Pat et al,
Interesting. This seems to me like differences in the stage of understanding.
Nick
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2015 9:21 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: [FRIAM] thick and thin (was Physicists and Philosophers ...)
I'm not very satisfied with the granularity of the thick/thin metaphor. My 2 stints in the valley caused me to describe most of the solutions being generated as "flat", contrasted with the "deeper" solutions I enjoy more. But I gradually stopped using that and went back to using "systemic" to describe the more plaited and layered solutions. Even that's flawed, but tends to get at the point with less metaphor.
Although it may seem like a dual, talking of the problems rather than the solutions, also changes the conversation. (Something obliquely broached at the end of that blog entry "... Or, sometimes, once you have developed the answer, there is a ‘thin’ way of confirming your answer ...".
The point being that this "Silicon Valley style" (because it's everywhere, not just there) involves an assumption that there are simple solutions to complex problems. To me, that's the mistake. _Sometimes_ perhaps there is. But more often, the solution is just as, if not more, complex than the problem. This is why Shannon's Theorem 10 lodged itself in my mind. While it's true that the "rationalists" (and other idealists) seem to fail in recognizing the complexity of the problem, the "Silicon Valley style" (SVS) doesn't make that mistake very often. The mistake it makes is assuming there is a 10-fold RoI waiting to be plundered _when_, not if, the simple solution is found to that complex problem.[*]
That's why I balk when libertarianism is associated with SVS. Big "L" Libertarianism makes 2 errors, whereas SVS (usually) only makes the 1.
Another feature of SVS is the older accusation of adhering to the "Great Man Theory", which is rampant in self-help books, which are an offspring of New Thought and prophet-based religions. (John Galt was a minor, ignorable fable.) This may seem like a non sequitur, but it's directly related to the "thin confirmation of an answer to a thick problem". It's the oversimplification and abstraction of the solution from the context. And it also relates directly to the distinction between types of empiricism in that the idealization of an actual person (e.g. Einstein) distorts the scientific content surrounding that period of history. It's most obvious in all the garbage produced by cranks who claim, say, that the Michelson-Morley experiment was flawed and Einstein was wrong. Empiricists who rely on citations (rather than the ability to perform their own tests) have to tolerate the cranks to some extent, and rely on meta-scientific bureaucracy like peer review and credentials (like degr ees).
Anyway, I think the thick vs. thin metaphor might be just as guilty of oversimplification as the other ideals being discussed in the thread.
[*] I submit that the solutions are almost never simple, but the context (time, place, right group of people, right complement of tech, etc.) is arranged in a configuration so that the solution "clicks" ... like a complicated puzzle with lots of pieces coming together to exhibit a phenomenon "more than the sum of its parts". The SVS pattern is to cherry-pick some arbitrary part of that configuration and say "There's the simple solution!" As Pamela pointed out, it's useless to talk about the other parts of the solution being ignored.
On 12/29/2015 12:43 AM, Patrick Reilly wrote:
> On thick & thin problems:
>
> Excerpt:
>
> I would call this a classic ‘thick’ problem, one in which an analyst
> needs to deal with an enormous amount of data of varying quality.
> Being smart is necessary but not sufficient: you also need to know lots of stuff.
>
>
>
> Link:
>
> https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2012/06/06/thick-and-thin/
--
--
⊥ glen ⊥
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |