• About

The art and science of the possible

~ A celebration of non-zero sum thinking

The art and science of the possible

Category Archives: science

Measuring our way into meaninglessness, stagnation and crisis

12 Wednesday Mar 2014

Posted by lnedelescu in Crisis, future, human capital, innovation, problem solving, science

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

bureaucracy, Crisis, Data Crunching, economics, Fanatism, future, Kurzweil, neo-Marxism, Numbers, Religion, Singularity, Society, Stagnation, Totalitarianism

Image

I posit excessive measurement is the culprit behind the world’s biggest problems, as well as the likely initiator of its future crises. It is the largest hidden systemic risk to our future livelihood. Our obsession with quantity is the very incarnation of the materialistic credo, a worldview focusing on physical resources and antagonist to a knowledge economy.

Continue reading →

Facebook vs. Nicolay Kardashev: the sustainable economic growth argument

02 Sunday Mar 2014

Posted by lnedelescu in business, capitalism, democracy, future, human capital, innovation, Investment, science, society, technology

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

capital, Clay Christensen, Cosmos, economic growth, Facebook, Innovation, Investment, Kardashev's scale, Knowledge, Prosperity, social networking, Unknowns, Zuckerberg

Image

I’ve often wondered whether social networking companies like Facebook qualify as innovations driving sustainable economic growth, i.e. fueling human prosperity.

As more of the world’s discretionary capital (equity, venture, etc.) is sunk into social technologies we should I think explore the link between virtual technologies facilitating human connectivity (i.e. social media) and vibrant economies conducent to democratic political systems, invention and human prosperity.

Continue reading →

When it comes to strategy, it’s ok to cut corners

16 Tuesday Jul 2013

Posted by lnedelescu in business, knowledge, management, science, society, strategy

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Decision Making, Heuristics, Human Systems, Humans, Implicit Knowledge, Life, problem solving, Science vs Art, Social Context, strategy

Image

Life is not a sanitized laboratory experiment. It’s rather a messy ebb and flow that makes scientific precision a futile pursuit. The scientific method has its rightful place in the universe, but human affairs are more artful than scientific.

Continue reading →

Self-awareness: a phenomenon exclusive to the natural world?

13 Thursday Jun 2013

Posted by lnedelescu in human capital, learning, science, society, technology

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Artificial Intelligence, Cognition, complexity, Double Loop Learning, Intentionality, Meaning, Natural World, Neural Algorithms, Perception, Purpose, Reality, Reflexivity, Self-Awareness, Singularity, Social Science

Image

Self-awareness, key to intentionality, meaning and purpose, may be restricted to the natural world. In social theory, reflexivity refers to a circular relationship between cause and effect in human systems. The latest in complexity and cognitive science – themselves related disciplines – appears to confirm this assertion by social scientists. By the simple act of perception humans can alter the reality they attempt to observe, and in that sense reality and sentient man can be said to intertwine. Out of this inference an emergent phenomenon we call the future limps forward.

Continue reading →

Current HR practices, a significant liability for the world’s future

06 Monday May 2013

Posted by lnedelescu in business, capitalism, future, human capital, innovation, science, society

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

Christensen, Design, HR, human capital, Innovation, Roger Martin

father_time_flying_past (1)

Some of my blog entries may be taken as theoretical exercises. While I make use of the latest thinking, most of the things I write about are in fact directly extracted from personal experience. It is my attempt to turn what could otherwise be called frustrations into constructive insights. I felt this short introduction was necessary simply to add a degree of credibility to what follows. Now let’s get back on topic.

Let’s start with a preview of my thesis. My argument rests on three observations: (1) innovation is vital to our future; (2) innovation is slowing down; (3) current HR practices are a contributing factor. Having argued my case, I will end by providing a few ideas on possible solutions.

Continue reading →

Frameworks, trade-spaces, matrices: engineering thinking in management results in big, stagnant bureaucracies

25 Thursday Apr 2013

Posted by lnedelescu in complexity, consulting, human capital, management, Organizational Development, science, strategy, taxonomy, technology

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Analytic Thinking, bureaucracy, business, complexity, effectiveness, Engineering, future, management, models, philosophy, Validity

The most important function of management, particularly executive management, is setting future direction. That implies decisions and choices about the present and future.

Because engineering thinking or more broadly speaking analytic thinking predominates in many executive and consulting circles, it is believed that decisions require a degree of rigorousness similar to that of the scientific method in natural sciences. And so, it is firmly believed that analytic tools empower managers to make sound decisions. The result is a myriad of tools reminiscent of engineering speak – frameworks, trade-spaces, matrices – packaged in neat Power Point slides.

This all very good, but, as philosopher of science Isabelle Stengers remarks  “tools are demanding – they do not confer the power of judging, they ask for the choice of the right tool for the right situation; in other words they oblige us to think and wonder”. The danger that Stengers cautions against is the rigid interpretation of the power of tools. Tool power should never be situated above human judgement. And when it does, this results in the tools getting a life of their own, and embedding the human element which is helpless to escape their hold. This ultimately results in a bureaucratic construct as the purpose of humans becomes not the seeking of meaning and validity, but rather the maintenance and upgrading of the tools. This also results in a proliferation of enforcer types at the expense of creative types, reducing the number and quality of choices about the future.

A more progressive view of management tools is as “enlightening abstractions, precious new tools for thinking” rather than “ready made instruments”. Also, in Stenger’s view, the relationship between user and tool is not one-directional; rather, “tools modify the ones who use them; to learn how to use a tool is to enter a new relation with reality, both an aesthetic and practical new relation”. In my experience, this dual directionality can also unfortunately work backwards: rigid tools can have a limiting effect on thinking.

Source of Isabelle Stengers quotations is “The Challenge of complexity: Unfolding the ethics of science – In Memoriam Ilya Prigogine”

Also check out Dave Snowden’s related blog entry.

In Einstein’s words: the importance of history, philosophy and context

03 Sunday Mar 2013

Posted by lnedelescu in philosophy, science, society

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

philosophy, science

context-free-tree

“I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today – and even professional scientists – seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is – in my opinion – the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth.” Einstein. letter to Robert A. Thornton, 7 December 1944.

Humanity’s cosmic connection: from physics to economics

03 Sunday Mar 2013

Posted by lnedelescu in complexity, science, society

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Economy, inspiring, Nature, philosophy, science, Society

supernova_3

First, there was the universe. And then came humans. We study the universe sometimes forgetting we are the universe. There are lots of pointers to our cosmic connections. I am not referring to the documentaries on National Geographic where Michio Kaku, the celebrity physicist, tells us that every atom in our body was forged in supernovae that exploded a long time ago. Rather, in this blog I will be exploring a more more fundamental connection, between the least understood laws of the universe we’ve so far uncovered and a basic social human activity, between quantum mechanics and economics.

Why even explore such connections? Because similarities across sciences may have profound philosophical implications. We have to remember that dividing the observed reality into various sciences is a human construct meant to make things easier to deal with for us. The universe was not set up that way. So, every opportunity for common insights across sciences should be taken seriously, as it might shed light into our very nature and purpose.

Quantum mechanics had profound philosophical implications since the moment its laws were discovered in the earlier 20th century. It basically implied that the universe is unpredictable, that there is a fundamental limit to what humans can determine. Until then, Newtonian physics promised determinism, since, if one could measure the motion of all atoms, one could even predict the future, which becomes but the sum of all motions. But quantum mechanics, still beyond the grasp of human logic, says that there is a yet unexplained connection between the observer and experiment. Somehow the observer cannot be separated from experiment, and so, past some microscopic scale, the very process of observation changes the experiment, so that we can never determine exactly the initial state of a given situation.

As interesting as the implications of quantum mechanics might be, the general consensus was the microscopic scales don’t apply in the macroscopic world of humans.

But in economics a similar principle proposing a link between observer and experiment has been proposed. A number of cyberneticicians in the 1970s challenged the classical economic theory proposing that markets tend to equilibrium. They instead proposed that classical economic theory is based on the observer being clearly separated from the experiment. But if the observer is also part of the economic “game”, there is a limit to what we can predict about future outcomes reminiscent of quantum mechanics. The observer being embedded in the experiment is deemed in cybernetic theory as “reflexivity”. It’s as if cause and effect are not sequential, but rather they affect each other simultaneously  Gives one a headache just thinking about it.

So the question then becomes, how could the micro and macro worlds share characteristics? What is the connection? Well, social systems are made of people. And people act according to a computing device called “the brain”. And the brain is made of neurons which transmit electrical signals, i.e. exchange electrons. And electrons are small enough to be influenced by quantum laws. If the brain has the characteristics of a quantum computing device, this might explain why human behavior in inherently unpredictable and why, systems that include many humans, are even less predictable. While this reality may really piss off statisticians, it is otherwise a good thing: it says that humans have free will, are creative beings that can design their own future. But those insisting on predictions and reading into coffee cups shouldn’t get completely depressed. There is a way to predict the future: design it! 🙂

The power of holistic thinking or how Albert Einstein’s Theory of Relativity could not have been a crowd-sourced innovation

13 Thursday Dec 2012

Posted by lnedelescu in innovation, knowledge, science, society, technology

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Crowd Sourcing, Einstein, Innovation, science, Society, Technology

I have claimed that all the hype about how the information technology revolution,  culminating with Apple and Facebook, has changed the quality of our civilization may be over-rated.

A lot of the benefits hype associated with social networks and other interconnected means of communication facilitated by information technology may be just that: hype. Networks come with volume (people, information, “likes” and so on) and they do have their benefits: speed with which the information propagates for one and the beginnings of the creation of a global village. But we should not confuse information with wisdom, intelligence and creativity; more quantity of information delivered ever faster does not necessarily mean an increase in the quality of our understanding or wisdom. I’ve used the following example to make my point to several audiences lately: “Einstein’s Theory of Relativity could not have been a crowd-sourced innovation”. And I honestly believe that is true, having provided at least one supporting argument from the management consulting industry (see my blog entry “Russell Ackoff, the Albert Einstein of Management“).

And so I have claimed, supplied limited examples, and will continue to argue over the course of coming posts that some of the world’s top thinkers are in fact aligned with a view that argues for qualitative, holistic path to the world’s progress that can be traced all the way back to roots of Western civilization in ancient Greece.

Below are three examples of insights that go against commonly accepted wisdom. These insights share a common denominator and namely that quality is more important than quantity which is equivalent to effectiveness being more important than efficiency. See also my post on this blog of the fallacy of the business performance consulting model.

In his Harvard Business Review Blog, Jeff Stibel makes the case for intelligence and creativity being a qualitative rather than quantitative, a primarily individualistic rather than group phenomenon:

http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2011/06/why_a_great_individual_is_bett.html

In a Q&A with Alan Hall at Forbes, Clayton Christiansen, the innovation guru, argues that our obsession with efficiency, based largely in quantitative methods and thinking, is killing innovation:

http://www.businessinsider.com/clay-christensen-our-obsession-with-efficiency-is-killing-innovation-2012-12

The same finger prints of holistic, qualitative thinking can be noticed in Roger Martin’s and Jack Welch’s motivations when arguing against the “shareholder value” concept in economics and business:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2012/08/29/is-the-hegemony-of-shareholder-value-finally-ending/

Categories

business capitalism Communication complexity consulting Crisis democracy design thinking Emerging Markets future human capital innovation Investment knowledge learning management Organizational Development paradox philosophy problem solving sales science society strategy taxonomy technology Uncategorized

Latest

  • Intelligence is Intentional
  • Plenty of Room at the Top: the case for a viable man-machine economic future
  • What does an “innovation economy” really mean?
  • Lightfoot strategy
  • Capital: a brief philosophy

Archives

  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • August 2014
  • June 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012

Blog at WordPress.com.

Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Follow Following
    • The art and science of the possible
    • Join 151 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • The art and science of the possible
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...