ZenPundit
Thursday, November 08, 2007
ADD TO SCHOLARSHIP, TAKE TDAXP'S SURVEY
On Creativity and Blogging. You don't need to have a blog to take the survey so be a good egg and help him out.
On Creativity and Blogging. You don't need to have a blog to take the survey so be a good egg and help him out.
Labels: blogging, blogroll, cognition, creativity, tdaxp
¶ 8:33 PM 1 comments
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
ANALYSIS IS A TWO-EDGED SWORD
The other day, Dan of tdaxp objected to my appreciation of logic as an analytical tool in the comment section:
"Humans are pretty terrible logical reasoners, so relying on logic doesn't do much. Expertise comes from analogical reasoning, which allows faster processing, more reliable rejection of bad options, and effortless cognition in general."
I agree with much of Dan's statement. Most people are highly illogical and emotional in their decision-making process and not a few, though still a minority of the population, remain concrete thinkers their whole lives. We could not get anything done without cognitive automaticity kicking in to gear; having to consciously, sequentially, reason out the steps of every action would leave us exhausted before breakfast. My only quibble with Dan would be to replace "expertise" with "insight" or "creativity" as many variables, including the effects of chance, go into accumulating an experential base of knowledge. That is a minor divergence, for like Dan, I am an advocate of the benefits of synthesis, analogies, metaphors, horizontal thinking, metacognitive reflection and intuitive cognition - those forms of thinking that are generative of new insights.
I have also seen many complaints recently in the blogosphere about the negative effects of analytical thinking, if overused or abused, in these cases by lawyers, the profession most noted for elevating analytical reasoning above the factual variables to which the reasoning is to be applied. Here's one:
From Kent's Imperative:
"Worse yet, we detect a discernable strain of legal thinking which now seeks to impose restrictions not only on the collection of information, but on its use. The idea that a warrant might be required to search against previously accumulated foreign intelligence materials sounds absurd, but recent legal opinions appear to have laid the groundwork for such an argument in future cases. This would also be very nearly absolutely fatal in the context of fusion and collaboration for homeland security intelligence purposes (particularly if critical elements of the intelligence picture are obtained from foreign intelligence activities of DOD and other agencies, as if often the case.)
We have long maintained that the mindsets of the lawyer and the intelligence professional are diametrically opposed. The first seeks to present a structured picture through adversarial argumentation, and by training attacks to exclude evidence from the picture to support a particular viewpoint. The latter struggles to understand puzzles and mysteries, and to assemble a coherent narrative in the face of incomplete, conflicting, and deceptive information in order to support the decision-maker’s choices regarding courses of action. Allowing the lawyers to dictate further the key aspects of the world of intelligence – and allowing intelligence activities to be framed into an “investigative” basis rather than continuing inquiry into matters of standing interest – will be the death of the profession."
Analytical thinking is a tool for reductionism. It helps you take the watch apart and explains how the gears fit together. It can identify broken parts and quantify performance. Analytical thinking works well in this instance because a mechanical watch represents a closed system with limited boundries. What analytical thinking can't do, being an interruptive, destructive, activity is conceptualize an alternative way to tell time or arrive at Einstein's insights about Relativity. For that you require a constructive, generative, pattern of thinking.
Used incorrectly, and analytical thinking often is because more people can analyze than synthesize well, it can destroy group dynamics and productivity through " paralysis by analysis". The downsides of all options become the most significant variables and opportunities are lost. Used correctly, to fine-tune, trouble-shoot, tweak and better adapt, analytical thinking can prevent disasters.
The other day, Dan of tdaxp objected to my appreciation of logic as an analytical tool in the comment section:
"Humans are pretty terrible logical reasoners, so relying on logic doesn't do much. Expertise comes from analogical reasoning, which allows faster processing, more reliable rejection of bad options, and effortless cognition in general."
I agree with much of Dan's statement. Most people are highly illogical and emotional in their decision-making process and not a few, though still a minority of the population, remain concrete thinkers their whole lives. We could not get anything done without cognitive automaticity kicking in to gear; having to consciously, sequentially, reason out the steps of every action would leave us exhausted before breakfast. My only quibble with Dan would be to replace "expertise" with "insight" or "creativity" as many variables, including the effects of chance, go into accumulating an experential base of knowledge. That is a minor divergence, for like Dan, I am an advocate of the benefits of synthesis, analogies, metaphors, horizontal thinking, metacognitive reflection and intuitive cognition - those forms of thinking that are generative of new insights.
I have also seen many complaints recently in the blogosphere about the negative effects of analytical thinking, if overused or abused, in these cases by lawyers, the profession most noted for elevating analytical reasoning above the factual variables to which the reasoning is to be applied. Here's one:
From Kent's Imperative:
"Worse yet, we detect a discernable strain of legal thinking which now seeks to impose restrictions not only on the collection of information, but on its use. The idea that a warrant might be required to search against previously accumulated foreign intelligence materials sounds absurd, but recent legal opinions appear to have laid the groundwork for such an argument in future cases. This would also be very nearly absolutely fatal in the context of fusion and collaboration for homeland security intelligence purposes (particularly if critical elements of the intelligence picture are obtained from foreign intelligence activities of DOD and other agencies, as if often the case.)
We have long maintained that the mindsets of the lawyer and the intelligence professional are diametrically opposed. The first seeks to present a structured picture through adversarial argumentation, and by training attacks to exclude evidence from the picture to support a particular viewpoint. The latter struggles to understand puzzles and mysteries, and to assemble a coherent narrative in the face of incomplete, conflicting, and deceptive information in order to support the decision-maker’s choices regarding courses of action. Allowing the lawyers to dictate further the key aspects of the world of intelligence – and allowing intelligence activities to be framed into an “investigative” basis rather than continuing inquiry into matters of standing interest – will be the death of the profession."
Analytical thinking is a tool for reductionism. It helps you take the watch apart and explains how the gears fit together. It can identify broken parts and quantify performance. Analytical thinking works well in this instance because a mechanical watch represents a closed system with limited boundries. What analytical thinking can't do, being an interruptive, destructive, activity is conceptualize an alternative way to tell time or arrive at Einstein's insights about Relativity. For that you require a constructive, generative, pattern of thinking.
Used incorrectly, and analytical thinking often is because more people can analyze than synthesize well, it can destroy group dynamics and productivity through " paralysis by analysis". The downsides of all options become the most significant variables and opportunities are lost. Used correctly, to fine-tune, trouble-shoot, tweak and better adapt, analytical thinking can prevent disasters.
Labels: analogy, analytic, cognition, horizontal thinking, intelligence, kent's imperative, logic, tdaxp
¶ 7:31 PM 4 comments
Sunday, July 29, 2007
BOOKS ARE SIGNPOSTS ON THE ROAD OF LIFE
"I cannot live without books"
- Thomas Jefferson
First, I'd like to thank Dr. Barnett and Dan of tdaxp for the kind remarks and links the past few days. Both men have often provoked me to new thoughts or reconsidered views and it is nice to know that I can return the favor on occasion.
Tom had a post Sunday entitled " Why the grand strategist/visionary needs the discipline of books" that echoed something I've long believed. Something Lexington Green, in his enviably book-lined home, probably would agree with,
a) First, there's really no substitute for a good "hard" book.
b) Fiction becomes a guilty pleasure.
Perhaps, the physicists and mathematicians among us ( Von, Shane, Wiggins) will put a word in for the elegance of the mathematical equation, but for me, the supremacy of the book reigns without a rival. As I reflect on the evolution of my thinking as a teen and an adult, inevitably there are many books and a handful of people who leap to mind. Many, many, books and very, very, few people.
As much as I love history, the best reading I have done, in terms of determined, sustained, thought, involved philosophy and economics - Aristotle, Plato, Marx, Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, Keynes, Galbraith, Von Mises, Von Hayek, Nietzsche, Marcus Aurelius, Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, Machiaveli, Kuhn -because it trained my mind to accept the discipline of formal logic. Logic is invaluable for a rational mind but wisdom is discerning logic's limitations of functioning within paradigms and that the paradigms themselves are tools for the mind to understand a part of reality; and not one of these paradigms is sufficient to encompass the whole. You have to synthesize, learn, adapt - there is no point at which you " rest" or become complacent with your expertise.
The joy is in the journey and not in the destination.
"I cannot live without books"
- Thomas Jefferson
First, I'd like to thank Dr. Barnett and Dan of tdaxp for the kind remarks and links the past few days. Both men have often provoked me to new thoughts or reconsidered views and it is nice to know that I can return the favor on occasion.
Tom had a post Sunday entitled " Why the grand strategist/visionary needs the discipline of books" that echoed something I've long believed. Something Lexington Green, in his enviably book-lined home, probably would agree with,
a) First, there's really no substitute for a good "hard" book.
b) Fiction becomes a guilty pleasure.
Perhaps, the physicists and mathematicians among us ( Von, Shane, Wiggins) will put a word in for the elegance of the mathematical equation, but for me, the supremacy of the book reigns without a rival. As I reflect on the evolution of my thinking as a teen and an adult, inevitably there are many books and a handful of people who leap to mind. Many, many, books and very, very, few people.
As much as I love history, the best reading I have done, in terms of determined, sustained, thought, involved philosophy and economics - Aristotle, Plato, Marx, Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, Keynes, Galbraith, Von Mises, Von Hayek, Nietzsche, Marcus Aurelius, Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, Machiaveli, Kuhn -because it trained my mind to accept the discipline of formal logic. Logic is invaluable for a rational mind but wisdom is discerning logic's limitations of functioning within paradigms and that the paradigms themselves are tools for the mind to understand a part of reality; and not one of these paradigms is sufficient to encompass the whole. You have to synthesize, learn, adapt - there is no point at which you " rest" or become complacent with your expertise.
The joy is in the journey and not in the destination.
Labels: barnett, book, cognition, economics, education, horizontal thinking, personal, philosophy, recommended reading, tdaxp
¶ 9:27 PM 7 comments
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
AMUSING
In an admission of cheap bastardy, Dan of tdaxp ponders his nightlife and transportation options in our nation's capitol on $ 5 a day.
In an admission of cheap bastardy, Dan of tdaxp ponders his nightlife and transportation options in our nation's capitol on $ 5 a day.
Labels: blogosphere, blogroll, boyd 2007, humor, personal, tdaxp
¶ 2:06 PM 2 comments
Sunday, July 01, 2007
A VOICE OF REASON ON IMMIGRATION
One of my older blogospheric associates, TM Lutas had some sage observations on immigration:
"Assimilation is the process of "clearing the job queue". The immigrants of today are tomorrows' citizens most capable and most inclined to help out with assimilation because they've gone through the process. It's not something you can really demand because this sort of thing is true charity work. Few people are actually paid to help others learn english, find a job, navigate the political, economic, and social system that is the USA. Most of the people who do it do so part time, often unconsciously.
The common sense outline of the solution for immigration is not too hard to figure out. You need to determine what the inflection points are, set immigration numbers that are above all the "too low" inflection points and below all the "too high" inflection points and make sure that your assimilation machinery works well so that you end up clearing the queue quickly and allow the next round in.
Now is anybody talking like this? I haven't found any and thus my disgust with the present debate. I haven't found anybody who's properly defined assimilation in all its political, economic, and social glory in a way that everybody can agree on. I haven't found anybody doing the hard work to identify all the relevant inflection points so that we can identify a safe range of immigration where we can set numbers without getting this country into trouble.
Instead, what I find are posturing and falsity up and down the entire range of mainstream debate. Restrictionists don't want to look to closely at our ability to absorb new immigrants because they're afraid that the numbers are going to be higher than they'd like to satisfy their interests. The free borders crowd doesn't want to look at assimilation either. The multiculturalists don't believe in assimilation at all while others in that camp are too afraid that the numbers will come out as being too low to further their interests."
Check out the questions that should be asked.
Dan of tdaxp emphatically agrees.
One of my older blogospheric associates, TM Lutas had some sage observations on immigration:
"Assimilation is the process of "clearing the job queue". The immigrants of today are tomorrows' citizens most capable and most inclined to help out with assimilation because they've gone through the process. It's not something you can really demand because this sort of thing is true charity work. Few people are actually paid to help others learn english, find a job, navigate the political, economic, and social system that is the USA. Most of the people who do it do so part time, often unconsciously.
The common sense outline of the solution for immigration is not too hard to figure out. You need to determine what the inflection points are, set immigration numbers that are above all the "too low" inflection points and below all the "too high" inflection points and make sure that your assimilation machinery works well so that you end up clearing the queue quickly and allow the next round in.
Now is anybody talking like this? I haven't found any and thus my disgust with the present debate. I haven't found anybody who's properly defined assimilation in all its political, economic, and social glory in a way that everybody can agree on. I haven't found anybody doing the hard work to identify all the relevant inflection points so that we can identify a safe range of immigration where we can set numbers without getting this country into trouble.
Instead, what I find are posturing and falsity up and down the entire range of mainstream debate. Restrictionists don't want to look to closely at our ability to absorb new immigrants because they're afraid that the numbers are going to be higher than they'd like to satisfy their interests. The free borders crowd doesn't want to look at assimilation either. The multiculturalists don't believe in assimilation at all while others in that camp are too afraid that the numbers will come out as being too low to further their interests."
Check out the questions that should be asked.
Dan of tdaxp emphatically agrees.
Labels: immigration, politics, tdaxp, tm lutas
¶ 9:46 PM 2 comments
Thursday, June 07, 2007
THE COMING OF AFRICOM: THE DEPARTMENT OF EVERYTHING ELSE VS. EMBRACING DEFEAT*
* image and title shamelessly "liberated" from the multidisciplinarily creative Dan of tdaxp who previously posted an excellent series by the same name.
Two articles with diametrically opposed worldviews of American intervention overseas.The path to error lies in the simplification of both approaches:
"Africa Command: The Americans Have Landed" in Esquire by Dr. Thomas P.M. Barnett
(This article is currently only available in dead tree format)
"Rethinking Insurgency" (PDF) at Strategic Studies Institute by Dr. Steven Metz (hat tip to Danger Room)
Tom Barnett's Esquire article on the newly created AFRICOM is one of his best pieces in "journalist" mode and it demonstrated the dire need for establishing true ( and not primarily "kinetic") "operational jointness" in interagency cooperation in Africa. This means accepting the inherent complexity of the Gap and answering with synergistic connectivity to globalization in order to engage in societal-building and state-building .
AFRICOM
Dr. Metz also accepts the complexity and interconnectivy of globalization but prescribes defusing conflicts by disengagement, accepting the co-option of aggrieved insurgencies into the national power structure even when they are resolutely hostile to American interests. A graceful retreat does less damage, in Metz's view, than would sustained conflict fueled by American aid enhancing the power of states to resist insurgencies.
Unsurprisingly, I am in favor of Barnett's approach but recognize that it is best employed judiciously, with an economy of force and minimalist platforms where aid gives the biggest bang for the buck. Likewise, while I see the Metz approach, if raised to a general rule, as a prescription for strategic erosion of American primacy and the decline of globalization, used with discretion, it is a useful "means-test" for evaluating the strategic importance of failing states and avoiding of the waste of American blood and treasure.
Malawi is not as important as Pakistan, even if al Qaida can be found in both countries. That doesn't mean ignoring Malawi but that we engage it differently than we do Pakistan.
ADDENDUM:
Steve DeAngelis is also discussing AFRICOM at ERMB
* image and title shamelessly "liberated" from the multidisciplinarily creative Dan of tdaxp who previously posted an excellent series by the same name.
Two articles with diametrically opposed worldviews of American intervention overseas.The path to error lies in the simplification of both approaches:
"Africa Command: The Americans Have Landed" in Esquire by Dr. Thomas P.M. Barnett
(This article is currently only available in dead tree format)
"Rethinking Insurgency" (PDF) at Strategic Studies Institute by Dr. Steven Metz (hat tip to Danger Room)
Tom Barnett's Esquire article on the newly created AFRICOM is one of his best pieces in "journalist" mode and it demonstrated the dire need for establishing true ( and not primarily "kinetic") "operational jointness" in interagency cooperation in Africa. This means accepting the inherent complexity of the Gap and answering with synergistic connectivity to globalization in order to engage in societal-building and state-building .
AFRICOM
Dr. Metz also accepts the complexity and interconnectivy of globalization but prescribes defusing conflicts by disengagement, accepting the co-option of aggrieved insurgencies into the national power structure even when they are resolutely hostile to American interests. A graceful retreat does less damage, in Metz's view, than would sustained conflict fueled by American aid enhancing the power of states to resist insurgencies.
Unsurprisingly, I am in favor of Barnett's approach but recognize that it is best employed judiciously, with an economy of force and minimalist platforms where aid gives the biggest bang for the buck. Likewise, while I see the Metz approach, if raised to a general rule, as a prescription for strategic erosion of American primacy and the decline of globalization, used with discretion, it is a useful "means-test" for evaluating the strategic importance of failing states and avoiding of the waste of American blood and treasure.
Malawi is not as important as Pakistan, even if al Qaida can be found in both countries. That doesn't mean ignoring Malawi but that we engage it differently than we do Pakistan.
ADDENDUM:
Steve DeAngelis is also discussing AFRICOM at ERMB
Labels: 4GW, barnett, COIN, counterinsurgency, insurgency, national security, PNM, resilience, SSI, state building, state failure, steven metz, strategy, system administration, tdaxp, theory, war
¶ 7:56 PM 0 comments
Monday, April 16, 2007
IS J.L. KIRK AND ASSOCIATES AN EXAMPLE OF "AUTO-BORKING"?
When Ronald Reagan nominated the highly regarded but arch-conservative legal theorist Judge Robert Bork in 1987 to become a justice of the United States Supreme Court, liberal activist groups in conjunction with the then monolithic MSM, "swarmed". Judge Bork was slandered by Senator Ted Kennedy in an opening salvo of an unprecedented political campaign by the Democrats to personally destroy a judicial nominee out of loathing for his judicial philosophy and fear of his intellectual prowess. Judge Bork's nomination was duly defeated, the Reagan administration was dealt a severe political setback and a new verb entered the political lexicon; to be vilified and disqualified from a position was to be " Borked".
As Dan of tdaxp has ably documented, an obscure yet arrogant and allegedly shady, headhunting company known (currently- but I wager not for much longer) as J.L. Kirk and Associates has apparently accomplished the business equivalent of scoring on one's own goal. By attempting to bully a blogger into silence about her ( seemingly legitimate) consumer complaint against them, J.L. Kirk 's corporate suits have " Auto-Borked" their own company's reputation. As Dan has reported, the story is now reaching regional TV news. I'm guessing national news before Friday of this week and then, perhaps, the sharks will begin circling J.L. Kirk until they reach their own " Imus Moment".
Good job boys! Just think of the trouble you might have avoided by being gracious and helpful to your customer instead of belligerent and aggressive. You'd almost think that a company that pro-actively litigious had something to hide
When Ronald Reagan nominated the highly regarded but arch-conservative legal theorist Judge Robert Bork in 1987 to become a justice of the United States Supreme Court, liberal activist groups in conjunction with the then monolithic MSM, "swarmed". Judge Bork was slandered by Senator Ted Kennedy in an opening salvo of an unprecedented political campaign by the Democrats to personally destroy a judicial nominee out of loathing for his judicial philosophy and fear of his intellectual prowess. Judge Bork's nomination was duly defeated, the Reagan administration was dealt a severe political setback and a new verb entered the political lexicon; to be vilified and disqualified from a position was to be " Borked".
As Dan of tdaxp has ably documented, an obscure yet arrogant and allegedly shady, headhunting company known (currently- but I wager not for much longer) as J.L. Kirk and Associates has apparently accomplished the business equivalent of scoring on one's own goal. By attempting to bully a blogger into silence about her ( seemingly legitimate) consumer complaint against them, J.L. Kirk 's corporate suits have " Auto-Borked" their own company's reputation. As Dan has reported, the story is now reaching regional TV news. I'm guessing national news before Friday of this week and then, perhaps, the sharks will begin circling J.L. Kirk until they reach their own " Imus Moment".
Good job boys! Just think of the trouble you might have avoided by being gracious and helpful to your customer instead of belligerent and aggressive. You'd almost think that a company that pro-actively litigious had something to hide
Labels: blogging, corporations, free speech, J.L. Kirk, legal, tdaxp
¶ 8:49 PM 12 comments
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
RX'S "FREEDOM 101" MASHUP
It's excellent! All praise to Rx!
Hat Tip to Dan of tdaxp for finding this gem!
It's excellent! All praise to Rx!
Hat Tip to Dan of tdaxp for finding this gem!
Labels: Barry Goldwater, freedom, history, JFK, MLK, RFK, ronald reagan, RX, tdaxp, youtube
¶ 9:16 PM 7 comments
