Maggie's Farm

Neil DeGrasse Tyson has opened up science to a whole new generation, and has expanded interest in communities which previously hadn't shown much.  For that, we're eternally grateful.  But there are limits to intelligence, and he, like many others, crosses that limit when he wades into climate science.

Having studied Economics, I compare climate science, as a science, to Economics.  The level of predictability, due to the number of unknowns and variables, is very low.  You can model all you want, and you can know how different parts of the economy impact to a very large degree, but still be far off.  The same is true with climate.  The various elements involved in developing climate models are fairly well known, but it's the stuff they don't know that's causing problems.  I have yet to see a model that is remotely close to predicting anything.  This doesn't make climate science less scientific.  Science is about explaining, not predicting.  Predicting is a nice benefit in constrained systems.

But Tyson's tweet is lauded as "destroying" a key claim of "deniers" (we aren't deniers, we are SKEPTICS, which is what most good scientists are whenever there is a lack of evidence or an inability to replicate results).  Problem is, it destroys nothing.  No skeptic ever complains about scientists agreeing.  That, in itself, isn't even an issue.  The question  is why are they agreeing?  In fact, Tyson's tweet opens more questions than it answers.  If a standard scientific conference is indicative of the amount of disagreement that takes place, then clearly the wide level of agreement on this particular issue is an anomaly and you should wonder why this is taking place?  Well, of course, the answer is politics.  But Tyson, in crafting his guilt bomb, realizes if he doesn't support the massive Appeal to Authority which is the entire Manmade Climate Change argument, then he loses the game.  So he pours it on hot and heavy, because he is the authority!

I'm not sure when the most dangerous time to live might be, or may have been.  Apparently, some think it is now.  My personal opinion is all eras are dangerous.  Some may have, or had, increased risks.  I can't think of any period of my life where I felt life was on a precipice.  A few days or weeks with elevated fears and tensions?  Sure, I can think of a few.  April and May of 1972, 1979 at the peak of the Iran crisis, 1987 after the market crash, 1991 as Iraq was pushed out of Kuwait, September 2001.  I was too young during the Cuban Missile Crisis, but I'm told that was a very shaky time.  There may be one or two other moments I've forgotten, but 'dangerous time', to me, is almost every day.  Which is to say, so common it's not really all that dangerous.

I focus on the fact, in general, our lives are improving.  Today, most of us hold more computing, audio and video power in our pocket, at a reasonable cost, and this device can help us control our houses, cars, and money with a few swipes.  We text or call someone and are sure they got a message.  Our diets are vastly improved, our choice of diets extensive, and we have more options regarding the quality and types of foods.  When I was in my teens, few people had flown in a plane.  Today, most have.  I was the first of my friends to visit Europe in 1976.  Today, most of them have kids who have vacationed or studied abroad.

A nice benefit of Maggie's website management are notifications when posts are shared.  

Validation is always welcome.  It's great to see someone pick up on your writing and think "I am glad I was able to add to the discussion."  I believe this holds when a piece is shared on a site opposing what you've written.  I'm not interested in an echo chamber.

Twenty months after writing this post on data, I received notification of its inclusion on another site.  Upon reading, one might be inclined to believe I'm not a fan of data.  Not true, I just don't put my full faith in everything as it is presented, or simply because it's presented, to me.  

Since my post, 20 months have passed and nothing has changed.  In fact the 2016 election was an example of organizations simply accepting data, becoming reliant on it, while few questioned its value.  The data left me, and many others, inclined to believe Hillary would win.  At the same time, it left me angry about how it was presented in a "See?  We have more information and you don't know what's really going on" manner.  The day of the election, however, the long lines I saw (in New York City) left me with the impression the data may not be telling the whole story.  If Hillary voters in a safe city were turning out in droves, I came to the conclusion turnout would be high across the board, and high turnout usually coincides with a desire for change.  The data itself may not be 'wrong' but whoever was using it was doing so improperly.

It's my belief that most gaps that we see in performance, gender, income and other areas are simply the result of certain groups pursuing perceived opportunity more aggressively.  Why are there more black people in the NBA (or many major sports)?  Because there was the belief sports offered an opportunity out of a difficult situation, so a larger number of that group spent time practicing.  I love basketball, but early on I saw I lacked the talent regardless of how much I practiced (10,000 hours seems to be the accepted societal myth these days).  I also knew I had other skill sets in which I could excel if I focused on them.

Why are there so many Canadians and Russians who play hockey?

Why are most of my friends Jewish?

Why is one side of my family comprised overwhelmingly by educators, while the other is in some form of business management?

There is a knee-jerk response by the Left to always and everywhere explain gaps by relying on 'discrimination' of some kind.  While this may be true, it's rarely the sole or even the primary reason for gaps.  Gaps sometimes happen because certain groups pursue opportunities and benefits differently and/or more effectively.  But there are many reasons for gaps, and discrimination isn't even the most interesting one to study.

Today, in the news links, Bird Dog linked to a post related to Bernie Sanders and his loathing of the successful.  The questions pondered by the author are legitimate.  But it's fair to say a good number of people, at some point in their lives, probably have a level of dislike for the success others.  The basis of this dislike results from a variety of sources, and though envy is probably the most common reason, I know there are many others.  For example, I never liked Al Dunlap, or "Chainsaw Al" as he was often referred to.  He was successful, he was an often sought-after manager, and he grew wealthy from his success.  Of course, his method of becoming successful was not admired by many (including me) and many of his 'successes' later turned out to be based on certain fraudulent procedures, not least of which was channel-stuffing.

I imagine this is Bernie's thought process. But if he's in control, he's the entitled minority.

I don't consider my loathing of Dunlap to be particularly unusual or unjustified.  I don't know the man, but his behaviors were pretty transparent.  It was easy to not like him, as opposed to a Warren Buffett or Bill Gates, who have proven themselves astute and relatively even-handed businessmen (even if you don't necessarily admire their politics).

There are still other reasons why people loathe the successful, and the death of flamboyant glam-rocker David Bowie reminded me of some.  Many popular music stars have no problem speaking out against successful business people or businesses - even those in their own industry.  I don't know if Bowie ever had anything bad to say about the marketers who helped turned him into a cottage industry, but plenty of his contemporaries certainly had/have very negative things to say about the successful.  I have sat through more than one concert (Roger Waters in particular) which did nothing but complain about corporations and greed.

As a younger person, I used to complain about paying $X to go see a band.  "The greedy music companies want to soak us."  I still paid and saw the band.  I never considered that the $X I paid covered a large number of costs which provided jobs to people.  Sure the music promoters got wealthy, but these promoters were usually making money on the margins, and managed several events which also lost money.  Whatever I ultimately paid for the ticket probably covered the costs for the show, as well as some losses on other shows.

As I aged, I realized even though I paid $X, jobs were created to service my entertainment needs.  I also realized my willingness to pay $X meant I believed $X was a fair exchange for my entertainment.  I no longer believed some wealthy promoter was ripping me off - I was engaging in a fair trade which left both of us better off.  I enjoyed my entertainment and the promoter got paid for his ability to put together a show which thousands may enjoy.

I have no idea how anything at the University of Missouri ever gets done.  It's pretty clear this is a campus held hostage by a few entitled nitwit students and a few radical professors (some of whom have lost their job).

But I'm at a loss for words when it comes to stuff like this. 

Black pain is not an easy subject to cover, but the lesson we can take from this encounter at Missouri is that our presence as journalists, with the long legacy of criminalizing blackness that comes with it, may trigger the same harmful emotions that led to the students’ protests in the first place.

We have a name for activists who don't want the media around.  They are called fascists.  They seek to impose their views by force, and having media around exposes their sometimes brutal and always childish behavior to the world.  It has nothing to do with sensitivity or "safe space" (what the hell is that?).  It has everything to do with hiding your aggression from visibility.

Now, as the University continues to spin out of control, we're learning that most of the claims were lies.  We're learning the hunger striker is really just an entitled brat.  The football team are just useful idiots, pawns in a bigger game of stupidity, which became apparent when the students sought to separate themselves to create "black only healing space."

I have no doubt these students have grandparents who fought to have schools integrated.  So I'm confused.  Did we come full circle?  Is separate but equal the law of the land, or is separate but equal only in effect if and when a certain group of people say they want it to be in effect?  I'm all for their right to voluntarily segregate themselves, but if they do so they should be aware they are simply making things unequal once again, and they have no standing to ask to be treated equally.

They have created a very arbitrary line.  I think I'll go create my "white only healing space" to sort through my emotions on this, but I have a feeling I'd be called a racist for having that space.  I know these kids are wrong.  It's hard for opinions to be wrong, but when they are, they are usually wrong by a long shot.  In this case there's no question.  These are not students, because they've learned nothing and are acting out on childish impulses.  If the university had a president, I'd think the correct response is to expel each and every one of them.  There's always room for protest on campus, there's always room for freedom of speech.  But there isn't room for lying, misrepresentation, and there's certainly no room for closing one's mind to history and/or the law simply because your emotions were 'triggered'.  Time to grow up, snowflakes. 

The title is a real question, I'd like to hear what people think.

Our department was given a briefing on yet another huge company-wide initiative to aggregate and coalesce all data, allowing us to develop relationships across whole departments and sectors of the businesses we run.  It's a tremendous opportunity, and one which is needed if you consider what Facebook and Google are doing with data (among many other firms that have well-developed data management groups).

I had several questions about the project.  For one, was there a revenue impact which was expected to offset the cost, and if so how was it calculated?  What was the timeline for introduction at departmental and company-wide levels?  What were the expectations of the use of the data?  Was it better to implement in a piecemeal fashion, department by department - continuing the current path we are on - or was their top-down approach more efficient and likely to yield better results?  Each question received an answer, sometimes dismissive, which led to more questions.  

I was viewed negatively for my inquisitiveness.  I explained I wasn't opposed to the project, but that I'd seen projects like this many times.  None have worked as expected and most never paid off.  These were not reasons to avoid doing it, but it is good to ask questions and be sure.  I was told to 'trust' the data scientists, none of whom I know, and don't stand in the way.  I acquiesced, and ceased my questions.  Groupthink is a powerful thing.  Data was here to save our business, I was assured.

On the train ride home, I ran into a colleague from another department who is much closer to this project and he told me even more details about the project.  For one, it was the third attempt by this team to implement the 'vision' (so much for trust!).  For another, they were abandoning all the work done in the previous 2 operations and starting from scratch, meaning work which had been done on all the old systems had to be reassessed and either tossed or transferred to newer platforms.  Finally, they'd spent exorbitant sums of money already, to the point that break-even was probably 10 years off, assuming they met their 4 year timeline.  He listened to my questions and nodded, saying they were all the right questions and there was good reason to question the nature and scope of this project.  

Google, Facebook and all the other firms with huge data systems have the benefit of being young and starting from scratch while new technologies were being introduced.  This is how business works, it's part of the process of creative destruction.  The newer companies benefit from untried, but potentially beneficial products, living or dying by their ability to manage and incorporate these ideas and technology.  Older companies have to try and keep up, and many are incapable of doing so.  However, these older firms need to be careful about the implementation.  Data is as much about art as it is about what the data tells us, sometimes less is more.  Sometimes your gut tells you as much as $10mm worth of information does.  I have seen people collect information on months-long projects only to confirm suggestions which were made at the outset.  The delays cost money.  There are rare, very rare, occasions when the data tells us something different.  Sometimes the reason it tells us something different is due to the time delay in collecting the data.  Perhaps this is a form of Heisenberg's Cat played out in the realm of business.

I am a huge believer in collecting and managing data.  My job relies on it.  But as I tell my boss, data and technology are like Stradivarius violins.  You can give me a Stradivarius and I will make awful noise with it.  Give it to a concert violinist, and beautiful music is made.  The same is true of data.  Many data scientists today, I've found, make very basic mistakes in their assumptions about what data tells them.  The most common is the confusion over causation and correlation.  I have had arguments with PhDs over this very issue when they present correlative data without proving the linkage to causation.  

Baseball is a great example of this point.  Sabermetrics have revived and increased my interest in the game.  Yet Sabermetrics have limits.  A cute, sappy movie  Trouble With The Curve illustrates where data intersects with knowledge and experience.  Data can provide support, but it takes experience to know what that data is telling you.

Dr. Joy Bliss recently posted about this issue, as the problem has infected even the realm of medicine and health. 

Data can do many things.  But the last thing it should be used for is policy-making, because data is typically utilized under the 'pretense of knowledge' and applied in a fashion that has unintended consequences.  They may also have politics, which don't benefit you, built in.

Michael Crichton famously warned us of the problem of politicized science and data.  Sadly, many intelligent people remain ignorant of misplaced trust in data, demonizing critics without explaining fully why the critics' logic is flawed.

A company, like the one which employs me, is just as likely to politicize positions.  We call it groupthink.  In my briefing, I was not part of the groupthink.  I enjoy being on the outside.  I may be wrong at times, but when I am, I'm happy to know that I have played the role of Captain Obvious, asking difficult questions in a fashion to open up the thought process further - if it can be opened up further.  Sadly, as I watch what happens in the office, I begin to understand why Progressives remain so prevalent in our society.  They are incapable of moving past groupthink.  If everyone else is doing it, it must be good - right?

Government subsidies and grants lead to misallocation of resources regularly.  This is one of the primary reasons the Austrian School of Economic Thought opposes government support for businesses.  Long ago, I was taught Economics isn't about getting rich or achieving a goal.  It's about managing process.

"While Austrian economists acknowledge some institutions are helpful to the individual economic process, they tend to view most institutions and regulations as inhibiting individuals from reaching their goals. Therefore, they tend to support a free market and laissez-faire governance. They believe government intervention hinders the process and decision making of market participants, resulting in suboptimal economic conditions."

This author explains why the problem isn't the government, but the entrepreneurs looking for money.  I'd say she's incorrect.  People are frequently distracted by shiny objects.  Government offers of cash are usually rule-bound and inflexible. meaning we alter our decisions to get 'free stuff'.  If you told me that you'd pay 1/2 of the price of a car, but I had to buy a $70,000 Tesla (costing me $35,000) as opposed to a $25,000 Mini which I have the cash for, chances are I'm going to scrounge for the extra $10,000 even though I could use that $10,000 to repay a loan or take a vacation.  We always tend to try and 'trade up' in the world, and if the incentive seems too good to be true, we'll usually take it.  Unfortunately, Sky Masterson's wisdom regarding an offer which is too good to be true:

One of these days in your travels, a guy is going to show you a brand-new deck of cards on which the seal is not yet broken. Then this guy is going to offer to bet you that he can make the jack of spades jump out of this brand-new deck of cards and squirt cider in your ear. But, son, do not accept this bet, because as sure as you stand there, you're going to wind up with an ear full of cider.

Yes, the entrepreneurs should be more thoughtful and careful.  It says much about their ability to run a business if they deviate from their business plan for less than optimal reasons.  But what does it say about the government that is encouraging them to deviate from the business plan?  Sky Masterson likely recognized the government as the biggest con running.