Friday, December 24, 2010

The Price of Everything: Russ Roberts

Russ Roberts' The Price of Everything is an engaging story written by an economics professor in an attempt to show how prices help us direct our efforts so they will provide the most benefit to others we will never meet. In the story Ruth Lieber, a strikingly insightful Stanford professor leads Ramon Fernandez, a charismatic student athlete, to an appreciation for the unseen consequences of prices after he leads a protest of a local big box store for raising prices after an earthquake.

Ruth sometimes explains, but more often hints so Ramon will investigate for himself, how higher prices or the expectation of a higher return cause suppliers, inventors and others to provide more useful goods and services so they're available when people want them.

The prose is vivid and the characters are interesting. Most of the story is reasonably believable, though there are enough hints at the purpose of the exposition that no one should be surprised at the occasional speech. Roberts does a good job of keeping that to a minimum, but he does have some points to make. Ramon isn't initially interested in economics, but he's smart enough to look into the details when Ruth points out inconsistencies between how he expects people to act and the ways they actually do. Ruth (and Russ) rely on common experiences so Ruth's objections will strike home to readers who are reasonably honest about how events actually turn out, even if their prejudices align more with Ramon's.

I think this would be a reasonable book to give to someone who wants a gentle introduction to the economic way of thinking. It can be read as an interesting story, or for the insights it provides.

Tuesday, December 14, 2010

That Hideous Strength: C. S. Lewis

C. S. Lewis's That Hideous Strength has been a perennial nominee for the Libertarian Futurists Society's Hall of Fame award. Seeking to give it a fair shot, I waited to read it until after reading the first two works in the series: Out of the Silent Planet and Perelandria. Neither of those books impressed me, and this book doesn't significantly rely on the connection to them. Unfortunately, this book didn't impress me either. I think part of it is the style of the writing, which seems vague, foggy, and long-winded to me. I also didn't care much for the characters, didn't find the plot interesting, and had trouble seeing what the conflict was about.

Lewis sets up two clear factions, clearly struggling over something, but we appear to only watching the activities of people who are a few steps removed from those who are aware of the strategy and aims of each side. Instead of watching maneuvering about the great struggle that is going on, we watch the minor characters as they maneuver through office politics, attempting to ensure that they have a seat at the table, while those characters remain ignorant about what the goals of those at the table are whom they wish to join.

Eventually, we see more of the high level action, but the sides are painted so starkly--the bad guys are depraved, manipulating, torturers, while the good guys refrain from acting--that it's hard to imagine how Lewis will turn the struggle into a fair fight. In the end, it was hard to see that it was a fair fight; the bad guys laid waste to the countryside in an attempt to take control over everything, while the good guys recruited a top wizard who eventually makes the bad guys stop.

I couldn't see it as a struggle of ideas, because I couldn't tell what the ideas might have been. One side was full of people who were scrambling for power, and most of their efforts seemed to be the minor squabbles of factional politics. The other side acted in a more genteel fashion, and didn't seem aware that their opponents were preparing a rapacious campaign. In the end, the only part of the struggle that mattered was over who would recruit the master wizard, and this didn't seem to be about who he agreed with as much as who could bridge the language gap with him effectively or who could isolate him better. So the good guys won, but the territory was spoiled in the process, and neither we nor the characters learned much in the process.

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Live Free or Die: John Ringo

John Ringo's Live Free or Die is quite a fun read in the genre of space entrepreneurship. The protagonist, Tyler Vernon, is practically a superman of business, who can create innovative new deals out of thin air with anyone who is amenable to trading. In this case, his objective is to save us all from the Horvath invaders who have set up a warship orbiting the earth and are extracting heavy "protection fees" from all humanity. Other space faring societies are willing to trade, but not in military goods, so Vernon has to figure out what non-military goods he can bend to his purposes without triggering the proscriptions.

For a writer who seems to have a reasonable insight into how business people set up deals so they benefit all parties, it's surprising that Ringo leaves the story as a one-man show. Vernon gains an immense amount of wealth early in the story by figuring out what earth-produced good will be of value to the friendly aliens, and then locking up supplies before anyone else knows that it will be valuable. But the approach he uses to make his discovery should be able to be repeated several times, so it's a surprise that Vernon is the only entrepreneur in contact with the aliens. But in the story, that works out fine, because Vernon is a tireless workaholic who really wants to ensure that we find a way to get the Horvath out of our hair.

There's not much more depth to the story than that, but there are enough twists and turns in the plot that I don't want to describe the story in any more detail. Live Free or Die is a nominee for the Prometheus award, and I'd guess that it will make it as a finalist as well. I'm hoping for something with more depth, but I haven't seen it yet, though it's still early.

Tuesday, November 02, 2010

Fantastic Voyage: Ray Kurzweil & Terry Grossman

Ray Kurzweil and Terry Grossman's Fantastic Voyage is a guide to (as the subtitle says) how to "Live Long enough to Live Forever." The premise is that medical science and technology are on an accelerating growth path like that of digital technologies in general, though it may be a shallower exponential.

In my view, longer lifespans are definitely coming, and it seems likely that we'll be able to extend maximum spans beyond the 120 years or so that are currently possible. In addition, we're coming to an understanding of the causes of aging sufficient to be able to repair or reverse some of the damage. We don't yet know how to apply what we know, but the time isn't far off if current trends continue. The question is how long would you have to live and how healthy will you have to be in order to make use of the technology when it becomes available.

The saddest outcome would be to live to see introduction of technologies for rejuvenation, but be too frail for them to be of much use. This book is Kurzweil and Grossman's summary of what they believe you should do if you agree with them that surviving healthy is of paramount importance now that these technologies appear to be on the near horizon and drawing quickly closer.

Much of their advice is standard current health care wisdom: maintain a good weight, don't eat too much, don't smoke, get a variety of exercise, and so on. They put their advice in perspective a couple of times, pointing out that following the rest of their advice won't matter much if you don't have these basics right.

Given Kurzweil's background, it's not surprising that the book includes an explanation of how the exponential trends and what we can see of the development of the technology provide convincing evidence that we can look forward to enhanced longevity, and some reasonable bounds on how soon and how good.

A lot of the presentation is colored by Kurzweil's family history and past battles with weight control and the concomitant consequences of metabolic syndrome: diabetes and heart disease. When the authors are recommending supplements, it's a chore to distinguish between recommendations that apply to everyone and those that are focused on the majority of Americans who are susceptible to the same problems. Its possible, but you have to concentrate and take careful notes. Some of the discussion of what each supplement is good for is presented separately from the recommendations of what nearly everyone should take, and you have to cross-correlate the two to see what matters if you aren't troubled by this common syndrome.

In the end the recommendations that seem most likely to change my behavior are a few of the nutritional suggestions: eat more soy & tofu, and a further slight movement toward more fruit and vegetable and less meat. I will probably also add more supplements to my regimen. The hard part of evaluating their suggestions is deciding how much time to spend evaluating the suggestions and the science behind them. They recommend supplements for mitochondrial health and to reduce cellular cross-linking. I've read Aubrey de Grey's work on senescence and the role of these factors, and believe his arguments that these are fundamental in aging. The harder question is how anyone is measuring the direct effects in the body, and what evidence there is for actual consequences in the body beyond the theoretical. I may be reduced to accepting that quite a few very sophisticated scientists who are interested in longevity are saying the same things. I attended the recent conference on Personalized Life Extension. The organizer, Chris Peterson of the Foresight Institute, and several of the researchers are very well regarded, and they all seemed to be saying the same things about the same supplements.

The authors provide a reasonable amount of justification for all of their advice, and the technical details to convince a moderate skeptic that they know what the biological pathways are and which ones need to be reinforced. I found the presentation reasonably convincing, though it requires further research and correlation with other sophisticated researchers in order for me to have sufficient confidence to take action.

Sunday, October 03, 2010

Understanding Institutional Diversity: Elinor Ostrom

Elinor Ostrom's Understanding Institutional Diversity presents some of the work that led to her Nobel prize last year. Ostrom has developed new frameworks for analyzing the way people organize to manage shared use of common resources. She seems particularly interested in the interaction between spontaneous orders (whether or not relying on markets) and government systems at different scales. The core of the analysis is a robust grammar for describing how an institution is organized and enforces the rules it intends to impose on participants. The grammar lays out 5 elements to be described in relatively standardized language, which results in descriptions that make it possible to compare disparate institutions. Systematically cataloging their relevant features makes it easier to compare institutions to find out what common features lead to their relative levels of success.

Few of the institutions Ostrom studies are government mandated; most have been around longer than the local government. This means the mechanism they use to enforce adherence to traditions, and adjudicate disputes must rely on something other than the rule of law and police power for its effectiveness. Ostrom shows that there are a variety of approaches, and there's a systematic relationship between membership forms and workable enforcement mechanisms.

The grammar Ostrom presents has five elements: the attributes that qualify someone as a participant in the system; whether actions are permitted, required, or forbidden (may, must, must not); the covered actions; the conditions under which the rules apply; and the consequences of not following the rule. These components can be used to describe rules, norms and shared strategies. Rules have all 5 components, norms specify all but the consequences, and shared strategies are statements that only contain the first three components. When using this framework, you have to be aware that most rules can be rephrased between prohibitions and compulsions without changing their sense. When comparing two institutions, a little care is usually enough to penetrate this surface distinction. For example "Actor X is forbidden to take action Y" could be written as "X must perform a non-Y action" or "X does not have the option of doing Y".

Writing descriptions of a variety of institutions using this consistent format has allowed researchers to catalog the kinds of attributes that are used by long surviving non-governmental institutions and contrast those with the kinds of attributes that governments often rely on. The successful private institutions tend to depend on attributes that reinforce a sense of community and mutual obligation (residence in a locality, paying dues or working in a local organization) rather than ones that are easier to administer in a consistent way and have a surface appearance of fairness (paying for a license, passing a test).

The book is organized in three parts. Part I provides background of the context in which Ostrom writes, and introduces vocabulary and some canonical problems. Much of this content is pulled from earlier papers and doesn't flow seamlessly. Other parts are reviews of now well-known examples and experiments and can be skipped or skimmed if the material seems repetitious. Part II explains the grammar's framework, gives some justification, and shows how it has been applied (by Ostrom and others). This is the meat of the book and rewards careful attention. I thought the presentation was clear and the contents quite valuable. In Part III, Ostrom talks about the implications of the theory and the approach for designing and repairing real world institutions.

This was the first place I got a feel for her own attitudes, and I was pleasantly surprised. Since most of her work has been in the context of common pool resources, and she studies communal or voluntary solutions, I expected her to argue that emergent systems somehow "naturally" resolve the issues. Instead she argues that markets have a crucial role, and that it's important that there be multiple institutions at various aggregation levels so rules and meta-rules can be handled through institutions with different incentives and varying feedback systems.

She seems most averse to solutions imposed by central authorities, since they seldom know enough about local conditions to be able to design systems of reciprocity that will fit with the ways that people interact in different locales. In order for a common pool resource institution to succeed over the long term, the participants have to feel ownership of the resource and of the reward and punishment system so that they'll both follow and enforce the rules. If someone else is responsible for enforcement, then the people with the most knowledge of local activities won't be watching one another carefully, and they'll find ways to shirk when times get tough. If they're watching one another, they'll assume they're being watched, and will be much more likely to follow the rules.

I've read other books that talk about how people solve problems in the absence of law and government, but this is the first to present a framework for analyzing existing approaches. The framework doesn't give the answers, but Ostrom's work has allowed her to look at many different approaches that have been taken around the world, and to systematically compare them to see what works and what doesn't. Her conclusions should be studied widely.

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

What Intelligence Tests Miss, Keith Stanovich

Keith Stanovich's What Intelligence Tests Miss does a reasonable job of arguing that we have a couple of different things in mind when we talk about how "smart" a person is, and that some of the important aspects are very different from what IQ tests measure. His goal seems to be to convince us that the other parts are important and we would do better if we either found good ways to measure them (though there are caveats there) or reduce the societal importance of IQ tests and their ilk.

Most of the areas that Stanovich is interested in could loosely be called rationality skills. He starts out the book with the example of George Bush, whose apparent IQ (estimated from various of his tests results that are on the record) is about 120, but who is agreed to not have conventional smarts, or be a thorough, consistent, or deep thinker. The main point here is talking about how people are surprised, but shouldn't be, that IQ is separate from what we call smart. The book is mainly a riff on Kahneman and Tversky's work on human decision making, and all the kinds of rationality traps that we fall for.

Apparently, Stanovich's own research is in how the various layers of processing—the Autonomous mind, the Algorithmic mine, and the Reflective mind— interact and override one another in order to determine the kinds of processing we do. We spend most of our time in autonomous mode, with occasional incidents propelling us into slower Algorithmic thinking, and only rarely do we have a reason to actually think about what we're doing reflectively. Stanovich has a detailed model showing the interactions, and pointing to the Reflective mind as the director that gives the signal for when to invoke the Algorithmic level. His argument seems to be that people who don't "act smart" fail to engage their Reflective layer, and so end up on auto-pilot most of the time.

The rest of the book is mainly a rehash of the literature on rationality errors, and a plea for approaches like Thaler and Sunstein's Libertarian Paternalism, which are intended to provide support for people so they can get smarter results without having to reason more clearly.

In the end, I guess I'd say that there are some interesting ideas here, but not enough to make the book worthwhile.

Sunday, September 05, 2010

No Justice, No Peace

Matt Welch's Editor's column in the June issue of Reason includes this paragraph on a budget fight in Montgomery County, Maryland:

The housing bubble, with its tax-generating wealth, was already bursting in 2007. Yet as recently as 2009, Montgomery County, Maryland, decided to make "phantom" cost-of-living increases to the pensions of government workers, linking contributions to salary increases that did not occur. This sweetheart deal, which added more than $7 million to the county's annual budget (according to The Washington Post), tasted rather bitter at a time when the county's revenue was falling short of projections by more than $24 million. Yet after one Montgomery County Council member proposed eliminating this sop to the public-sector unions, four of his colleagues joined a rally on the rooftop of the council's parking garage, leading a crowd of 400 government employees in chants of "We've had enough!" and "No justice, no peace."

I boggled at the audacity of re-using the "No justice, no peace" chant in a context like this. Normally, when the left uses this chant at a rally, it's in support of a group that isn't getting fair treatment on housing or employment rights. The unstated thinking behind the chant is that societies that don't protect people's rights will find that the underprivileged are more restive. But in the mouths of public safety workers threatening to strike because outrageous privileges might be taken away, it sounds more like a threat, which I would paraphrase as "If we don't get what we want, we'll make your life hell!"

A little digging assured me that Montgomery County did rescind the pension increases eventually. Some the county council members are running on their record for having imposed fiscal austerity measures, even though they were in place for the initial largesse as well.

Saturday, August 21, 2010

A Different Universe: Robert B. Laughlin

Robert B. Laughlin's A Different Universe is full of interesting ideas without being a coherent narrative on a single theme. In the preface Laughlin explains that the book is an attempt to address the inherent tensions between reductionism and emergence. In particular, he (not very coherently) tries to argue that it's sometimes more useful to think of physical law as emerging from the interactions of particles rather than causing them. And he constantly interrupts his discussions of physics at various levels in order to tell anecdotes. Sometimes he seems to have chosen the topics in order to be able to either drop names (unusual for a Nobel laureate) or impugn the motives of people he's worked with.

Still, there are several fascinating examples of scientific phenomena that are well established, but for which there aren't good explanations that are integrated into the main texture of our understanding of physical law. I suspect that several good reputations could be made by physics grad students by latching onto one of Laughlin's stray thoughts and developing an explanation that fits the effect into the mainstream. One example is the phonon effect:

Suppose, for example, a sound transducer is attached to a solid and turned on, thus beaming sound into the solid, and then reduced in intensity to make the amount of sound small. A sound receiver on the other side of the solid detects not a faint tone but sharp pulses of energy arriving at random times. This quantized transmission of pulses evolves into the more familiar transmission of tone when the intensity is increased—an everyday example of the emergence of Newtonian reality out of quantum mechanics, But at low intensities this emergence does not occur, and the conclusion becomes inescapable that particles of sound exist, even though they do not exist when the solid is disassembled into atoms.

Laughlin calls this "The closest thing to real magic I know."

His discussion of symmetry (pp 124-5), and why it makes more sense to think of it as caused by the interactions between particles at various scales rather than as a set of rules that enforces their behavior is similarly tantalizing and brief.

He points out ways in which the physics mainstream is sweeping some problems under the rug, but doesn't truly resolve the issue. "If Einstein were alive today, he would be horrified at this state of affairs. He would upbraid the profession for allowing this mess to develop and fly into a blind rage over the transformation of his beautiful creations into ideologies and the resulting proliferation of logical inconsistencies. Einstein was an artist and a scholar but above all a revolutionary."

In chapter 13, "Principles of Life", near the end of the book, Laughlin spends several pages explaining that life is a mass phenomenon, and that collections of large numbers of parts act differently than you'd predict by analyzing the parts themselves. Rigidity, for example, is an important aspect of explaining how molecules get together to build living creatures, and it is only a coherent concept once you get into realms where the behavior of individual particles doesn't matter in detail. Similarly, proteins are enormous structures if you're trying to figure out how the behavior of atoms contribute to their effects, but if you deal with the atoms statistically, and as a mass, you can make more headway. Early in the book he had pointed out that "The only way one can start out from wrong principals and get the right answer is if the property one is calculating is robustly insensitive to details, i.e. is emergent. Thus the lesson from superconductivity is actually not that quantum field theory is a superior computational technology but that quantum fields can themselves emerge."

I'll end with Laughlin's summary of the (wine-fueled) conclusions of an interdisciplinary workshop on emergence:

Emergence means complex organizational structure growing out of simple rules. Emergence mans stable inevitability in the way certain things are. Emergence means unpredictability, in the sense of small events causing great and qualitative changes in larger ones. Emergence means the fundamental impossibility of control.

He manages to tie emergence in with some complex effects but leaves us with nothing more than a recognition that we don't understand what's going on yet.

Monday, August 09, 2010

A Mirror for Observers: Edgar Pangborn

I recently re-read Edgar Pangborn's A Mirror for Observers, and wanted to like it. (It's been nominated for a Prometheus Hall of Fame Award a couple of times.) The story is narrated by Elmis, a visitor from Mars, who has been living among humans for thousands of years as a passive observer. He believes that humans are managing their affairs and their progress quite nicely on their own. His main goal is to prevent Namir, a dissident Martian, from encouraging evil of various sorts from arising among the humans.

The good guy in this story is very good--Elmis values taste and style and life, and wants to ensure that they survive on this planet. But the people he's trying to protect do very little to help their cause. They spend most of their time ignorant of the battle that centers on them, and even spend some of their time collaborating with their apparent enemies. If it weren't for the assistance of the extraterrestrial agent, they wouldn't stand a chance. And in the end, they lose the most important battle, even with his help.

So the underlying message is that the good is worth working for, but it is incapable of defending itself, and even with powerful and intelligent allies on its side, those working to undermine it may come out ahead.

If you read the book, you'll admire the characters, and enjoy their taste and sophistication, but you'll be disappointed in the end by their impotence.

Monday, August 02, 2010

Impro, Keith Johnstone

Keith Johstone's Impro purports to explain how to teach people how to do theatrical improvisation. The author has apparently had a fairly significant effect on the way that actors think about improvisation, but while there's some loose theorizing here, Johnstone presents nothing but personal experience to back it up. It works for him, and that ought to be good enough for you.

Johnstone's main claim is that the appearance of versimilitude that theater needs is mostly a matter of controlling the appearance of status distinctions between characters. He teaches his students via a variety of games and exercises in which they learn to carefully control status both by verbal responses and minor postural tweaks. Part of the trick (he claims) to getting the aspiring thespians to understand what they're trying to achieve is to be able to appear either slightly above or slightly below (on command) another character. Getting the audience to believe that one character is significantly more highly placed than another is easy, but there's no tension in that. In order to get both the appearance of reality, and dynamic intensity, Johnstone wants status distinctions to be slight, and constantly varying.

The last section of the book covers exercises with the actors wearing masks. Johnstone seems to believe that hiding behind a mask has almost mystical properties. This section was very unconvincing to me. The rest was only moderately interesting.

Sunday, June 27, 2010

Hiatus

My two month hiatus probably deserves an explanation, and enough has been going on in my life that it's worth bringing those of you who haven't heard about it up-to-date. For the last several years I've been primarily consulting on Zocalo, my open source prediction market software. In December, my two clients both let me know that their grants had run out, and they couldn't continue to pay me, so I started looking for a job. That occupied a lot of my time for the next few months, though I was able to keep writing reviews.

Then in early April, my father, Richard Tudor Hibbert, passed away. I spent a fair amount of time over the next week preparing to display some of his art that I had started organizing over the last year or so. At the service I ran a continuous loop of more than 100 of his paintings, watercolors, pastels, and sketches. I spoke briefly at the services (as did my brother Mike and my father's brother Robert).

Once I was back in California after the services, I continued interviewing, and got a job offer from Google shortly thereafter. I've been hard at work at Google since the beginning of May (when the hiatus began), and have been setting up a blog RTH-home.net for my father's art, (the name was his personalized license plate for many years, and is a play on his initials and his earth-covered home) and preparing posts for it every other day or so. That's what I've been up to. If you like the art I've posted there so far, I encourage you to keep tracking it, because there's much more coming. I'm hopeful that my time is more in control by now, and that my writing for pancrit.org will return to its normal (irregular) pace.

Saturday, June 26, 2010

Microcosmos: Lynn Margulis and Dorian Sagan

Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan's Microcosmosis a recapitulation of the history of evolution of microbes and how it affects us. The work that Margulis & Sagan report on also led to an article at Edge.org that produced a quote I've been using as one of my email signatures.

All sensory cells [in all animals] have in common the presence of ... cilia [with a constant] structure. It provides a strong argument for common ancestry. The common ancestor ... was a spirochete bacterium.

The copyright date is 1986. A lot has been learned about evolution and microbes since then. Even so, this book is a good introduction to the subject; it's very readable and has lots of detail that is still accepted. The story starts with the very beginnings of life on earth, and is always connected to its affect on how our biology works now:

As we examine ourselves as products of symbiosis over billions of yeaaar, the supporting evidence of our multimicrobe ancestry becomes overwhelming. Our bodies contain a veritable history of life on Earth. Our cells maintain an environment that is carbon- and hydrogen-rich, like that of the Earth when life began. They live in a medium of water and salts like the composition of the early seas.

The presentation is ordered chronologically, starting with the formation of stars and planets, proceeding through the cooling of the earth and the formation of the first entities that could reproduce reliably, the invention of sex and the alternative means of exchanging genetic information, and the change in composition of Earth's atmosphere to something that supported oxygen breathers and was toxic to their precursors. That takes us through the first 3.5 Billion years of the history of the earth, and all of the evolution of macroscopic life occupies the most recent 500 Million years. The emergence of cells, multi-cellular life, and then plants and animals follows, but the microbes are still around and still affecting both metabolism and evolution.

Margulis & Sagan provide a very readable introduction to modern microbiology and modern thinking about evolution. There are certainly more recent books that cover the details of the modern understanding in more detail, but this is a good overview and doesn't miss much that's important.