Archive for the ‘Thoughts’ Category

Monday, May 14th, 2012

Between Us and Total Chaos

Lord of the Flies:  Sir William Golding’s epic novel of the relationship between human nature and society, and the breakdown that occurs when the safeguards that society creates to  protect itself start to crumble.

I first read the book in junior high school, as the waves created by 1960s American social change and protest began to crash into my consciousness. I came of age in a time when “law and order” bumped into personal freedom, and what would seem, at first glance – maybe – to be two very complementary concepts clashed as, at their extremes, one became an oversimplified icon of police-state thinking and the other became a caricature of lack of accountability and seriousness.

And the book resonated. Where was the middle ground? The sweet spot between the glue that held society together and the anarchy of doing whatever you wanted – more important, what would happen if the bonds loosened? What would I do? What would you do?

The real question – as I see it – relates to absolutes – primal imprints – do we need laws or does human nature automatically take over and self-correct, so that we stay centered and behave in a manner that separates us from our nonhuman neighbors. Do we become the very monsters we fear or do we transcend?

If you haven’t read the book, I highly recommend it and will leave you with this thought quoted from the manuscript – “Maybe there is a beast….maybe it’s only us.”

Maybe it’s only us – clearly there is enough proof in the past century and this one too, to suggest that way too often it is us – and sometimes us with laws to justify our actions…maybe the worst combination of law and order and anarchy – in fact, since the dawn of time such has been the case.

On a smaller scale, it’s evident in personal and business relationships when self takes precedence and “the end justifies the means” becomes the normative operating philosophy.

So again – the question is, what really stands between us and total chaos? Clearly laws alone don’t cut it – and in fact, can be perverted for evil as well.

Listen:

“Laws control the lesser man.  Right conduct controls the greater one.”  Chinese Proverb

And there you have it – right conduct – an absolute – a primal imprint – a filter by which to judge what we do, what we support, what we champion.

We need laws – for sure – but as we know, laws are easy to break or ignore or worse, enact for the wrong reasons.

The book ends – “I should have thought that a pack of British boys…would have been able to put up a better show than that.”

What kind of show will we put on?

What do you think?

Posted by David on 05/14 at 12:50 PM
  • Matt -- good point -- much has been written about those who follow a "higher being" and in the name of that deity kill those who dont accept it. Way too many examples -- past and present -- to mention.
    Read more >
    Posted by david sable on 2012-05-15 18:08:13
  • I have to call shenanigans on the notion that man must look to a higher being for guidance with regard to 'right conduct'. One doesn't need a deity to contemplate philosophical issues (such as morality). . In relation to Goldings tale, the kids had been taught about 'right conduct' but hadnt really contemplated it, hence when there was no ...
    Read more >
    Posted by Matt on 2012-05-15 17:46:37
  • Remember in the movie, “Goodfellas”, the day the FBI zoomed down on Ray Liotta’s character, Henry Hill? That day, Hill was on top of his game. He had all of everything in his pocket; all the plates were spinning. He was making a feast for his buddies with multiple pots of sauce, pasta, meatballs; you name it, on ...
    Read more >
    Posted by joette spinelli on 2012-05-15 14:36:23
Monday, April 30th, 2012

Making Money from Scoops

Here is an ethical question.

Can a news source make money from its scoops – beyond the obvious – and will I keep reading the source if they continue to scoop?

The question is raised by Felix Salmon, the finance blogger on Reuters – somewhat facetiously I thought…until I thought about it and read the comments posted around his own posting.

Read on:
http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/04/24/could-the-nyt-make-money-from-its-scoops/

Bottom line – companies pay for access to information. In today’s world they pay for access to ever more relevant and ever more instant sources. If I hired a research company to unearth that same information few would argue that I don’t have the right to benefit from it. But a news source? A storied institution like the New York Times? Don’t they have a compact with the public? Don’t all credible news institutions have that same sense of accountability?

Yet already I can pay the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and others to get digital access to their news and thus get it faster and before the print edition is even composed. And, if I go back in time – isn’t buying a daily subscription the same thing? I get it early in the morning – read it with my coffee and muffin and get a jump on the guy who picks it up on the way in. In fact I remember stories of people who would wait outside the printing plants to get the first copy of a given newspaper in the old days.

So – it would seem, at first glance, that in our digital world there is no additional ethical or moral issue – like most things it’s just an evolution and adaptation of understood and accepted behavior.

Or is it? HMMMMMMM….

Read the posts and tell me what you think.

My going in view was much the same as one of the contributors – a trusted news source has to be held to a different standard than a scandal rag – and I might be tempted to add that in a world where credibility, relevance and trust are becoming blurred subjects, I might feel even more strongly about that point and hope that they hew to a more rigorous interpretation of their charter.

In fact I might argue that if they fall prey to the temptation it actually lowers their future competitive advantage.

Last point – notice all the anonymity in the postings – my position on that has never changed – unless you are in a country where you fear for your life the opportunity to misuse hiding behind a curtain is too tempting for too many…and adds to the danger of having no credible sources left for benchmarking information and, yes, even behavior.

Listen:

“Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge without integrity is dangerous and dreadful.”
Samuel Johnson

I think this about sums it up. Interestingly, many weighed in on this, from the Greek and Roman philosophers to Benjamin Franklin to many of today’s most famous pundits.

Not a problem created by our age but one still very relevant and very much on people’s minds.

What do you think?

Posted by David on 04/30 at 06:43 PM
  • It is interesting how many sites are now making the move from freeview into pay for content models - most recently was the Times UK. I guess most people expect that the publications online should be free, whilst paper copies should not - however a business is a business and any profit made off the back of covering operating costs ...
    Read more >
    Posted by Suzanne Donovan on 2012-05-07 04:36:56
Monday, April 9th, 2012

Love 2.0

Algorithms do not love make….

Yes, yes – we all know the advertised stories of all the happy couples brought together by digital dating services through the magic of advanced algorithms.

But hear out Eli Finkel, a professor of social psychology at Northwestern University. As quoted by The New York Times on Easter Sunday, Professor Finkel had this to say:

“Technology is not the way to figure out who is compatible and who will never be.  At the end of the day, the human algorithm – neural tissue in our cranium called a brain – has evolved over a long period of time to size up people efficiently. On a blind date, a person arrives and in that instant can say, ‘I’m glad I did this or I regret it.’”

It also reminded me of a joke often told by Rodney Dangerfield, the well-known American comedian:

“My wife and I were happy for twenty years. Then we met.”

And there you have it….

As I contemplated both the professor and Rodney and the sentiment they shared, I was reminded of a piece I had seen in TIME Magazine regarding the technological aspects of the various revolutions and movements of the past year or so:

“Technology mattered, but this was not a technological revolution. Social networks did not cause these movements, but they kept them alive and connected. Technology allowed us to watch, and it spread the virus of protest, but this was not a wired revolution; it was a human one, of hearts and minds, the oldest technology of all.”

Bottom line – algorithms help us make order out of chaos – but they have no soul.

Imagine a world where we could make peace by algorithm….

So it seems to me that as we contemplate what algorithms can and cannot do – as we understand them for the tools they are and not the tools they might make us – I thought the following might spark a thought or two….

Listen:

“If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe.”
Carl Sagan

So if you are looking for the love of your life or you have the urge to bring about world peace – by all means begin with Bing or Google – but remember that creating the universe takes a lot more thought….

What do you think?

Posted by David on 04/09 at 05:11 PM