As many have noted, we are entering a period in which we have not only traditional peer review, we also have review review after publishing. Generally people seem to mean by this the gathering of stats about usage that can then inform readers and the authors’ institutions about the received value of the works.

But there’s also a sense in which peer review — taken yet more broadly — is not being done before publication, nor after publication, but is the publishing. When I recommend an article to you by sending you the link in an email or by posting it on my blog or in a tweet, I am peer reviewing and publishing at the same time.

2 Comments »

The phrase “story-telling” raises my skeptical scalp wisps. I am a sucker for stories, whether of the Moth/ This American Life sort, or the literary art of, say, a Philip Roth or my sister-in-law, Meredith Sue Willis. But “story-telling” also sometimes refers to a belief that even I consider naive about the power of stories to overcome differences, or to the commercial use of stories to manipulate us.

So, I went to the new “Future of Story Telling” conference with my skeptical hazmat suit on. But, it turned out to be an outstanding event. At the very least it helped me understand my skepticism better.

The event, put on by Charlie Melcher, attracted a great set of about 300 folks, including artists, lots of marketers and advertisers, software designers, scientists, and performers. And it used an interesting format that worked out well: Before the event, the conference made a 5-10 minute video for each of the presenters. (Mine is here.) Attendees were asked to choose three one-hour sessions based on those videos. The sessions began with a viewing of the vids, and then a 10-15 minute informal talk by the speaker. The rest was open discussion. Each speaker held her or his session three times.

I tuned mine after each go-through, of course. By the second time, I was setting up the discussion as follows:

Bill Casebeer was at the conference talking about research that shows that the brain releases empathy-producing chemicals when we hear a story that follows the classic arc. This reaction is universal, and when I had a chance to talk with Bill the night before (he’s a brilliant, enjoyable, and — most of all — patient person) I learned that chimpanzee brains also seem to work this way. So, I began my session by pointing to those findings.

But, there are plenty of natural brain reactions that we work against. For example, if the impulse for revenge were a natural impulse, we would try to thwart it in the name of civilization. Likewise if rape were a natural impulse. (This is the old sociobiology debate from the ‘Seventies.) So, I told my session I wanted to raise two questions, not as a devil’s advocate but because I’m genuinely uncertain. First, should we be resisting our brain’s impulse to see and react to story arcs on the grounds that the story arc often is a simplification to the point of falsification? Second, whether or not we reject the arc, does the Internet offer possibilities for telling radically more complex (and therefore more truthful) stories?

Then, I talked briefly about networked knowledge, because that’s what the organizers wanted me to talk about. Also, it’s a topic I like. So, I looked at Reddit (yes, again) as a place at which we see knowledge exhibited in its complexity, including the inevitable disagreements. My overall point was that our new medium is enabling knowledge to become more appropriately complex. If the Net is doing this to knowledge, perhaps it can and even should do this to story telling.

The groups at all three sessions focused on the question of whether story arcs falsify. I gave them the example of how your life is lived versus how it is retold in a biography. The bio finds an arc. But your life — or at least mine — is far more random and chaotic than that. One group usefully applied this to the concept of a “career,” a term that now we pretty much have to put in quotes. We don’t have careers so much as a series of hops, skips, and jumps. (“Career” has always carried class-implications, as did this discussion.) In fact, since (I’d hypothesized) everything is being reinterpreted as a network of the Internet sort, our path through jobs and among friends is itself beginning to look like a network. Small jobs loosely joined?

Some replied that even if your life does not consist of an heroic arc, every step of the way is a little arc. I’d agree that our experience is to a large degree characterized by intentionality (or, as Heidegger would say, by the fact that we care about what happens). But my understanding of the story arc is that it needs the intervention of an obstacle, but most of our plans go forward without a hitch, if only because we learn to be pretty good plan-makers. Further, I think the arc needs to contain a sense that it has more to say than what it literally says. “I went to a store for apples, but they were out, so I went to a different store” is not yet a story. It has to reveal something about the world or about myself: “I went to the store for apples, and the clerk was incredibly rude. Why can’t people be nice to each other? So, then…” Most of what we do has an intention, but not every intentional act is a story. That’s why I don’t see our lives as composed of little stories. And even if they were, putting those little stories together wouldn’t necessarily make the Big Stories we tell about ourselves true.

Some said that stories are not a matter of truth but of emotion. A woman from Odyssey Networks, a group that promotes interfaith understanding, told a story about hardened criminals tenderly caring for other prisoners. Quite moving. And I wouldn’t diminish the importance of stories for connecting us as creatures that feel, care, suffer, and rejoice. But I did want to raise the ethics of using a form of communication that appeals directly to our lizard brains. (Well, I’m pretty sure that’s the wrong portion of the brain. Lizards probably tell really cold-hearted stories.) I didn’t do a very effective job of raising this issue, but we could balance the prisoners’ story with a million propagandistic anecdotes from politicians (“I was in Phoenix when I met Josie Jones, a workin’ mom strugglin’ to make ends meet…”) and marketers. Maybe we should be really careful about using stories, since they can make us vulnerable to some very flawed thinking. And to be technical, I do worry also that the common ground that story-tellers find often may not be all that common after all. I have little confidence that we experience The Iliad the way the Greeks did.

It turned out that none of the three groups much wanted to talk much about the second question: the possibility of using the Net to tell more complex stories. That’s my fault. I couldn’t make the idea concrete enough because I don’t have a concrete-enough idea. In two of the sessions I did raise the possibility that some online multiplayer games are one place we might begin to look. I think there’s some value in that idea, for stories there are collaborative and emergent. But they also lack the coherence that a narrator brings to a story, and coherence may well be a requirement for a story. There are worthy experiments in having large groups collaborate on a single narrative, but that doesn’t scale stories so that they more accurately represent the chaotic and complex nature of life.

It may well be that stories need to be relatively simple and arced in the middle simply to be stories. And I would hate to lose the stories that come from artists, for great stories — or perhaps I should say truthful stories — transcend the simplicity the form imposes. But I continue to worry that story-telling outside of the aesthetic realm is a simplification that all too often falsifies. So, I wouldn’t want to give up stories. But I would be happier if we approached the form itself with a fundamental wariness.

3 Comments »

The narrative was primed to develop, and so it did: Romney won the debate. The instant polls say so, and the mainstream media say so. And although I thought Obama did a far better job, I know that I’m biased that way. I’m willing to acknowledge: Romney won the debate last night.

But, although Romney won it last night, he lost it today, because now we know for sure how much he lied. We can reverse the narrative. We have an obligation to do so.

When cheaters are discovered after a game, they are stripped of their victory. That is what we of social media need to do. The mainstream media won’t because they claim they don’t proclaim winners, although that is exactly what they do.

It is up to us, the tweeters, the bloggers, the updaters of our status, the mailing listers, the tumblrs…all of us. We can turn the mainstream narrative around. That is what social media are for. We can tell the truth. We can speak honest memes to false narratives.

The truth is that Romney lost because he cheated. We together are the truth-checkers.

So here is the narrative we can make true: Romney won last night, but he lost today.

7 Comments »

The always-readworthy Jeremy Wagstaff has a delightful, brief essay that uses our profound ignorance of the quotidian life of the past as a reminder of just how awful we are at predicting — or envisioning — our future.

I also like Jeremy’s essay because I find that I am much more interested in histories of daily life than in broad, sweeping explanations. I consider my lack of broad sweepiness to be a weakness, so I’m not recommending it. But I’m fascinated by how different our lived lives are and have been. And will be.

1 Comment »

I’m at Sogeti‘s annual executive conference, which brings together about 80 CEOs. I’m here with Doc Searls, Andrew Keen, and others. I’ve spoken at other Sogeti events, and I am impressed with their commitment to providing contrary points of view — including views at odds with their own corporate interests. (My one complaint: They expect all attendees to have an iPad or iPhone so that they can participate in on the realtime survey. Bad symbolism.) (Disclosure: They’re paying me to speak. They are not paying me to say something nice about them.)

Menno van Doorn begins by talking about the quantified self movement, claiming that they sometimes refer to themselves as “datasexuals” :) All part of Big Data, he says. To give us an idea of bigness, he relates the Legend of Sessa: “Give me grain, doubling the amount for each square on a chessboard.” Exponential growth meant that by the time you hit the second half of the chessboard, you’re in impossible numbers. Experts say that’s where we were in 2006 when it comes to data. But “there’s no such thing as too much data.” “Big Data is powering the next industrial revolution. Data is the new oil.”

Big Data is about (1) lots of data, (2) at high velocity, (3) using in a variety of ways. (“volume, velocity, variety.”) Michael Chui says that there’s billions in revenues to gain, including from efficiencies. But, Chui says, there are no best practices. The value comes from “human exhaust.” I.e., your digital footprint, what you leave behind in your movement through the Net. Menno thinks of this as “your recorded future.”

Three examples:

1. Menno points to Target, a company that can predict life-changing events among its customers. E.g., based on purchases of 25 products, they can predict which customers are pregnant and roughly when they are due. But, this led to Target sending promotional materials for pregnancy to young girls whose parents learned this way that their daughters were pregnant.

2. In SF, they send out police cars to neighborhoods based on 14-day predictions of where crime will occur, based on data about prior crime patterns.

3. Schufa, a German credit agency, announced they’d use social media to assess your credit worthiness. Immediately a German Minister said, “Schufa cannot become the Big Brother of the beusiness world.”

Two forces are in contention and will determine how much Big Data changes us. Today, the conference will look at the dawn of the age of big data, and then how disruptive it will be for society (the session Keen and I are in). Day 2: Bridging the gap to the new paradigm, Big Data’s fascinating future, and Decision Time: Taming Big Brother.

Carlota Perez, Prof. of Tech and Socio-Economic Development, from Venezuela speaks now.. She is a “neo-Schumpeterian.” She says her role in the conference is “locate the current crisis.” What is the real effect on innovation, and why are we only midways along in feeling the impact?

There have been 5 tech revolutions in the past 240 yeares: 1. 1771 Industrial rev. 1829. Age of steam, coal and railways. 3. 1875 Steel and heavy engineering (the first globalization). 4. Age of he automobile, oril, petrochem and mass production 5. 1971 Age of info tech and telecom. We’re only halfway through that last one. The next revolution queued up: age of biotech, bioelectronics, nanotech, and new materials. [I’m surprised she doesn’t count telegrapgh + radio + telephone, etc., as a comms rev. And I’d separate the Net as its own rev. But that’s me.]

Lifecycle of a tech rev: gestation, induction, deployment, exhaustion. The “big bang” tends to happen when the prior rev is reaching exhaustion. The structure of revs: new cheap inputs, new products, new processes. A new infrastructure arise. And a constellation of new dynamic industries that grow the world economy.

Why call these “revolutions”, she asks? Because they transform the whole economy. They bring new organizational principles and new best practice models. I.e. , a new “techno-economic paradigm.” E.g., we’ve gone from mass production to flexible production. Closed pyramids to open networks. Stable routines to continuous improvement. “Information technology finds change natural.” From human resources to human capital (from raw materials to value). Suppliers and clients to value network partners. Fixed plans to flexible strategies. Three-tier markets (big,medium,small) to hyper-segmented markets. Internationalization to globalization. Information as costly burden to info as asset. Together, these constitute a radical change in managerial common sense.

The diffusion process is broken in two: Bubble, followed by a crash, and then the Golden Age. During the bubble, financial capital forces diffusion. There is income and demand polarization. Then the crash. Then there is an institutional recomposition, leading to a golden age in which everyone benefits. Production capital takes over from financial capital (driven by the govt), and there is better distribution of income and demand.

She looks at the 5 revs, and finds the same historic pattern that she just sketched.

wo major differences between installation and deployment: 1. Bubbles vs. patient (= long-term) capital. 2. Concentrated innovation to modernize industries vs. innovation in all industries that use the new technologies. “Understanding this sequence is essential for strategic thinking.”

The structure of innovation in deployment: pa new coherent fabric of the economy emerges, leading to a golden age. Also, oligopolies emerge which means there’s less unhelpful competition. (?)

Example of prior rev: home electrical applicances: In the installation period, we had a bunch of electric utilities going into homes in the 1910s and 1930s. During the revision, we get a few more. But then in the 1950-70s. we get a surge of new applicances, including tape recorder, microwave, even the electric toothbrush. It’s enabled by universal electricity and driven by suburbinization. It’s the same pattern if you look at textile fibers, from rayon and acetate during instlation, to a huge number during deployment. E.g., structural and packaging plastics: installation brought bakelite, polystyrene and polyethylene, and then a flood of innovation during deployment. “The various systems of the ICT revolution will follow a similar sequence.” [Unless it follows the Tim Wu pattern of consolidation — e.g., everyone being required to use an iPad at a conference] During installation period, ICT was in constant supply push mode. Now must respond to demand pull. “The paradigm and its potential are now understood by all. Demand (in vol and nature) becomes the driving force.

This shifts the role of the CIO. To modernize a mature company, during installation you brought in an expert in modernization, articulating the hw and sw being pushed by the suppliers. During the deployment phase, a modern company that is innovating for strategic expansion, the CIO is an expert in strategy, specifying needs and working with suppliers. “The CIO is no longer staff. S/he must be directly involved in strategy.”

There are 3 main forces for innovation in the next 2-3 decades, as is true for all the revs. 1. Deepening and widening of the ICT tech rev, responding to user needs. 2. The users of ICT across all industries and activities. 3. The gestation of the next rev (probably bioteech, nanotech, and new materials).

Big Data is likely have a big role in each of those directions.

Q: Why are we only 50% of the way through?

A: Because the change after the recession is like opening a dam. Once you get to the point where you can have a comfortable innovation prospective, imagine the market possibilities.

Q: What can go wrong?

A: Governments. Unfettered free markets are indispensable for the installation process. Lightly guided markets are needed in the golden age. Free markets work when you need to force everyone to change. But now no longer: The state has to come in . But govts are drunk with free markets. Now finance is incompetent. “They don’t dare invest in real things.” Ideology is so strong and the understanding of history is so shallow that we’re not doing the right thing.”

Christopher Ahlberg speaks now. He’s the founder of Recorded Future. His topic: “Turning the Web into Predictive Signals.”

We see events like Arab Spring and wonder if we could have predicted them. Three things are going on: 1. Moving from smaller to larger datasets. 2. From structured to unstructured data (from numbers to text). 3. From corporate data to Internet/Web.

There’s a “seismic shift in intelligence” “emporal indexing of the Web enables Web intelligence.” The Web is not organized for finding date; it’s about finding documents.” Can we create structure for the Web we can use for analysis? A lot of work has been done on this. Why is this possible now? Fast math, large, fast storage, web harvesting, and linguistic analysis progress.

His company looks for signals in human language. E.g., temporal signals. That can turn up competitive info. But human language is tough to deal with. But also when something happens — e.g., Haitian earthquake — there are patterns in when people show up: helpers, doctors, military, do-gooder actors, etc. There tends to be a flood of notifications immediately afterwards. The Recorded Data platform does the linguistic analysis.

He gives an example: What’s going to happen to Merck over the next 90 days. Some is predictable: There will be a quarterly financial conference all. A key drug is up for approval. Can we look into the public conversations about these events, and might this guide our stock purchases? And beyond Merck, we could look at everything from cyber attacks to sales opportunities.

Some examples. 1. Monitoring unrest. Last week there were protests against Foxconn in China. Analysis of Chinese media shows that most of those protests were inland, while corporate expansion is coming in coastal areas. Or look at protests against pharmaceuticals for animal testing.

Example 2: Analyzing cyber threats. Hackers often try out an approach on a small scale and then go larger. This can give us warning.

Example 3: Competitive intelligence. When is there a free space — announcement-free — when you can get some attention. Example 4: Lead generation. E.g., look for changes in management. (New marketing person might need a new PR agency.) Exasmple 5: Trading patterns. E.g., if there’s bad news but insiders are buying.

Conclusion: As we move from small to large datasets, structured to unstructured, and from inside to outside the company, we go from surprise to foresight.

Q: What is the question you cannot answer?

A: The situations that have low frequency. It’s important that there be an opportunity for follow-up questions.

Q: What if you don’t know what the right question is?

A: When it’s unknown unknowns, you can’t ask the right question. But the great thing about visualizaton is that it helps people ask questions.

Q: How to distinguish fact from opinion on Twitter, etc.?

A: Or NYT vs. Financial Post. There isn’t a simple answer. We’re working toward being able to judge sources based on known outcomes.

Q: Do your predictions get more accurate the more data you have?

A: Generally yes, but it’s not always that simple.

Be the first to comment »

My latest column in KMWorld is about why your business needs scholars. In fact, though, it’s about why the idea of scholarship is more helpful than focusing your thinking on knowledge.

Be the first to comment »

Someday I’ll figure out the threads that bind the mere sentences that make me fill with tears. Sometimes it’s sadness, but surprisingly often it’s joy.

Here’s today’s joy:

Click to go to Nasa’s original

Look in the upper right for a crescent-shaped smudge. That’s Phobos, one of Mars’ two moons.

Emily Lakdawalla writes in her blog:

Think about this for a moment — we’re seeing a different moon from the surface of a different world. And this moon is weird not just for its lumpiness, but also because it orbits so close to Mars that it outpaces Mars’ rotation. That means it rises in the west and sets in the east, more than twice every Martian day. Completely alien. And awesome, in the literal sense of the world.

It turns me into a soppy ol’ Boehner.

Here’s a close-up of Phobos:

I would not have noticed this image were it not for the ever-watchful members of unmannedspaceflight.com (user “fredk” this time). I’m so grateful for that community. We’re running a fundraiser right now to support our hosting costs — if you, too, value the beautiful images and constant attentiveness of this community of volunteers and amateurs, please consider making a donation to support it.

2 Comments »

I’m leading one of the many sessions at the Future of Story-telling conference this week. They’ve got an interesting methodology: They produced a short video for each of the sessions. Attendees are required to watch all 15 in order to decide which sessions to go to. The sessions are open discussions on the topics in the videos, without any slide decks, etc. It’s a really interesting set of discussion leaders. I’m expecting it to be unique and provocative.

Here’s the video they produced for me:

(My one concern about the conference: They do not want us using computers, smart phones, etc., to keep us “present.” But the Net is my present!)

Be the first to comment »

I just read Michael Lewis’ tag-along look at President Obama. It shows aspects of Obama not readily on display. But mainly it’s about being the President as Decider.

The article makes it clear to me that the presidency is not a possible job. No one cannot be adequately prepared to deal with the range of issues the president faces, most of which have significant effects on very real people. The president therefore needs processes that enable him (so far it’s been hims, kids) to make good decisions, the personality that will let him embrace those processes, and the character to continue making decisions while fully appreciating the consequences of his actions.

Mothers, don’t let you kids grow up to be presidents. Holy cow.

2 Comments »

I’m engaged in a multi-day conversation at The Well, led by Jon Lebkowsky — join in! — about Too Big to Know, and found myself summing up the book as follows:

Traditional knowledge seemed like true content handed to us by competent experts. Networked knowledge seems like the work of humans who never quite get anything right.

Now, I’m of course not completely satisfied with that answer; if I were, I would have written a tweet instead of a book. But it leads to one of my many fears about this new knowledge ecosystem, which nevertheless holds such tremendous promise.

I think the Net only makes us smarter if we come to understand that truth is a complex of metadata — if I may put it in the least helpful way possible. In fact, you could substitute “authority” or “truth” in that sentence and have a less contentious way of putting it, and we can postpone the debate about whether there is really much of a difference between the two terms. Anyway, the simple point I’m failing to make is that the paper world tends toward establishing truths. Once established, they can be accepted without regard for the process by which they were established. Of course scholars and experts in the field will always be willing to challenge those processes, but our knowledge strategy has been to build upon a bedrock of established truths without having to re-establish each of them.

It is no accident that this mirrors the strengths and limitations of publishing truths on paper. Once published, paper-based works are literally independent of their sources. This independence enables truths to be distributed around the world, but at a cost. One of Plato’s problems with paper as opposed to dialogue was in fact that you can’t ask the paper any questions. Not only are we cut off from the processes that led to that truth, the paper seemingly inevitably takes on its own authority: If it made it through the editorial filters that the finitude of paper and bookshelves necessitate, then it must have some value.

It’s different on the Net. All it takes is a link to enable readers to see the processes — the drafts, the revisions, the arguments — that led to the page they’re reading. Authorial pride may get in the way of showing these processes, but increasingly the signal is flipping, so that not showing your work is taken as a sign of pretension, arrogance, or even fear, while showing the drafts and disagreements signals confidence and a commitment to truth…

…because truth on the Net needs to be more than the totality of statements that are true. For us to advance as a culture, we need to understand the human involvement in truth. We need to have as a guiding assumption that truth is something we argue about, that it is always seen from a particular historical and cultural position, that is never simply the statement that asserts something true.

And the Net is great at that. Links can lead us back to the processes that led to the assertions on the page, and links can lead us out into a world that interprets and challenges the assertions. Our overall experience of the Web as chaotic informs us that there are lots of different ideas, and, no, they don’t all fit together harmoniously.

If we stick with our old habits on the Net, then not only do we fail to advance, we regress. There are more untruths to learn on the Net than there ever were in the paper world. If we don’t grow into the assumption that truth always has a meta context, we will believe more flat-footed lies.

Now, I’m optimistic about this. I think some of these lessons are learned simply by being on the Web: Ideas are hyperlinked. The world is in disagreement. But these lessons are not inevitable, or at least they can be suppressed by our old instincts and by our intellectual laziness (or call it efficiency if you prefer): Just as when we see a bright shiny object, our eyes twitch toward it, when we see a bright rectangle of text and graphics, our brains twitch toward giving it credence. That was a much more useful (lazy/efficient) reflex in the paper days when publication entailed filtering. It is a habit that leads us away from truth in the Net age.

And the evidence is not entirely encouraging. One study — which I cannot find, thus causing my entire argument here to do the Happy Irony Dance— found that only a tiny percentage of students who consult Wikipedia ever look at the “talk” or “discussion” pages where Wikipedia’s assertions are argued. That’s in part a failure of education and a failure by Wikipedia to explain itself. It is in part a reflection of the fact that people generally come to an encyclopedia to get answers, not to read back-and-forth arguments. But apparently (see the Irony Dance above) only a small percentage of Wikipedia users even know what the Talk pages are.

One of the definitions of “fundamentalism” of any kind is that it is the assumption that texts speak for themselves, without interpretation or inquiry. Fundamentalism becomes much more dangerous when the seeker of belief has a near infinity of scriptures from which to choose. I believe the Net is making us far smarter, but on cloudy days I wonder.

2 Comments »