Year: 2012

I’ve certainly expressed neo-pan-Darwinian views on natural evolution that might be called “group selection” – in fact I’ve even defended group-selection per se. I am one of those who sees evolution by natural selection as the best idea anyone ever had, that I’m happy to apply it to practically any situation – even one where cause and effect benefits of any change may be explained in real-time, in a single “generation”.

So I’m guilty as charged here by Pinker. Clearly if we’re going to limit the word evolution to original-Darwinian natural selection – where it’s numbers of copies we’re valuing, and mutations are entirely blind to their effects. Then “group selection” in human affairs – and the affairs of social creatures generally – is something entirely different. Sure it is.

Sure we’re valuing other qualities of life and measures of existence than just head-count and group-count. And sure, in communities of less intelligent creatures, where individual immediate choice can be barely if at all aware of causation effecting future group and individual benefit, then all group behaviour including relative behaviour between group members, is ultimately, reductively, seated in attributes of the individuals. Tell us something we don’t know.

The interesting ground is the middle ground.

At one extreme, parallels in ant analogies and hive rhetoric are surely more poetic than scientific, and undoubtedly more concerned with the natural processes of group-effects on group member selection, and group success, than selection of the groups themselves. Nevertheless real effects.

And at the other, if it were purely a numbers game, then let’s just give up now and admit the bacteria as champions. But, as intelligent humans, with far more sophisticated values than arithmetic, we’re sadly arrogant enough to believe our knowledge gives us control over cause and effect, over multiple time-scales, here and now, later in our lifetimes, and in the legacy bequeathed to future generations.

In reality what we’re concerned with is natural processes of change over one or more cycles, given our imperfect knowledge. These cycles are indeed fractal over many different layers and time-scales and definitely involve – if not blindness – uncertain feedback against the imperfect knowledge and facility used on each cycle of change.

Real allure, wrong definition. The real difference between the sides in the group selection debate are differences in what to value, what matters. Definitions and numbers are very low value indeed.

Latest (3rd of 4) of Niall Ferguson’s Reith Lectures The Rule of Law and its Enemies – The Landscape of the Law, first broadcast last week, continues the agenda that simple law is best for global economic progress.

The point of law is fundamentally property and contracts rights – wide-acceptance, cost-effective execution and reliable-enforcement – thereby minimising overhead cost and risk of doing business beyond your immediate social neighbourhood. Interesting that laws of precedent must (do) rest on common law of what is good, and what is law good for (and that common law is based on social interaction between neighbours, extended by communication to wider society – one source of hypocrisy – imperfect empathy as well as imperfect knowledge). The point of precedent being to ensure that evolutionary changes in law, as society and environment change, are always coherent – consistent within a shared narrative – proceeding step-wise from precedent, anchored but not fixed by precedent. Another of these clear “progressive evolution requires institutional conservatism” messages.

Beyond Law-101 above, the point is primarily one of balance between private and public institutions for setting and enforcing laws of business, without either becoming an over-powerful dead hand – monopolistic on one hand, bureaucratic on the other. The bureaucracy of complex legislation leads to the rule of lawyers (as in the US), rather than law. Ultimately we depend on the true independence of judiciary, rather than judiciary (and executive politics) as extensions of the legal profession.

Let’s hope there is more than Law 101 in the 4th and final extended lecture tomorrow.

Look I still don’t buy it.

A particle suggesting / equivalent to the Higgs ? So all the attempted explanations / metaphors / fancy visualizations to date, tell us that the Higgs Field is about “stuff” that resists the movement of other particles and explains the inertial resistance to movement of those particles we know as “mass”.

So how is it the Higgs Boson has more that 130 times the mass of any other sub-atomic particle ? Where does “it” get its mass from. How can the field explaining mass of other particles comprise particles that already have (lots of) mass ?!? What does a Higgs Boson actually have to do with the Higgs Field ?

All these poxy metaphors are failing to tell us something. Emperors and clothes spring to mind.

[Post Note: Also good to see rejection of the God Particle metaphor – not just because of the two-way offence at bringing God needlessly into the political science debate – but because it grossly inflates the significance of the Higgs Boson – it’s just one potential missing piece in the standard model, with plenty more missing pieces – gravity anyone – and many more opportunities for the standard model itself to be proven entirely wrong.]

Interesting (from Forbes via LinkedIn) story of how storm power outages put Amazon Cloud down – how much depends on Amazon resources and how resilient the cloud actually is – a lot and not very it seems.

A variation on an early theme, but it seems some women may have the power to perceive many more colours than the rest of us. (Interestingly, converse to the fact that colour-blindness – two-cones – is most closely associated with men, “tetrachromats” – four-cones –  apparently tend to be women.) Hat tip to Catless at Bif Riv.

(NB “Mary the Colour Scientist” is part of a thought experiment where the individual perception of colour cannot be shared between us or related to any empirical scientific explanatory knowledge of colour as electromagnetic wavelengths of light. Mary for gender-equality-political-correctness-of-science in this case, not the super-human power of women.)

This i-Squared event is also a Google+ debate on the Balotelli quote “Football has been too tolerant of racism“.

I’m going to disagree. It’s not racism, it’s culturally engrained “otherism”. The lack of respect engendered by seeing the rest of your world as other. Rival football fans are simply an ideal place to see the underlying issue at work – after all being on opposing sides is the point of it.

As a football fan (or a “supporter” on any side of any debate or argument – more to the point) it is apparently expected that as well as supporting your own case you will rubbish the opposing case by rubbishing the opposition. I regularly get laughed at when, as a supporter of my team, that unless it’s actually witty or relevant I cannot ever condone insulting and abusing the opposing fans, players and staff, or labelled a tone-troll if I point out such behaviour in a more academic debate. In something as trivial as a sport (ie more important than life and death remember), particularly a “man in the street” sport like football, it is pretty well accepted that it’s normal behaviour to rubbish the opposition based on what’s different about them – norf vs sarf London, yid vs gentile, east or west end of the M4, city vs sheep-shagger, south vs north, east or west of the Pennines, Manc vs Scouse, catholic vs protestant, one side or the other of the the tracks or Stanley Park or the Manchester ship canal, whatever.

Good natured banter is one thing, even “offensive” humour if it’s witty and accompanied by self-evident underlying love and respect, but direct personal abuse and attacks on the “others” based on their otherness should be a no no. The colour or race of an opposing player is just another “handle” for the accepted attack, and of course when the teams are from different countries so many more historical, cultural, ethnic, geographical differences to pick-on. Don’t get me started on “gyppos” … and for chrissakes don’t mention the war, any war, you choose.

If this was just a problem with the uncouth, uneducated “man in the street” and just with “race” that would be one thing. But even educated would-be intellectuals seem to have fallen hook, line and sinker for the “attack” side of any argument. It’s critical thinking, it’s scientific, after all – scientistic anyway. Us vs the bankers, the government, the capitalist, the tax man, … the tax avoider. So many current debates – the Lords Spiritual, you name it. Me vs whatever makes you different from my moral high ground. Objective otherness stinks anywhere and everywhere – (except inside empirical science).

Who let the dogs out?

Huh ? Isn’t that what banks do ? Surely the Libor is an “offered” rate – surely the point is to negotiate around your strengths and weaknesses. I can see why people might be jealous of their success, and shocked by their risk-taking with hindsight, but what have they actually done wrong ? Broken some regulation no doubt. (Adds interest to Niall Ferguson’s “Rule of Law and its Enemies” – one of the enemies is dumb regulations. Comment below.)

[Post Notes :

OK – so where are the real issues.

(1) The problem was with Barclays Capital (as was) which was only ever loosely affiliated with Barclays as an operation. Had it’s own investment banking culture separate from retail. Diamond had already taken steps to get a grip – get one culture under one brand. (NB the “problem” is old 2008/9? and not news. The only news is Barclays being the first of the banks to have their fine announced, they are not the only investment bank involved.)

(2) The setting of Libor itself depends on returns of capital costs from banks to the central regulator – which I have to say sounds mad in the first place – a circular chicken and egg. Anyway, so even being conscientious, this is presumably a calculation for the bank – many transactions, many rates, many things to take into account. Even being prudent some judgement about which things to take into account, to err on which side is prudent and good business, incentives, etc? So to “lie” is a tough call when “reporting” – all reporting is a negotiation in my experience. In terms of who benefits / suffers my understanding is that the process of under-reporting costs generally kept rates lower and maintained confidence in stability ? (Not to be undervalued given the state of banking at the time.)

(3) Collusion between competing banks in establishing the numbers to report. Much more serious competitive anti-trust issue, though again it seems the incentives were the other way as far as costs to customers are concerned – opposite of monopolistic / cartel issues behind such rules – tricky one. The key thing here is who, how long, who knew, who sanctioned it. Culture. (The same “Murdoch” scenario.)

(4) The unprofessional tone of communications as rates were “successfully” negotiated. (Not actually seen emails, just a couple of apparent quotes so far – I’m researching that.) Black humour in coded language between workers at the work face, at the expense of the “clients” is perfectly normal, even in “caring”  industries like teaching and health-care or any “support” services, so in a cut-throat financial risk-taking environment, it must be deadly I would imagine.

The real issue is 3 above, and whether the culture and incentives were right for the operation. Major problem is the regulators being so slow to act. Clearly with the banking system in crisis, poachers and gamekeepers both had incentives to be cautious in public. But this “news” is long after the events and long after changes are in motion to fix things, and long after recognition for further overhaul of regulation. Diamond seems like the last person you’d want to lose from the process right now (3 excepted).

PS The “Light Touch” meme is so misleading. The touch should be firm sure, the action decisive, but it should not be intrusive into the whole process. Simple but firm. We need good regulation, not more regulation. And what is good … continues …]

Financial markets, their regulation and the politics around them are so complex, that changes of regulatory input produce practically indeterminate, unpredictable outcomes. The most complex system of systems that humans have ever engineered. More misguided regulation can make the system more fragile, not less. Less is in fact more. More local failures – bonfires – should be allowed to take their natural course, than fixes that increase the risk of a wider system failure – a conflagration or forest fire. Remember Darwin got his original “survival of the better suited” model from economics – Malthus.

Experience and prudence at the (local) operational management level are more valuable than (wider) externally imposed rules. And experience means history – knowing, understanding and learning from history. History understood on both conservative and revolutionary “occupy wallstreet” /”anti-capitalist” sides of any debate.

Enforcement of law (regulation) remains key, but with simpler clearer (moral principal) rules rather than many fine detailed regulations, it is much easier to punish transgressors “pour encourager les autres”. The rule of law rather than the “rule of lawyers”.

Niall Ferguson’s 2nd BBC R4 Reith Lecture “The Rule of Law and its Enemies – #2 The Darwinian Economy” from the New York Historical Society.

[And Post Note : George Monbiot tweets his complaint at the “idiots” responding to his latest post-Rio piece. No time for detailed review and comment this time – but it’s the same argument. It’s a predictably failed attempt at too much big governance of the most complex system – humans and the ecosphere. Local application of “values” much more likely to work – but that’s real values based on historical knowledge, not just individual interpretation of scientific claims and myths. Better to understand why Rio failed, than simply blame and criticise “everyone” for its failure George.

I’m guessing these are the 516 (at the last count) idiots George is referring to ?

“The world has grown weary of the environmentalists, their sick destructive political agenda and their frankly ridiculous hysteria.”

Though you’d have to agree George’s own tone is so melodramatic and OTT. If ever a debate needed some reasonable wisdom injected into it. A pox on both their houses.]

A “Mind Hack” from PsyBlog. From Shawn Callahan at Anecdote, via Twitter.

Edmund Burke’s words quoted by Niall Ferguson in the first of his 2012 Reith Lectures “The Rule of Law and its Enemies – #1 The Human Hive“.

Glorious vs inglorious revolutions in the light of the Arab Spring. Revolution against “extractive” rule, but for what ? Representative democracies that allow the current generation to vote for its own needs, at the expense of the needs of multi-generational institutions, are doomed to degenerate. Long-lived institutions, and the laws that enforce them, have credibility in terms of liability for debt, unlike easy-come, easy-go elected governments – which represent a positively reinforced death spiral.

The eminent economic historian Professor Niall Ferguson argues that institutions determine the success or failure of nations. In a lecture delivered at the London School of Economics and Political Science, he says that a society governed by abstract, impersonal rules will become richer than one ruled by personal relationships. The rule of law is crucial to the creation of a modern economy and its early adoption is the reason why Western nations grew so powerful in the modern age.

But are the institutions of the West now degenerating? Professor Ferguson asks whether the democratic system has a fatal flaw at its heart. In the West young people are confronting the fact that they must live with the huge financial debt generated by their parents, something they had no control over despite the fact that they were born into a democracy. Is there a way of restoring the compact between different generations?

The problem is with the complexity, dysfunctionality, opacity and even fraudulence of economic governance and regulation – not the existence of such institutions. Historically these are the source of sustainable growth and the evolution of wealth – ie it’s not individual entrepreneurism per se, but the institutions that support their functioning. Sustainability involves true valuation of sovereign assets as well as true liability beyond accounting debts, including environmental and natural resources. Populations confuse real grievances with symptoms for underlying problems and causes, and consequently left / liberal groups are exploited to misguided ends. It’s just not cool to be conservative. Who knew the Tea Party was right ? (Funny, I made this comment before, about the superiority of conservative values. And here, Daniel Kahneman pointing out that individual freedom of choice needs the guidance of conservative governance.)

Need to listen to the remaining 3 of 4.