This post was originally published in June of 2016 on another platform:
I've become increasingly interested in how technology and society affect each other. Within the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) there is a defined community focused on this topic called the Society on Social Implications of Technology (IEEE-SSIT). The monthly periodical of the SSIT is called IEEE Technology and Society. In the December 2015 issue I found an interesting article called Information Paradox, Drowning in Information, Starving for Knowledge by Levent V. Orman
The ideas are interesting and can be applicable to my industry in particular. The high-level examples given by the author paint the picture:
"Those who eat the most food are rarely the healthiest people, and they may actually be severely deficient in some nutrients. Those who have the most Facebook friends are often the loneliest people. Those who are the busiest are not the most productive. Those who read books and watch television the most are sometimes the least knowledgeable."
Orman goes on to describe three causes for this paradox.
Information Cost
His base argument for this cause is that quality information comes at a higher cost. As a result we tend to provide and consume more information of lower quality. In this way perhaps we do better on trivia games, but are less effective at more important things. The author notes:
"Economists have known for some time that low quality drives out high quality when it is difficult to distinguish between them, called the "lemons problem." When the marketplace cannot distinguish quality easily, consumers tend to buy the cheaper alternative to reduce their risk. Those who produce high-quality expensive products then cannot compete and leave the market."
Obsolescence
Information causes change. As we add information it can lead to technology change. As technology and information increase in one area it can make information in another area obsolete. The "old" information is considered less useful and as such is essentially lost over time. Orman argues that as the information and technology change speeds up, changes pace, our ability to assimilate the information decreases. We lose the old information as it is de-emphasized and we don't keep up to the increased amount of new information. The result is we understand less than we did before.
Competition
This cause, the author argues, is essentially advocacy. Sources of information mislead or confuse by either sharing false information, or by only sharing a part of the information to gain some sort of advantage. The assumption is that in the market place of ideas all sides can put out their version. As information consumers listen to all sides they will somehow recognize the truth in the middle. The author argues that in reality almost nobody researches all angles to form their own perspective that is closest to true. The result is less complete information.
The other point of the author's competition argument is that people tend to seek for more immediate, short-term gains. It is possible to succeed in meeting short-term goals with partial information, but causing more harm or loss in the long run as stated this way:
"There is a tremendous impulse to do things cheaply in the short run and derive quick benefits. There is a great deal of simple information about the short run and it is easy to use that information to derive quick benefits, yet long-run planning requires rare high-quality information, insight, and wisdom."
Conclusions
In the article the author argues against assuming that correlation is the same as causation. I completely agree. The reasoning is that often when two things happen at the same time in some sort of linked way (correlation) proponents of a specific perspective use this as evidence that one event caused the other (causation). That is not necessarily always true. There are examples given to support the argument that correlation does not equal causation. Other explanations are given to show a different causation, but the author in a few cases uses essentially the same tool of correlation to support the alternative cause. In other words the author, in part, uses the same tool to support one perspective that happens to differ from the other perspectives using the same tool to self-justify.
I'm not sure what we can take from all of this, but over the past year at my work we have attempted to put tools and processes in place to strike the best balance between the short and long game. Hopefully we are sifting through the large amount of information and finding the diamonds that move our organization forward. In fact hopefully we have done a reasonable job of defining what forward means at the division level. We have attempted to define some metrics to help us understand how we are doing as compared with how we have done in the past, and how we'd like to be in the future. I guess only time will tell how we've done and if our aim is correct.
Each of us should find our own ways to consider what information is truly useful and what information is just so much fluff.
Here is the full article if you have a mind:
information_pardox.pdf
I've become increasingly interested in how technology and society affect each other. Within the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) there is a defined community focused on this topic called the Society on Social Implications of Technology (IEEE-SSIT). The monthly periodical of the SSIT is called IEEE Technology and Society. In the December 2015 issue I found an interesting article called Information Paradox, Drowning in Information, Starving for Knowledge by Levent V. Orman
The ideas are interesting and can be applicable to my industry in particular. The high-level examples given by the author paint the picture:
"Those who eat the most food are rarely the healthiest people, and they may actually be severely deficient in some nutrients. Those who have the most Facebook friends are often the loneliest people. Those who are the busiest are not the most productive. Those who read books and watch television the most are sometimes the least knowledgeable."
Orman goes on to describe three causes for this paradox.
Information Cost
His base argument for this cause is that quality information comes at a higher cost. As a result we tend to provide and consume more information of lower quality. In this way perhaps we do better on trivia games, but are less effective at more important things. The author notes:
"Economists have known for some time that low quality drives out high quality when it is difficult to distinguish between them, called the "lemons problem." When the marketplace cannot distinguish quality easily, consumers tend to buy the cheaper alternative to reduce their risk. Those who produce high-quality expensive products then cannot compete and leave the market."
Obsolescence
Information causes change. As we add information it can lead to technology change. As technology and information increase in one area it can make information in another area obsolete. The "old" information is considered less useful and as such is essentially lost over time. Orman argues that as the information and technology change speeds up, changes pace, our ability to assimilate the information decreases. We lose the old information as it is de-emphasized and we don't keep up to the increased amount of new information. The result is we understand less than we did before.
Competition
This cause, the author argues, is essentially advocacy. Sources of information mislead or confuse by either sharing false information, or by only sharing a part of the information to gain some sort of advantage. The assumption is that in the market place of ideas all sides can put out their version. As information consumers listen to all sides they will somehow recognize the truth in the middle. The author argues that in reality almost nobody researches all angles to form their own perspective that is closest to true. The result is less complete information.
The other point of the author's competition argument is that people tend to seek for more immediate, short-term gains. It is possible to succeed in meeting short-term goals with partial information, but causing more harm or loss in the long run as stated this way:
"There is a tremendous impulse to do things cheaply in the short run and derive quick benefits. There is a great deal of simple information about the short run and it is easy to use that information to derive quick benefits, yet long-run planning requires rare high-quality information, insight, and wisdom."
Conclusions
In the article the author argues against assuming that correlation is the same as causation. I completely agree. The reasoning is that often when two things happen at the same time in some sort of linked way (correlation) proponents of a specific perspective use this as evidence that one event caused the other (causation). That is not necessarily always true. There are examples given to support the argument that correlation does not equal causation. Other explanations are given to show a different causation, but the author in a few cases uses essentially the same tool of correlation to support the alternative cause. In other words the author, in part, uses the same tool to support one perspective that happens to differ from the other perspectives using the same tool to self-justify.
I'm not sure what we can take from all of this, but over the past year at my work we have attempted to put tools and processes in place to strike the best balance between the short and long game. Hopefully we are sifting through the large amount of information and finding the diamonds that move our organization forward. In fact hopefully we have done a reasonable job of defining what forward means at the division level. We have attempted to define some metrics to help us understand how we are doing as compared with how we have done in the past, and how we'd like to be in the future. I guess only time will tell how we've done and if our aim is correct.
Each of us should find our own ways to consider what information is truly useful and what information is just so much fluff.
Here is the full article if you have a mind:
information_pardox.pdf
RSS Feed