the noun in 1627 (and he wasn't the first): "For a long while it was an euen bet ... Whether proud Warwick, or the Queene should win."An even bet is a 50-50 chance, an equal probability of each outcome. But betting is not always a matter of chance. Sometimes the meaning is just the opposite. According to the OED 'You bet' or 'You bet you' are slang expressions meaning 'be assured, certainly'. For instance: "'Can you handle this outfit?' 'You bet,' said the scout." (D.L.Sayers, Lord Peter Views Body, iv. 68). Mark Twain wrote "'I'll get you there on time' - and you bet you he did, too." (Roughing It, xx. 152).So 'bet' is one of those words whose meaning stretches from one idea all the way to its opposite. Drayton's "even bet" between Warwick and the Queen means that he has no idea who will win. In contrast, Twain's "you bet you" is a statement of certainty. In Twain's or Sayers' usage, it's as though uncertainty combines with moral conviction to produce a definite resolution. This is a dialectic in which doubt and determination form decisiveness.John Locke may have had something like this in mind when he wrote:"If we will disbelieve everything, because we cannot certainly know all things; we shall do muchwhat as wisely as he, who would not use his legs, but sit still and perish, because he had no wings to fly." (An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, 1706, I.i.5)The absurdity of Locke's wingless gentleman starving in his chair leads us to believe, and to act, despite our doubts. The moral imperative of survival sweeps aside the paralysis of uncertainty. The consequence of unabated doubt - paralysis - induces doubt's opposite: decisiveness.But rational creatures must have some method for reasoning around their uncertainties. Locke does not intend for us to simply ignore our ignorance. But if we have no way to place bets - if the odds simply are unknown - then what are we to do? We cannot "sit still and perish".This is where the strategy of robustness comes in.'Robust' means 'Strong and hardy; sturdy; healthy'. By implication, something that is robust is 'not easily damaged or broken, resilient'. A statistical test is robust if it yields 'approximately correct results despite the falsity of certain of the assumptions underlying it' or despite errors in the data. (OED)A decision is robust if its outcome is satisfactory despite error in the information and understanding which justified or motivated the decision. A robust decision is resilient to surprise, immune to ignorance.It is no coincidence that the colloquial use of the word 'bet' includes concepts of both chance and certainty. A good bet can tolerate large deviation from certainty, large error of information. A good bet is robust to surprise. 'You bet you' does not mean that the world is certain. It means that the outcome is certain to be acceptable, regardless of how the world turns out. The scout will handle the outfit even if there is a rogue in the ranks; Twain will get there on time despite snags and surprises. A good bet is robust to the unknown. You bet you!An extended and more formal discussion of these issues can be found elsewhere. Full Article betting robustness
an Squirrels and Stock Brokers, Or: Innovation Dilemmas, Robustness and Probability By decisions-and-info-gaps.blogspot.com Published On :: Sun, 09 Oct 2011 11:51:00 +0000 Decisions are made in order to achieve desirable outcomes. An innovation dilemma arises when a seemingly more attractive option is also more uncertain than other options. In this essay we explore the relation between the innovation dilemma and the robustness of a decision, and the relation between robustness and probability. A decision is robust to uncertainty if it achieves required outcomes despite adverse surprises. A robust decision may differ from the seemingly best option. Furthermore, robust decisions are not based on knowledge of probabilities, but can still be the most likely to succeed.Squirrels, Stock-Brokers and Their DilemmasDecision problems.Imagine a squirrel nibbling acorns under an oak tree. They're pretty good acorns, though a bit dry. The good ones have already been taken. Over in the distance is a large stand of fine oaks. The acorns there are probably better. But then, other squirrels can also see those trees, and predators can too. The squirrel doesn't need to get fat, but a critical caloric intake is necessary before moving on to other activities. How long should the squirrel forage at this patch before moving to the more promising patch, if at all?Imagine a hedge fund manager investing in South African diamonds, Australian Uranium, Norwegian Kroners and Singapore semi-conductors. The returns have been steady and good, but not very exciting. A new hi-tech start-up venture has just turned up. It looks promising, has solid backing, and could be very interesting. The manager doesn't need to earn boundless returns, but it is necessary to earn at least a tad more than the competition (who are also prowling around). How long should the manager hold the current portfolio before changing at least some of its components?These are decision problems, and like many other examples, they share three traits: critical needs must be met; the current situation may or may not be adequate; other alternatives look much better but are much more uncertain. To change, or not to change? What strategy to use in making a decision? What choice is the best bet? Betting is a surprising concept, as we have seen before; can we bet without knowing probabilities?Solution strategies.The decision is easy in either of two extreme situations, and their analysis will reveal general conclusions.One extreme is that the status quo is clearly insufficient. For the squirrel this means that these crinkled rotten acorns won't fill anybody's belly even if one nibbled here all day long. Survival requires trying the other patch regardless of the fact that there may be many other squirrels already there and predators just waiting to swoop down. Similarly, for the hedge fund manager, if other funds are making fantastic profits, then something has to change or the competition will attract all the business.The other extreme is that the status quo is just fine, thank you. For the squirrel, just a little more nibbling and these acorns will get us through the night, so why run over to unfamiliar oak trees? For the hedge fund manager, profits are better than those of any credible competitor, so uncertain change is not called for.From these two extremes we draw an important general conclusion: the right answer depends on what you need. To change, or not to change, depends on what is critical for survival. There is no universal answer, like, "Always try to improve" or "If it's working, don't fix it". This is a very general property of decisions under uncertainty, and we will call it preference reversal. The agent's preference between alternatives depends on what the agent needs in order to "survive".The decision strategy that we have described is attuned to the needs of the agent. The strategy attempts to satisfy the agent's critical requirements. If the status quo would reliably do that, then stay put; if not, then move. Following the work of Nobel Laureate Herbert Simon, we will call this a satisficing decision strategy: one which satisfies a critical requirement."Prediction is always difficult, especially of the future." - Robert Storm PetersenNow let's consider a different decision strategy that squirrels and hedge fund managers might be tempted to use. The agent has obtained information about the two alternatives by signals from the environment. (The squirrel sees grand verdant oaks in the distance, the fund manager hears of a new start up.) Given this information, a prediction can be made (though the squirrel may make this prediction based on instincts and without being aware of making it). Given the best available information, the agent predicts which alternative would yield the better outcome. Using this prediction, the decision strategy is to choose the alternative whose predicted outcome is best. We will call this decision strategy best-model optimization. Note that this decision strategy yields a single universal answer to the question facing the agent. This strategy uses the best information to find the choice that - if that information is correct - will yield the best outcome. Best-model optimization (usually) gives a single "best" decision, unlike the satisficing strategy that returns different answers depending on the agent's needs.There is an attractive logic - and even perhaps a moral imperative - to use the best information to make the best choice. One should always try to do one's best. But the catch in the argument for best-model optimization is that the best information may actually be grievously wrong. Those fine oak trees might be swarming with insects who've devoured the acorns. Best-model optimization ignores the agent's central dilemma: stay with the relatively well known but modest alternative, or go for the more promising but more uncertain alternative."Tsk, tsk, tsk" says our hedge fund manager. "My information already accounts for the uncertainty. I have used a probabilistic asset pricing model to predict the likelihood that my profits will beat the competition for each of the two alternatives."Probabilistic asset pricing models are good to have. And the squirrel similarly has evolved instincts that reflect likelihoods. But a best-probabilistic-model optimization is simply one type of best-model optimization, and is subject to the same vulnerability to error. The world is full of surprises. The probability functions that are used are quite likely wrong, especially in predicting the rare events that the manager is most concerned to avoid.Robustness and ProbabilityNow we come to the truly amazing part of the story. The satisficing strategy does not use any probabilistic information. Nonetheless, in many situations, the satisficing strategy is actually a better bet (or at least not a worse bet), probabilistically speaking, than any other strategy, including best-probabilistic-model optimization. We have no probabilistic information in these situations, but we can still maximize the probability of success (though we won't know the value of this maximum).When the satisficing decision strategy is the best bet, this is, in part, because it is more robust to uncertainty than another other strategy. A decision is robust to uncertainty if it achieves required outcomes even if adverse surprises occur. In many important situations (though not invariably), more robustness to uncertainty is equivalent to being more likely to succeed or survive. When this is true we say that robustness is a proxy for probability.A thorough analysis of the proxy property is rather technical. However, we can understand the gist of the idea by considering a simple special case.Let's continue with the squirrel and hedge fund examples. Suppose we are completely confident about the future value (in calories or dollars) of not making any change (staying put). In contrast, the future value of moving is apparently better though uncertain. If staying put would satisfy our critical requirement, then we are absolutely certain of survival if we do not change. Staying put is completely robust to surprises so the probability of success equals 1 if we stay put, regardless of what happens with the other option. Likewise, if staying put would not satisfy our critical requirement, then we are absolutely certain of failure if we do not change; the probability of success equals 0 if we stay, and moving cannot be worse. Regardless of what probability distribution describes future outcomes if we move, we can always choose the option whose likelihood of success is greater (or at least not worse). This is because staying put is either sure to succeed or sure to fail, and we know which.This argument can be extended to the more realistic case where the outcome of staying put is uncertain and the outcome of moving, while seemingly better than staying, is much more uncertain. The agent can know which option is more robust to uncertainty, without having to know probability distributions. This implies, in many situations, that the agent can choose the option that is a better bet for survival.Wrapping UpThe skillful decision maker not only knows a lot, but is also able to deal with conflicting information. We have discussed the innovation dilemma: When choosing between two alternatives, the seemingly better one is also more uncertain.Animals, people, organizations and societies have developed mechanisms for dealing with the innovation dilemma. The response hinges on tuning the decision to the agent's needs, and robustifying the choice against uncertainty. This choice may or may not coincide with the putative best choice. But what seems best depends on the available - though uncertain - information.The commendable tendency to do one's best - and to demand the same of others - can lead to putatively optimal decisions that may be more vulnerable to surprise than other decisions that would have been satisfactory. In contrast, the strategy of robustly satisfying critical needs can be a better bet for survival. Consider the design of critical infrastructure: flood protection, nuclear power, communication networks, and so on. The design of such systems is based on vast knowledge and understanding, but also confronts bewildering uncertainties and endless surprises. We must continue to improve our knowledge and understanding, while also improving our ability to manage the uncertainties resulting from the expanding horizon of our efforts. We must identify the critical goals and seek responses that are immune to surprise. Full Article betting innovation dilemma probability proxy property robustness
an The Language of Science and the Tower of Babel By decisions-and-info-gaps.blogspot.com Published On :: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 06:23:00 +0000 And God said: Behold one people with one language for them all ... and now nothing that they venture will be kept from them. ... [And] there God mixed up the language of all the land. (Genesis, 11:6-9)"Philosophy is written in this grand book the universe, which stands continually open to our gaze. But the book cannot be understood unless one first learns to comprehend the language and to read the alphabet in which it is composed. It is written in the language of mathematics." Galileo GalileiLanguage is power over the unknown. Mathematics is the language of science, and computation is the modern voice in which this language is spoken. Scientists and engineers explore the book of nature with computer simulations of swirling galaxies and colliding atoms, crashing cars and wind-swept buildings. The wonders of nature and the powers of technological innovation are displayed on computer screens, "continually open to our gaze." The language of science empowers us to dispel confusion and uncertainty, but only with great effort do we change the babble of sounds and symbols into useful, meaningful and reliable communication. How we do that depends on the type of uncertainty against which the language struggles.Mathematical equations encode our understanding of nature, and Galileo exhorts us to learn this code. One challenge here is that a single equation represents an infinity of situations. For instance, the equation describing a flowing liquid captures water gushing from a pipe, blood coursing in our veins, and a droplet splashing from a puddle. Gazing at the equation is not at all like gazing at the droplet. Understanding grows by exposure to pictures and examples. Computations provide numerical examples of equations that can be realized as pictures. Computations can simulate nature, allowing us to explore at our leisure.Two questions face the user of computations: Are we calculating the correct equations? Are we calculating the equations correctly? The first question expresses the scientist's ignorance - or at least uncertainty - about how the world works. The second question reflects the programmer's ignorance or uncertainty about the faithfulness of the computer program to the equations. Both questions deal with the fidelity between two entities. However, the entities involved are very different and the uncertainties are very different as well.The scientist's uncertainty is reduced by the ingenuity of the experimenter. Equations make predictions that can be tested by experiment. For instance, Galileo predicted that small and large balls will fall at the same rate, as he is reported to have tested from the tower of Pisa. Equations are rejected or modified when their predictions don't match the experimenter's observation. The scientist's uncertainty and ignorance are whittled away by testing equations against observation of the real world. Experiments may be extraordinarily subtle or difficult or costly because nature's unknown is so endlessly rich in possibilities. Nonetheless, observation of nature remorselessly cuts false equations from the body of scientific doctrine. God speaks through nature, as it were, and "the Eternal of Israel does not deceive or console." (1 Samuel, 15:29). When this observational cutting and chopping is (temporarily) halted, the remaining equations are said to be "validated" (but they remain on the chopping block for further testing).The programmer's life is, in one sense, more difficult than the experimenter's. Imagine a huge computer program containing millions of lines of code, the accumulated fruit of thousands of hours of effort by many people. How do we verify that this computation faithfully reflects the equations that have ostensibly been programmed? Of course they've been checked again and again for typos or logical faults or syntactic errors. Very clever methods are available for code verification. Nonetheless, programmers are only human, and some infidelity may slip through. What remorseless knife does the programmer have with which to verify that the equations are correctly calculated? Testing computation against observation does not allow us to distinguish between errors in the equations, errors in the program, and compensatory errors in both.The experimenter compares an equation's prediction against an observation of nature. Like the experimenter, the programmer compares the computation against something. However, for the programmer, the sharp knife of nature is not available. In special cases the programmer can compare against a known answer. More frequently the programmer must compare against other computations which have already been verified (by some earlier comparison). The verification of a computation - as distinct from the validation of an equation - can only use other high-level human-made results. The programmer's comparisons can only be traced back to other comparisons. It is true that the experimenter's tests are intermediated by human artifacts like calipers or cyclotrons. Nonetheless, bedrock for the experimenter is the "reality out there". The experimenter's tests can be traced back to observations of elementary real events. The programmer does not have that recourse. One might say that God speaks to the experimenter through nature, but the programmer has no such Voice upon which to rely.The tower built of old would have reached the heavens because of the power of language. That tower was never completed because God turned talk into babble and dispersed the people across the land. Scholars have argued whether the story prescribes a moral norm, or simply describes the way things are, but the power of language has never been disputed.The tower was never completed, just as science, it seems, has a long way to go. Genius, said Edison, is 1 percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration. A good part of the sweat comes from getting the language right, whether mathematical equations or computer programs.Part of the challenge is finding order in nature's bubbling variety. Each equation captures a glimpse of that order, adding one block to the structure of science. Furthermore, equations must be validated, which is only a stop-gap. All blocks crumble eventually, and all equations are fallible and likely to be falsified.Another challenge in science and engineering is grasping the myriad implications that are distilled into an equation. An equation compresses and summarizes, while computer simulations go the other way, restoring detail and specificity. The fidelity of a simulation to the equation is usually verified by comparing against other simulations. This is like the dictionary paradox: using words to define words.It is by inventing and exploiting symbols that humans have constructed an orderly world out of the confusing tumult of experience. With symbols, like with blocks in the tower, the sky is the limit. Full Article
an Can We Replay History? By decisions-and-info-gaps.blogspot.com Published On :: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 07:15:00 +0000 After the kids' party games and the birthday cake came the action-packed Steve McQueen movie. My friend's parents had rented a movie projector. They hooked up the reel and let it roll. But the high point came later when they ran the movie backwards. Bullets streamed back into guns, blows were retracted and fallen protagonists recoiled into action. The mechanism that pulls the celluloid film forward for normal showing, can pull the film in the reverse direction, rolling it back onto the feeder reel and showing the movie in reverse.If you chuck a round pebble off a cliff it will fall in a graceful parabolic arch, gradually increasing its speed until it hits the ground. The same pebble, if shot from the point of impact, at the terminating angle and speed, will gracefully and obligingly retrace its path. (I'm ignoring wind and air friction that make things a bit more complicated.)Deterministic mechanisms, like the movie reel mechanism or the law of gravity, are reversible.History is different. Peoples' behavior is influenced by what they know. You pack an umbrella on a trip to the UK. Google develops search algorithms not search parties because their knowledge base is information technology not mountain trekking. Knowledge is powerful because it enables rational behavior: matching actions to goals. Knowledge transforms futile fumbling into intelligent behavior.Knowledge underlies intelligent behavior, but knowledge is continually expanding. We discover new facts and relationships. We discover that things have changed. Therefore tomorrow's knowledge-based behavior will, to some extent, be unpredictable today because tomorrow's discoveries cannot be known today. Human behavior has an inherent element of indeterminism. Intelligent learning behavior cannot be completely predicted.Personal and collective history does not unfold like a pre-woven rug. Human history is fundamentally different from the trajectory of a pebble tossed from a cliff. History is the process of uncovering the unknown and responding to this new knowledge. The existence of the unknown creates the possibility of free will. The discovery of new knowledge introduces indeterminism and irreversibility into history, as explained by the philosophers G.L.S. Shackle and Karl Popper.Nonetheless history is not erratic because each increment of new knowledge adds to the store of what was learned before. Memory is not perfect, either of individuals or groups, but it is powerful. History happens in historical context. For instance, one cannot understand the recent revolutions and upheavals in the Arab world from the perspective of 18th century European revolutions; the historical backgrounds are too different, and the outcomes in the Middle East will be different as well. Innovation, even revolution, is spurred by new knowledge laid over the old. A female municipal official slapped a Tunisian street vendor, Mohamed Bouazizi. That slap crystalized Mr Bouazizi's knowledge of his helpless social impotence and lit the match with which he immolated himself and initiated conflagrations around the Mideast. New knowledge acts like thruster engines on the inertial body of memory. What is emerging in the Mideast is Middle Eastern, not European. What is emerging is the result of new knowledge: of the power of networking, of the mortality of dictators, of the limits of coercion, of the power of new knowledge itself and the possibilities embedded in tomorrow's unknowns.Mistakes are made, even with the best intentions and the best possible knowledge. Even if analysts knew and understood all the actions of all actors on the stage of history, they still cannot know what those people will learn tomorrow and how that new knowledge will alter their behavior. Mistakes are made because history does not unwind like a celluloid reel.That's not to say that analysts are never ignorant, negligent, stupid or malicious. It's to say that all actions are, in a sense, mistakes. Or, the biggest mistake of all is to think that we can know the full import of our actions. We cannot, because actions are tossed, like pebbles, into the dark pit of unknown possible futures. One cannot know all possible echoes, or whether some echo might be glass-shatteringly cataclysmic.Mistakes can sometimes be corrected, but never undone. History cannot be run backwards, and you never get a second chance. Conversely, every instant is a new opportunity because the future is always uncertain. Uncertainty is the freedom to err, and the opportunity to create and discover. Full Article
an Jabberwocky. Or: Grand Unified Theory of Uncertainty??? By decisions-and-info-gaps.blogspot.com Published On :: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 07:30:00 +0000 Jabberwocky, Lewis Carroll's whimsical nonsense poem, uses made-up words to create an atmosphere and to tell a story. "Billig", "frumious", "vorpal" and "uffish" have no lexical meaning, but they could have. The poem demonstrates that the realm of imagination exceeds the bounds of reality just as the set of possible words and meanings exceeds its real lexical counterpart.Uncertainty thrives in the realm of imagination, incongruity, and contradiction. Uncertainty falls in the realm of science fiction as much as in the realm of science. People have struggled with uncertainty for ages and many theories of uncertainty have appeared over time. How many uncertainty theories do we need? Lots, and forever. Would we say that of physics? No, at least not forever.Can you think inconsistent, incoherent, or erroneous thoughts? I can. (I do it quite often, usually without noticing.) For those unaccustomed to thinking incongruous thoughts, and who need a bit of help to get started, I can recommend thinking of "two meanings packed into one word like a portmanteau," like 'fuming' and 'furious' to get 'frumious' or 'snake' and 'shark' to get 'snark'.Portmanteau words are a start. Our task now is portmanteau thoughts. Take for instance the idea of a 'thingk':When I think a thing I've thought,I have often felt I oughtTo call this thing I think a "Thingk",Which ought to save a lot of ink.The participle is written "thingking",(Which is where we save on inking,)Because "thingking" says in just one word:"Thinking of a thought thing." Absurd!All this shows high-power abstraction.(That highly touted human contraption.)Using symbols with subtle feint,To stand for something which they ain't.Now that wasn't difficult: two thoughts at once. Now let those thoughts be contradictory. To use a prosaic example: thinking the unthinkable, which I suppose is 'unthingkable'. There! You did it. You are on your way to a rich and full life of thinking incongruities, fallacies and contradictions. We can hold in our minds thoughts of 4-sided triangles, parallel lines that intersect, and endless other seeming impossibilities from super-girls like Pippi Longstockings to life on Mars (some of which may actually be true, or at least possible).Scientists, logicians, and saints are in the business of dispelling all such incongruities, errors and contradictions. Banishing inconsistency is possible in science because (or if) there is only one coherent world. Belief in one coherent world and one grand unified theory is the modern secular version of the ancient monotheistic intuition of one universal God (in which saints tend to believe). Uncertainty thrives in the realm in which scientists and saints have not yet completed their tasks (perhaps because they are incompletable). For instance, we must entertain a wide range of conflicting conceptions when we do not yet know how (or whether) quantum mechanics can be reconciled with general relativity, or Pippi's strength reconciled with the limitations of physiology. As Henry Adams wrote:"Images are not arguments, rarely even lead to proof, but the mind craves them, and, of late more than ever, the keenest experimenters find twenty images better than one, especially if contradictory; since the human mind has already learned to deal in contradictions."The very idea of a rigorously logical theory of uncertainty is startling and implausible because the realm of the uncertain is inherently incoherent and contradictory. Indeed, the first uncertainty theory - probability - emerged many centuries after the invention of the axiomatic method in mathematics. Today we have many theories of uncertainty: probability, imprecise probability, information theory, generalized information theory, fuzzy logic, Dempster-Shafer theory, info-gap theory, and more (the list is a bit uncertain). Why such a long and diverse list? It seems that in constructing a logically consistent theory of the logically inconsistent domain of uncertainty, one cannot capture the whole beast all at once (though I'm uncertain about this).A theory, in order to be scientific, must exclude something. A scientific theory makes statements such as "This happens; that doesn't happen." Karl Popper explained that a scientific theory must contain statements that are at risk of being wrong, statements that could be falsified. Deborah Mayo demonstrated how science grows by discovering and recovering from error.The realm of uncertainty contains contradictions (ostensible or real) such as the pair of statements: "Nine year old girls can lift horses" and "Muscle fiber generates tension through the action of actin and myosin cross-bridge cycling". A logically consistent theory of uncertainty can handle improbabilities, as can scientific theories like quantum mechanics. But a logical theory cannot encompass outright contradictions. Science investigates a domain: the natural and physical worlds. Those worlds, by virtue of their existence, are perhaps coherent in a way that can be reflected in a unified logical theory. Theories of uncertainty are directed at a larger domain: the natural and physical worlds and all imaginable (and unimaginable) other worlds. That larger domain is definitely not coherent, and a unified logical theory would seem to be unattainable. Hence many theories of uncertainty are needed.Scientific theories are good to have, and we do well to encourage the scientists. But it is a mistake to think that the scientific paradigm is suitable to all domains, in particular, to the study of uncertainty. Logic is a powerful tool and the axiomatic method assures the logical consistency of a theory. For instance, Leonard Savage argued that personal probability is a "code of consistency" for choosing one's behavior. Jim March compares the rigorous logic of mathematical theories of decision to strict religious morality. Consistency between values and actions is commendable says March, but he notes that one sometimes needs to deviate from perfect morality. While "[s]tandard notions of intelligent choice are theories of strict morality ... saints are a luxury to be encouraged only in small numbers." Logical consistency is a merit of any single theory, including a theory of uncertainty. However, insisting that the same logical consistency apply over the entire domain of uncertainty is like asking reality and saintliness to make peace. Full Article
an Why We Need Libraries, Or, Memory and Knowledge By decisions-and-info-gaps.blogspot.com Published On :: Sat, 26 May 2012 06:19:00 +0000 "Writing is thinking in slow motion. We see what at normal speeds escapes us, can rerun the reel at will to look for errors, erase, interpolate, and rethink. Most thoughts are a light rain, fall upon the ground, and dry up. Occasionally they become a stream that runs a short distance before it disappears. Writing stands an incomparably better chance of getting somewhere."... What is written can be given endlessly and yet retained, read by thousands even while it is being rewritten, kept as it was and revised at the same time. Writing is magic." Walter KaufmannWe are able to know things because they happen again and again. We know about the sun because it glares down on us day after day. Scientists learn the laws of nature, and build confidence in their knowledge, by testing their theories over and over and getting the same results each time. We would be unable to learn the patterns and ways of our world if nothing were repeatable.But without memory, we could learn nothing even if the world were tediously repetitive. Even though the sun rises daily in the east, we could not know this if we couldn't remember it.The world has stable patterns, and we are able to discover these patterns because we remember. Knowledge requires more than memory, but memory is an essential element.The invention of writing was a great boon to knowledge because writing is collective memory. For instance, the Peloponnesian wars are known to us through Thucydides' writings. People understand themselves and their societies in part through knowing their history. History, as distinct from pre-history, depends on the written word. For example, each year at the Passover holiday, Jewish families through the ages have read the story of the Israelite exodus from Egypt. We are enjoined to see ourselves as though we were there, fleeing Egypt and trudging through the desert. Memory, recorded for all time, creates individual and collective awareness, and motivates aspirations and actions.Without writing, much collective memory would be lost, just as books themselves are sometimes lost. We know, for instance, that Euclid wrote a book called Porisms, but the book is lost and we know next to nothing about its message. Memory, and knowledge, have been lost.Memory can be uncertain. We've all experienced that on the personal level. Collective memory can also be uncertain. We're sometimes uncertain of the meaning of rare ancient words, such as lilit in Isaiah (34:14) or gvina in Job (10:10). Written traditions, while containing an element of truth, may be of uncertain meaning or veracity. For instance, we know a good deal, both from the Bible and from archeological findings, about Hezekiah who ruled the kingdom of Judea in the late 8th century BCE. About David, three centuries earlier, we can be much less certain. Biblical stories are told in great detail but corroboration is hard to obtain.Memory can be deliberately corrupted. Records of history can be embellished or prettified, as when a king commissions the chronicling of his achievements. Ancient monuments glorifying imperial conquests are invaluable sources of knowledge of past ages, but they are unreliable and must be interpreted cautiously. Records of purported events that never occurred can be maliciously fabricated. For instance, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is pure invention, though that book has been re-published voluminously throughout the world and continues to be taken seriously by many people. Memory is alive and very real, even if it is memory of things that never happened.Libraries are the physical medium of human collective memory, and an essential element in maintaining and enlarging our knowledge. There are many types of libraries. The family library may have a few hundred books, while the library of Congress has 1,349 km of bookshelves and holds about 147 million items. Libraries can hold paper books or digital electronic documents. Paper can perish in fire as happened to the Alexandrian library, while digital media can be erased, or become damaged and unreadable. Libraries, like memory itself, are fragile and need care.Why do we need libraries? Being human means, among other things, the capacity for knowledge, and the ability to appreciate and benefit from it. The written record is a public good, like the fresh air. I can read Confucius or Isaiah centuries after they lived, and my reading does not consume them. Our collective memory is part of each individual, and preserving that memory preserves a part of each of us. Without memory, we are without knowledge. Without knowledge, we are only another animal. Full Article
