a Clarifying the Role of Insulin in Type 2 Diabetes Management By clinical.diabetesjournals.org Published On :: 2003-01-01 John R. WhiteJan 1, 2003; 21:Feature Articles Full Article
a Gestational Diabetes Mellitus By clinical.diabetesjournals.org Published On :: 2005-01-01 Tracy L. SetjiJan 1, 2005; 23:17-24Feature Articles Full Article
a Therapeutic Inertia is a Problem for All of Us By clinical.diabetesjournals.org Published On :: 2019-04-01 Stephen BruntonApr 1, 2019; 37:105-106Editorials Full Article
a Diapression: An Integrated Model for Understanding the Experience of Individuals With Co-Occurring Diabetes and Depression By clinical.diabetesjournals.org Published On :: 2011-04-01 Paul CiechanowskiApr 1, 2011; 29:43-49Feature Articles Full Article
a SGLT-2 Inhibitors: A New Mechanism for Glycemic Control By clinical.diabetesjournals.org Published On :: 2014-01-01 Edward C. ChaoJan 1, 2014; 32:4-11Feature Articles Full Article
a Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose: The Basics By clinical.diabetesjournals.org Published On :: 2002-01-01 Evan M. BenjaminJan 1, 2002; 20:Practical Pointers Full Article
a PROactive: A Sad Tale of Inappropriate Analysis and Unjustified Interpretation By clinical.diabetesjournals.org Published On :: 2006-04-01 Jay S. SkylerApr 1, 2006; 24:63-65Commentary Full Article
a Persistence of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Use in a Community Setting 1 Year After Purchase By clinical.diabetesjournals.org Published On :: 2013-07-01 James ChamberlainJul 1, 2013; 31:106-109Feature Articles Full Article
a Interdisciplinary Team Care for Diabetic Patients by Primary Care Physicians, Advanced Practice Nurses, and Clinical Pharmacists By clinical.diabetesjournals.org Published On :: 2011-04-01 David WillensApr 1, 2011; 29:60-68Feature Articles Full Article
a Insulin Strategies for Primary Care Providers By clinical.diabetesjournals.org Published On :: 2002-01-01 Karen L. HerbstJan 1, 2002; 20:Feature Articles Full Article
a Opportunities and Challenges for Biosimilars: What's on the Horizon in the Global Insulin Market? By clinical.diabetesjournals.org Published On :: 2012-10-01 Lisa S. RotensteinOct 1, 2012; 30:138-150Features Full Article
a Diabetes Management Issues for Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease By clinical.diabetesjournals.org Published On :: 2007-07-01 Kerri L. CavanaughJul 1, 2007; 25:90-97Feature Articles Full Article
a Health Care Transition in Adolescents and Young Adults With Diabetes By clinical.diabetesjournals.org Published On :: 2010-06-01 Michael E. BowenJun 1, 2010; 28:99-106Feature Articles Full Article
a Stigma in People With Type 1 or Type 2 Diabetes By clinical.diabetesjournals.org Published On :: 2017-01-01 Nancy F. LiuJan 1, 2017; 35:27-34Feature Articles Full Article
a Management of Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy By clinical.diabetesjournals.org Published On :: 2005-01-01 Andrew J.M. BoultonJan 1, 2005; 23:9-15Feature Articles Full Article
a Building Therapeutic Relationships: Choosing Words That Put People First By clinical.diabetesjournals.org Published On :: 2017-01-01 Jane K. DickinsonJan 1, 2017; 35:51-54Commentary Full Article
a Application of Adult-Learning Principles to Patient Instructions: A Usability Study for an Exenatide Once-Weekly Injection Device By clinical.diabetesjournals.org Published On :: 2010-09-01 Gayle LorenziSep 1, 2010; 28:157-162Bridges to Excellence Full Article
a Engaging Patients in Education for Self-Management in an Accountable Care Environment By clinical.diabetesjournals.org Published On :: 2011-07-01 Christine A. BeebeJul 1, 2011; 29:123-126Practical Pointers Full Article
a Helping Patients Make and Sustain Healthy Changes: A Brief Introduction to Motivational Interviewing in Clinical Diabetes Care By clinical.diabetesjournals.org Published On :: 2008-10-01 Michele HeislerOct 1, 2008; 26:161-165Practical Pointers Full Article
a Hospital Management of Hyperglycemia By clinical.diabetesjournals.org Published On :: 2004-04-01 Kristen B. CampbellApr 1, 2004; 22:81-88Practical Pointers Full Article
a Diabetes Self-Management in a Community Health Center: Improving Health Behaviors and Clinical Outcomes for Underserved Patients By clinical.diabetesjournals.org Published On :: 2008-01-01 Daren AndersonJan 1, 2008; 26:22-27Bridges to Excellence Full Article
a Cardiac Manifestations of Congenital Generalized Lipodystrophy By clinical.diabetesjournals.org Published On :: 2016-10-01 Vani P. SanonOct 1, 2016; 34:181-186Feature Articles Full Article
a Hypoglycemia in Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes: Physiology, Pathophysiology, and Management By clinical.diabetesjournals.org Published On :: 2006-07-01 Vanessa J. BriscoeJul 1, 2006; 24:115-121Feature Articles Full Article
a Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes--2019 Abridged for Primary Care Providers By clinical.diabetesjournals.org Published On :: 2019-01-01 American Diabetes AssociationJan 1, 2019; 37:11-34Position Statements Full Article
a Perspectives in Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: A Review of Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment By clinical.diabetesjournals.org Published On :: 2007-04-01 Jennifer M. PerkinsApr 1, 2007; 25:57-62Feature Articles Full Article
a Amylin Replacement With Pramlintide in Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes: A Physiological Approach to Overcome Barriers With Insulin Therapy By clinical.diabetesjournals.org Published On :: 2002-07-01 John B. BuseJul 1, 2002; 20:Feature Articles Full Article
a The Disparate Impact of Diabetes on Racial/Ethnic Minority Populations By clinical.diabetesjournals.org Published On :: 2012-07-01 Edward A. ChowJul 1, 2012; 30:130-133Diabetes Advocacy Full Article
a Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes--2016 Abridged for Primary Care Providers By clinical.diabetesjournals.org Published On :: 2016-01-01 American Diabetes AssociationJan 1, 2016; 34:3-21Position Statements Full Article
a What's So Tough About Taking Insulin? Addressing the Problem of Psychological Insulin Resistance in Type 2 Diabetes By clinical.diabetesjournals.org Published On :: 2004-07-01 William H. PolonskyJul 1, 2004; 22:147-150Practical Pointers Full Article
a A Real-World Approach to Insulin Therapy in Primary Care Practice By clinical.diabetesjournals.org Published On :: 2005-04-01 Irl B. HirschApr 1, 2005; 23:78-86Practical Pointers Full Article
a Improving Patient Adherence By clinical.diabetesjournals.org Published On :: 2006-04-01 Alan M. DelamaterApr 1, 2006; 24:71-77Feature Articles Full Article
a Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes--2018 Abridged for Primary Care Providers By clinical.diabetesjournals.org Published On :: 2018-01-01 American Diabetes AssociationJan 1, 2018; 36:14-37Position Statements Full Article
a Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes--2017 Abridged for Primary Care Providers By clinical.diabetesjournals.org Published On :: 2017-01-01 American Diabetes AssociationJan 1, 2017; 35:5-26Position Statements Full Article
a Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes--2015 Abridged for Primary Care Providers By clinical.diabetesjournals.org Published On :: 2015-04-01 American Diabetes AssociationApr 1, 2015; 33:97-111Position Statements Full Article
a Empowerment and Self-Management of Diabetes By clinical.diabetesjournals.org Published On :: 2004-07-01 Martha M. FunnellJul 1, 2004; 22:123-127Feature Articles Full Article
a Microvascular and Macrovascular Complications of Diabetes By clinical.diabetesjournals.org Published On :: 2008-04-01 Michael J. FowlerApr 1, 2008; 26:77-82Diabetes Foundation Full Article
a Heroic Consciousness: What it is and How to Acquire it By blog.richmond.edu Published On :: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 13:03:26 +0000 By Scott T. Allison This blog post is excerpted from: Allison, S. T. (2019). Heroic consciousness. Heroism Science, 4, 1-43. The philosopher Yuval Noah Harari (2018) recently described consciousness as “the greatest mystery in the universe”. What exactly is heroic consciousness? It is a way of seeing the world, perceiving reality, and making decisions … Continue reading Heroic Consciousness: What it is and How to Acquire it → Full Article Commentary and Analysis enlightened consciousness heroic consciousness nondualistic thinking the hero's consciousness transrational phenomena unitive consciousness
a The Heroic Leadership Imperative By blog.richmond.edu Published On :: Fri, 06 Mar 2020 15:34:27 +0000 Allison, S. T. & Goethals, G. R. (2020). The heroic leadership imperative: How leaders inspire and mobilize change. West Yorkshire: Emerald. Our next book describes a new principle that we call the heroic leadership imperative. We show how leaders who fulfill the imperative will inspire followers and initiate social change. The imperative consists of … Continue reading The Heroic Leadership Imperative → Full Article Our latest books on HEROIC LEADERS
a COVID-19 Pandemic Turns Heroism Upside-Down By blog.richmond.edu Published On :: Sat, 04 Apr 2020 03:12:21 +0000 By Scott T. Allison William James, who authored the first psychology texbook, was taken and moved by the quiet heroism in everyday working people. He noticed “the great fields of heroism lying round about” him. He was mesmerized by small, seemingly inconsequential everyday acts that, in effect, exemplified unsung heroism in everyone. Before the COVID-19 … Continue reading COVID-19 Pandemic Turns Heroism Upside-Down → Full Article Commentary and Analysis
a 10 Examples of Heroism Arising From the COVID-19 Pandemic By blog.richmond.edu Published On :: Sat, 04 Apr 2020 20:26:56 +0000 By Scott T. Allison In any tragedy or crisis, you will see many people standing out and stepping up to save lives and make the world a better place. These heroic individuals can range from leaders of nations to ordinary citizens who rise to the occasion to help others in need. During this COVID-19 pandemic, … Continue reading 10 Examples of Heroism Arising From the COVID-19 Pandemic → Full Article Commentary and Analysis COVID19 heroes
a The Miniseries ‘Devs’ Delivers a Delicious Dose of Heroism and Villainy By blog.richmond.edu Published On :: Mon, 20 Apr 2020 13:06:15 +0000 By Scott T. Allison Devs is the ideal TV mini-series for people to sink their teeth into, for many reasons: (1) It’s both science and science-fiction; (2) it’s brilliant mix of psychology, philosophy, religion, and technology; (3) it tantalizes us with the mysteries of love, life, death, time, and space; and (4) it features a … Continue reading The Miniseries ‘Devs’ Delivers a Delicious Dose of Heroism and Villainy → Full Article Commentary and Analysis
a Heroism Science: Call for Papers, Special Issue: The Heroism of Whistleblowers By blog.richmond.edu Published On :: Tue, 21 Apr 2020 17:11:14 +0000 Heroism Science: Call for Papers, Special Issue The Heroism of Whistleblowers Edited by Ari Kohen, Brian Riches, and Matt Langdon Whistleblowers speak up with “concerns or information about wrongdoing inside organizations and institutions.” As such, whistleblowing “can be one of the most important and difficult forms of heroism in modern society” (Brown, 2016 p. 1). … Continue reading Heroism Science: Call for Papers, Special Issue: The Heroism of Whistleblowers → Full Article Activist Heroes
a The Innovation Dilemma By decisions-and-info-gaps.blogspot.com Published On :: Tue, 09 Aug 2011 10:09:00 +0000 "If it ain't broken, don't fix it."Sound advice, but limited to situations where "fixing it" only entails restoring past performance. In contrast, innovations entail substantive improvements over the past. Innovations are not just corrections of past mistakes, but progress towards a better future.However, innovations often present a challenging dilemma to decision makers. Many decisions require choosing between options, one of which is both potentially better in the outcome but markedly more uncertain. In these situations the decision maker faces an "innovation dilemma."The innovation dilemma arises in many contexts. Here are a few examples.Technology. New and innovative technologies are often advocated because of their purported improvements on existing products or methods. However, what is new is usually less well-known and less widely tested than what is old. The range of possible adverse (or favorable) surprises of an innovative technology may exceed the range of surprise for a tried-and-true technology. The analyst who must choose between innovation and convention faces an innovation dilemma.Investment. The economic investor faces an innovation dilemma when choosing between investing in a promising but unknown new start-up and investing in a well-known existing firm.Auction. "Nothing ventured, nothing gained" is the motto of the risk-taker, while the risk-avoider responds: "Nothing ventured, nothing lost". The innovation dilemma is embedded in the choice between these two strategies. Consider for example the "winner's curse" in auction theory. You can make a financial bid for a valuable piece of property, which will be sold to the highest bidder. You have limited information about the other bidders and about the true value of the property. If you bid high you might win the auction but you might also pay more than the property is worth. Not bidding is risk-free because it avoids the purchase. The choice between a high bid and no bid is an innovation dilemma.Employer decision. An employer must decide whether or not to replace a current satisfactory employee with a new candidate whose score on a standardized test was high. A high score reflects great ability. However, the score also contains a random element, so a high score may result from chance, and not reflect true ability. The innovation dilemma is embedded in the employer's choice between the current adequate employee and a high-scoring new candidate.Natural resource exploitation. Permitting the extraction of offshore petroleum resources may be productive in terms of petroleum yield but may also present officials with significant uncertainty about environmental consequences.Public health. Implementation of a large-scale immunization program may present policy officials with worries about uncertain side effects.Agricultural policy. New technologies promise improved production efficiency or new consumer choices, but with uncertain benefits and costs and potential unanticipated adverse effects resulting from use of manufactured inputs such as fertilizers, pesticides, and machinery, and, more recently, genetically engineered seed varieties and information technology. (I am indebted to L. Joe Moffitt and Craig Osteen for these examples in natural resources, public health and agriculture.)An essay like this one should - according to custom - end with a practical prescription: What to do about the innovation dilemma? You need to make a decision - a choice between options - and you face an innovation dilemma. How to choose? All I'll say is that the first step is to identify what you need to achieve from this decision. Recognizing the vast uncertainties which accompany the decision, choose the option which achieves the required outcome over the largest range of uncertain contingencies.If you want more of an answer than that, consult your favorite decision theory (like info-gap theory, for instance).I will conclude by drawing a parallel between the innovation dilemma and one of the oldest quandaries in political philosophy. In The Evolution of Political Thought C. Northcote Parkinson explains the historically recurring tension between freedom and equality.Freedom. People have widely varying interests and aptitudes. Hence a society that offers broad freedom for individuals to exploit their abilities, will also develop a wide spread of wealth, accomplishment, and status. Freedom enables individuals to explore, invent, discover, and create. Freedom is the recipe for innovation. Freedom induces both uncertainty and inequality.Equality. People have widely varying interests and aptitudes. Hence a society that strives for equality among its members can achieve this by enforcing conformity and by transferring wealth from rich to poor. The promise of a measure of equality is a guarantee of a measure of security, a personal and social safety net. Equality reduces both uncertainty and freedom.The dilemma is that a life without freedom is hardly human, but freedom without security is the jungle. And life in the jungle, as Hobbs explained, in "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short". Full Article innovation dilemma
a No-Failure Design and Disaster Recovery: Lessons from Fukushima By decisions-and-info-gaps.blogspot.com Published On :: Tue, 09 Aug 2011 10:21:00 +0000 One of the striking aspects of the early stages of the nuclear accident at Fukushima-Daiichi last March was the nearly total absence of disaster recovery capability. For instance, while Japan is a super-power of robotic technology, the nuclear authorities had to import robots from France for probing the damaged nuclear plants. Fukushima can teach us an important lesson about technology.The failure of critical technologies can be disastrous. The crash of a civilian airliner can cause hundreds of deaths. The meltdown of a nuclear reactor can release highly toxic isotopes. Failure of flood protection systems can result in vast death and damage. Society therefore insists that critical technologies be designed, operated and maintained to extremely high levels of reliability. We benefit from technology, but we also insist that the designers and operators "do their best" to protect us from their dangers.Industries and government agencies who provide critical technologies almost invariably act in good faith for a range of reasons. Morality dictates responsible behavior, liability legislation establishes sanctions for irresponsible behavior, and economic or political self-interest makes continuous safe operation desirable.The language of performance-optimization − not only doing our best, but also achieving the best − may tend to undermine the successful management of technological danger. A probability of severe failure of one in a million per device per year is exceedingly − and very reassuringly − small. When we honestly believe that we have designed and implemented a technology to have vanishingly small probability of catastrophe, we can honestly ignore the need for disaster recovery.Or can we?Let's contrast this with an ethos that is consistent with a thorough awareness of the potential for adverse surprise. We now acknowledge that our predictions are uncertain, perhaps highly uncertain on some specific points. We attempt to achieve very demanding outcomes − for instance vanishingly small probabilities of catastrophe − but we recognize that our ability to reliably calculate such small probabilities is compromised by the deficiency of our knowledge and understanding. We robustify ourselves against those deficiencies by choosing a design which would be acceptable over a wide range of deviations from our current best understanding. (This is called "robust-satisficing".) Not only does "vanishingly small probability of failure" still entail the possibility of failure, but our predictions of that probability may err.Acknowledging the need for disaster recovery capability (DRC) is awkward and uncomfortable for designers and advocates of a technology. We would much rather believe that DRC is not needed, that we have in fact made catastrophe negligible. But let's not conflate good-faith attempts to deal with complex uncertainties, with guaranteed outcomes based on full knowledge. Our best models are in part wrong, so we robustify against the designer's bounded rationality. But robustness cannot guarantee success. The design and implementation of DRC is a necessary part of the design of any critical technology, and is consistent with the strategy of robust satisficing.One final point: moral hazard and its dilemma. The design of any critical technology entails two distinct and essential elements: failure prevention and disaster recovery. What economists call a `moral hazard' exists since the failure prevention team might rely on the disaster-recovery team, and vice versa. Each team might, at least implicitly, depend on the capabilities of the other team, and thereby relinquish some of its own responsibility. Institutional provisions are needed to manage this conflict.The alleviation of this moral hazard entails a dilemma. Considerations of failure prevention and disaster recovery must be combined in the design process. The design teams must be aware of each other, and even collaborate, because a single coherent system must emerge. But we don't want either team to relinquish any responsibility. On the one hand we want the failure prevention team to work as though there is no disaster recovery, and the disaster recovery team should presume that failures will occur. On the other hand, we want these teams to collaborate on the design.This moral hazard and its dilemma do not obviate the need for both elements of the design. Fukushima has taught us an important lesson by highlighting the special challenge of high-risk critical technologies: design so failure cannot occur, and prepare to respond to the unanticipated. Full Article
a (Even) God is a Satisficer By decisions-and-info-gaps.blogspot.com Published On :: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 11:44:00 +0000 To 'satisfice' means "To decide on and pursue a course of action that will satisfy the minimum requirements necessary to achieve a particular goal." (Oxford English Dictionary). Herbert Simon (1978 Nobel Prize in Economics) was the first to use the term in this technical sense, which is an old alteration of the ordinary English word "satisfy". Simon wrote (Psychological Review, 63(2), 129-138 (1956)) "Evidently, organisms adapt well enough to 'satisfice'; they do not, in general, 'optimize'." Agents satisfice, according to Simon, due to limitation of their information, understanding, and cognitive or computational ability. These limitations, which Simon called "bounded rationality", force agents to look for solutions which are good enough, though not necessarily optimal. The optimum may exist but it cannot be known by the resource- and information-limited agent.There is a deep psychological motivation for satisficing, as Barry Schwartz discusses in Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less. "When people have no choice, life is almost unbearable." But as the number and variety of choices grows, the challenge of deciding "no longer liberates, but debilitates. It might even be said to tyrannize." (p.2) "It is maximizers who suffer most in a culture that provides too many choices" (p.225) because their expectations cannot be met, they regret missed opportunities, worry about social comparison, and so on. Maximizers may acquire or achieve more than satisficers, but satisficers will tend to be happier.Psychology is not the only realm in which satisficing finds its roots. Satisficing - as a decision strategy - has systemic or structural advantages that suggest its prevalence even in situations where the complexity of the human psyche is irrelevant. We will discuss an example from the behavior of animals.Several years ago an ecological colleague of mine at the Technion, Prof. Yohay Carmel, posed the following question: Why do foraging animals move from one feeding site to another later than would seem to be suggested by strategies aimed at maximizing caloric intake? Of course, animals have many goals in addition to foraging. They must keep warm (or cool), evade predators, rest, reproduce, and so on. Many mathematical models of foraging by animals attempt to predict "patch residence times" (PRTs): how long the animal stays at one feeding patch before moving to the next one. A common conclusion is that patch residence times are under-predicted when the model assumes that the animal tries to maximize caloric intake. Models do exist which "patch up" the PRT paradox, but the quandary still exists.Yohay and I wrote a paper in which we explored a satisficing - rather than maximizing - model for patch residence time. Here's the idea. The animal needs a critical amount of energy to survive until the next foraging session. More food might be nice, but it's not necessary for survival. The animal's foraging strategy must maximize the confidence in achieving the critical caloric intake. So maximization is taking place, but not maximization of the substantive "good" (calories) but rather maximization of the confidence (or reliability, or likelihood, but these are more technical terms) of meeting the survival requirement. We developed a very simple foraging model based on info-gap theory. The model predicts that PRTs for a large number of species - including invertebrates, birds and mammals - tended to be longer (and thus more realistic) than predicted by energy-maximizing models.This conclusion - that satisficing predicts observed foraging times better than maximizing - is tentative and preliminary (like most scientific conclusions). Nonetheless, it seems to hold a grain of truth, and it suggests an interesting idea. Consider the following syllogism.1. Evolution selects those traits that enhance the chance of survival.2. Animals seem to have evolved strategies for foraging which satisfice (rather than maximize) the energy intake.3. Hence satisficing seems to be competitively advantageous. Satisficing seems to be a better bet than maximizing.Unlike my psychologist colleague Barry Schwartz, we are not talking about happiness or emotional satisfaction. We're talking about survival of dung flies or blue jays. It seems that aiming to do good enough, but not necessarily the best possible, is the way the world is made.And this brings me to the suggestion that (even) God is a satisficer. The word "good" appears quite early in the Bible: in the 4th verse of the 1st chapter of Genesis, the very first book: "And God saw the light [that had just been created] that it was good...". At this point, when the world is just emerging out of tohu v'vohu (chaos), we should probably understand the word "good" as a binary category, as distinct from "bad" or "chaos". The meaning of "good" is subsequently refined through examples in the coming verses. God creates dry land and oceans and sees that it is good (1:10). Grass and fruit trees are seen to be good (1:12). The sun and moon are good (1:16-18). Swarming sea creatures, birds, and beasts are good (1:20-21, 25).And now comes a real innovation. God reviews the entire creation and sees that it is very good (1:31). It turns out that goodness comes in degrees; it's not simply binary: good or bad. "Good" requires judgment; ethics is born. But what particularly interests me here is that God's handiwork isn't excellent. Shouldn't we expect the very best? I'll leave this question to the theologians, but it seems to me that God is a satisficer. Full Article
a Baseball and Linguistic Uncertainty By decisions-and-info-gaps.blogspot.com Published On :: Sun, 21 Aug 2011 14:00:00 +0000 In my youth I played an inordinate amount of baseball, collected baseball cards, and idolized baseball players. I've outgrown all that but when I'm in the States during baseball season I do enjoy watching a few innings on the TV.So I was watching a baseball game recently and the commentator was talking about the art of pitching. Throwing a baseball, he said, is like shooting a shotgun. You get a spray. As a pitcher, you have to know your spray. You learn to control it, but you know that it is there. The ball won't always go where you want it. And furthermore, where you want the ball depends on the batter's style and strategy, which vary from pitch to pitch for every batter.That's baseball talk, but it stuck in my mind. Baseball pitchers must manage uncertainty! And it is not enough to reduce it and hope for the best. Suppose you want to throw a strike. It's not a good strategy to aim directly at, say, the lower outside corner of the strike zone, because of the spray of the ball's path and because the batter's stance can shift. Especially if the spray is skewed down and out, you'll want to move up and in a bit.This is all very similar to the ambiguity of human speech when we pitch words at each other. Words don't have precise meanings; meanings spread out like the pitcher's spray. If we want to communicate precisely we need to be aware of this uncertainty, and manage it, taking account of the listener's propensities.Take the word "liberal" as it is used in political discussion.For many decades, "liberals" have tended to support high taxes to provide generous welfare, public medical insurance, and low-cost housing. They advocate liberal (meaning magnanimous or abundant) government involvement for the citizens' benefit.A "liberal" might also be someone who is open-minded and tolerant, who is not strict in applying rules to other people, or even to him or herself. Such a person might be called "liberal" (meaning advocating individual rights) for opposing extensive government involvement in private decisions. For instance, liberals (in this second sense) might oppose high taxes since they reduce individuals' ability to make independent choices. As another example, John Stuart Mill opposed laws which restricted the rights of women to work (at night, for instance), even though these laws were intended to promote the welfare of women. Women, insisted Mill, are intelligent adults and can judge for themselves what is good for them.Returning to the first meaning of "liberal" mentioned above, people of that strain may support restrictions of trade to countries which ignore the health and safety of workers. The other type of "liberal" might tend to support unrestricted trade.Sending out words and pitching baseballs are both like shooting a shotgun: meanings (and baseballs) spray out. You must know what meaning you wish to convey, and what other meanings the word can have. The choice of the word, and the crafting of its context, must manage the uncertainty of where the word will land in the listener's mind.Let's go back to baseball again.If there were no uncertainty in the pitcher's pitch and the batter's swing, then baseball would be a dreadfully boring game. If the batter knows exactly where and when the ball will arrive, and can completely control the bat, then every swing will be a homer. Or conversely, if the pitcher always knows exactly how the batter will swing, and if each throw is perfectly controlled, then every batter will strike out. But which is it? Whose certainty dominates? The batter's or the pitcher's? It can't be both. There is some deep philosophical problem here. Clearly there cannot be complete certainty in a world which has some element of free will, or surprise, or discovery. This is not just a tautology, a necessary result of what we mean by "uncertainty" and "surprise". It is an implication of limited human knowledge. Uncertainty - which makes baseball and life interesting - is inevitable in the human world.How does this carry over to human speech?It is said of the Wright brothers that they thought so synergistically that one brother could finish an idea or sentence begun by the other. If there is no uncertainty in what I am going to say, then you will be bored with my conversation, or at least, you won't learn anything from me. It is because you don't know what I mean by, for instance, "robustness", that my speech on this topic is enlightening (and maybe interesting). And it is because you disagree with me about what robustness means (and you tell me so), that I can perhaps extend my own understanding.So, uncertainty is inevitable in a world that is rich enough to have surprise or free will. Furthermore, this uncertainty leads to a process - through speech - of discovery and new understanding. Uncertainty, and the use of language, leads to discovery.Isn't baseball an interesting game? Full Article
a Robustness and Locke's Wingless Gentleman By decisions-and-info-gaps.blogspot.com Published On :: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 07:49:00 +0000 Our ancestors have made decisions under uncertainty ever since they had to stand and fight or run away, eat this root or that berry, sleep in this cave or under that bush. Our species is distinguished by the extent of deliberate thought preceding decision. Nonetheless, the ability to decide in the face of the unknown was born from primal necessity. Betting is one of the oldest ways of deciding under uncertainty. But you bet you that 'bet' is a subtler concept than one might think.We all know what it means to make a bet, but just to make sure let's quote the Oxford English Dictionary: "To stake or wager (a sum of money, etc.) in support of an affirmation or on the issue of a forecast." The word has been around for quite a while. Shakespeare used the verb in 1600: "Iohn a Gaunt loued him well, and betted much money on his head." (Henry IV, Pt. 2 iii. ii. 44). Drayton used the noun in 1627 (and he wasn't the first): "For a long while it was an euen bet ... Whether proud Warwick, or the Queene should win."An even bet is a 50-50 chance, an equal probability of each outcome. But betting is not always a matter of chance. Sometimes the meaning is just the opposite. According to the OED 'You bet' or 'You bet you' are slang expressions meaning 'be assured, certainly'. For instance: "'Can you handle this outfit?' 'You bet,' said the scout." (D.L.Sayers, Lord Peter Views Body, iv. 68). Mark Twain wrote "'I'll get you there on time' - and you bet you he did, too." (Roughing It, xx. 152).So 'bet' is one of those words whose meaning stretches from one idea all the way to its opposite. Drayton's "even bet" between Warwick and the Queen means that he has no idea who will win. In contrast, Twain's "you bet you" is a statement of certainty. In Twain's or Sayers' usage, it's as though uncertainty combines with moral conviction to produce a definite resolution. This is a dialectic in which doubt and determination form decisiveness.John Locke may have had something like this in mind when he wrote:"If we will disbelieve everything, because we cannot certainly know all things; we shall do muchwhat as wisely as he, who would not use his legs, but sit still and perish, because he had no wings to fly." (An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, 1706, I.i.5)The absurdity of Locke's wingless gentleman starving in his chair leads us to believe, and to act, despite our doubts. The moral imperative of survival sweeps aside the paralysis of uncertainty. The consequence of unabated doubt - paralysis - induces doubt's opposite: decisiveness.But rational creatures must have some method for reasoning around their uncertainties. Locke does not intend for us to simply ignore our ignorance. But if we have no way to place bets - if the odds simply are unknown - then what are we to do? We cannot "sit still and perish".This is where the strategy of robustness comes in.'Robust' means 'Strong and hardy; sturdy; healthy'. By implication, something that is robust is 'not easily damaged or broken, resilient'. A statistical test is robust if it yields 'approximately correct results despite the falsity of certain of the assumptions underlying it' or despite errors in the data. (OED)A decision is robust if its outcome is satisfactory despite error in the information and understanding which justified or motivated the decision. A robust decision is resilient to surprise, immune to ignorance.It is no coincidence that the colloquial use of the word 'bet' includes concepts of both chance and certainty. A good bet can tolerate large deviation from certainty, large error of information. A good bet is robust to surprise. 'You bet you' does not mean that the world is certain. It means that the outcome is certain to be acceptable, regardless of how the world turns out. The scout will handle the outfit even if there is a rogue in the ranks; Twain will get there on time despite snags and surprises. A good bet is robust to the unknown. You bet you!An extended and more formal discussion of these issues can be found elsewhere. Full Article betting robustness
a The Pains of Progress By decisions-and-info-gaps.blogspot.com Published On :: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 07:04:00 +0000 To measure time by how little we change is to find how little we've lived, but to measure time by how much we've lost is to wish we hadn't changed at all. Andre AcimanThe last frontier is not the Antarctic, or the oceans, or outer space. The last frontier is The Unknown. We mentioned in an earlier essay that uncertainty - which makes baseball and life interesting - is inevitable in the human world. Life will continue to be interesting as long as the world is rich in unknowns, waiting to be discovered. Progress is possible if propitious discoveries can be made. Progress, however, comes with costs.The emblem of my university entwines a billowing smokestack and a cogwheel in the first letter of the institution's name. When this emblem was adopted (probably in 1951) these were optimistic symbols of progress. Cogwheels are no longer 'hi-tech' (though we still need them), and smoke has been banished from polite company. But our emblem is characteristic of industrial society which has seared Progress on our hearts and minds.Progress is accompanied by painful tensions. On the one hand, progress is nurtured by stability, cooperation, and leisure. On the other hand, progress grows out of change, conflict, and stress. A society's progressiveness reflects its balance of each of these three pairs of attributes. In the most general terms, progressiveness reflects social and individual attitudes to uncertainty.Let's consider the three pairs of attributes one at a time.Change and stability. Not all change is progress, but all progress is change. Change is necessary for progress, by definition, and progress can be very disruptive. The disruptiveness sometimes arises from unexpected consequences. J.B.S. Haldane wrote in 1923 that "the late war is only an example of the disruptive result that we may constantly expect from the progress of science." On the other hand, progressives employ and build on existing capabilities. The entrepreneur depends on stable property rights before risking venture capital. The existing legal system is used to remove social injustice. Watt's steam engine extended Newcomen's more primitive model. The new building going up on campus next to my office is very disruptive, but the construction project depends on the continuity of the university despite the drilling and dust. Even revolutionaries exploit and react against the status quo, which must exist for a revolutionary to be able to revolt. (One can't revolt if nothing is revolting.) Progress grows from a patch of opportunity in a broad bed of certainty, and spreads out in unanticipated directions.Conflict and cooperation. Conflict between vested interests and innovators is common. Watt protected his inventions with extensive patents which may have actually retarded the further development and commercialization of steam power. Conflict is also a mechanism for selecting successful ideas. Darwinian evolution and its social analogies proceed by more successful adaptations replacing less successful ones. On the other hand, cooperation enables specialization and expertise which are needed for innovation. The tool-maker cooperates with the farmer so better tools can be made more quickly, enhancing the farmer's productivity and the artisan's welfare. Conflicts arise over what constitutes progress. Stem cell research, genetic engineering, nuclear power technology: progress or plague? Cooperative collective decision making enables the constructive resolution of these value-based conflicts.Stress and leisure. Challenge, necessity and stress all motivate innovation. If you have no problems, you are unlikely to be looking for solutions. On the other hand, the leisure to think and tinker is a great source of innovation. Subsistence societies have no resources for invention. In assessing the implications of industrial efficiency, Bertrand Russell praised idleness in 1932, writing: "In a world where no one is compelled to work more than four hours a day, every person possessed of scientific curiosity will be able to indulge it, and every painter will be able to paint without starving ...." Stress is magnified by the unknown consequences of the stressor, while leisure is possible only in the absence of fear.New replaces Old. Yin and yang are complementary opposites that dynamically interact. In Hegel's dialectic, tension between contradictions is resolved by synthesis. Human history is written by the victors, who sometimes hardly mention those swept into Trotsky's "dustbin of history". "In the evening resides weeping; in the morning: joy." (Psalm 30:6). Change and stability; conflict and cooperation; stress and leisure.No progress without innovation; no innovation without discovery; no discovery without the unknown; no unknown without fear. There is no progress without pain. Full Article change and stability conflict and cooperation costs of progress progress stress and leisure
a Beware the Rareness Illusion When Exploring the Unknown By decisions-and-info-gaps.blogspot.com Published On :: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 12:14:00 +0000 Here's a great vacation idea. Spend the summer roaming the world in search of the 10 lost tribes of Israel, exiled from Samaria by the Assyrians 2700 years ago (2 Kings 17:6). Or perhaps you'd like to search for Prester John, the virtuous ruler of a kingdom lost in the Orient? Or would you rather trace the gold-laden kingdom of Ophir (1 Kings 9:28)? Or do you prefer the excitement of tracking the Amazons, that nation of female warriors? Or perhaps the naval power mentioned by Plato, operating from the island of Atlantis? Or how about unicorns, or the fountain of eternal youth? The Unknown is so vast that the possibilities are endless.Maybe you don't believe in unicorns. But Plato evidently "knew" about the island of Atlantis. The conquest of Israel is known from Assyrian archeology and from the Bible. That you've never seen a Reubenite or a Naphtalite (or a unicorn) means that they don't exist?It is true that when something really does not exist, one might spend a long time futilely looking for it. Many people have spent enormous energy searching for lost tribes, lost gold, and lost kingdoms. Why is it so difficult to decide that what you're looking for really isn't there? The answer, ironically, is that the world has endless possibilities for discovery and surprise.Let's skip vacation plans and consider some real-life searches. How long should you (or the Libyans) look for Muammar Qaddafi? If he's not in the town of Surt, maybe he's Bani Walid, or Algeria, or Timbuktu? How do you decide he cannot be found? Maybe he was pulverized by a NATO bomb. It's urgent to find the suicide bomber in the crowded bus station before it's too late - if he's really there. You'd like to discover a cure for AIDS, or a method to halt the rising global temperature, or a golden investment opportunity in an emerging market, or a proof of the parallel postulate of Euclidean geometry.Let's focus our question. Suppose you are looking for something, and so far you have only "negative" evidence: it's not here, it's not there, it's not anywhere you've looked. Why is it so difficult to decide, conclusively and confidently, that it simply does not exist?This question is linked to a different question: how to make the decision that "it" (whatever it is) does not exist. We will focus on the "why" question, and leave the "how" question to students of decision theories such as statistics, fuzzy logic, possibility theory, Dempster-Shafer theory and info-gap theory. (If you're interested in an info-gap application to statistics, here is an example.)Answers to the "why" question can be found in several domains.Psychology provides some answers. People can be very goal oriented, stubborn, and persistent. Marco Polo didn't get to China on a 10-hour plane flight. The round trip took him 24 years, and he didn't travel business class.Ideology is a very strong motivator. When people believe something strongly, it is easy for them to ignore evidence to the contrary. Furthermore, for some people, the search itself is valued more than the putative goal.The answer to the "why" question that I will focus on is found by contemplating The Endless Unknown. It is so vast, so unstructured, so, well ..., unknown, that we cannot calibrate our negative evidence to decide that whatever we're looking for just ain't there.I'll tell a true story.I was born in the US and my wife was born in Israel, but our life-paths crossed, so to speak, before we were born. She had a friend whose father was from Europe and lived for a while - before the friend was born - with a cousin of his in my home town. This cousin was - years later - my 3rd grade teacher. My school teacher was my future wife's friend's father's cousin.Amazing coincidence. This convoluted sequence of events is certainly rare. How many of you can tell the very same story? But wait a minute. This convoluted string of events could have evolved in many many different ways, each of which would have been an equally amazing coincidence. The number of similar possible paths is namelessly enormous, uncountably humongous. In other words, potential "rare" events are very numerous. Now that sounds like a contradiction (we're getting close to some of Zeno's paradoxes, and Aristotle thought Zeno was crazy). It is not a contradiction; it is only a "rareness illusion" (something like an optical illusion). The specific event sequence in my story is unique, which is the ultimate rarity. We view this sequence as an amazing coincidence because we cannot assess the number of similar sequences. Surprising strings of events occur not infrequently because the number of possible surprising strings is so unimaginably vast. The rareness illusion is the impression of rareness arising from our necessary ignorance of the vast unknown. "Necessary" because, by definition, we cannot know what is unknown. "Vast" because the world is so rich in possibilities.The rareness illusion is a false impression, a mistake. For instance, it leads people to wrongly goggle at strings of events - rare in themselves - even though "rare events" are numerous and "amazing coincidences" occur all the time. An appreciation of the richness and boundlessness of the Unknown is an antidote for the rareness illusion.Recognition of the rareness illusion is the key to understanding why it is so difficult to confidently decide, based on negative evidence, that what you're looking for simply does not exist.One might be inclined to reason as follows. If you're looking for something, then look very thoroughly, and if you don't find it, then it's not there. That is usually sound and sensible advice, and often "looking thoroughly" will lead to discovery.However, the number of ways that we could overlook something that really is there is enormous. It is thus very difficult to confidently conclude that the search was thorough and that the object cannot be found. Take the case of your missing house keys. They dropped from your pocket in the car, or on the sidewalk and somebody picked them up, or you left them in the lock when you left the house, or or or .... Familiarity with the rareness illusion makes it very difficult to decide that you have searched thoroughly. If you think that the only contingencies not yet explored are too exotic to be relevant (a raven snatched them while you were daydreaming about that enchanting new employee), then think again, because you've been blinded by a rareness illusion. The number of such possibilities is so vastly unfathomable that you cannot confidently say that all of them are collectively negligible. Recognition of the rareness illusion prevents you from confidently concluding that what you are seeking simply does not exist.Many quantitative tools grapple with the rareness illusion. We mentioned some decision theories earlier. But because the rareness illusion derives from our necessary ignorance of the vast unknown, one must always beware.Looking for an exciting vacation? The Endless Unknown is the place to go. Full Article rareness illusion
a Squirrels and Stock Brokers, Or: Innovation Dilemmas, Robustness and Probability By decisions-and-info-gaps.blogspot.com Published On :: Sun, 09 Oct 2011 11:51:00 +0000 Decisions are made in order to achieve desirable outcomes. An innovation dilemma arises when a seemingly more attractive option is also more uncertain than other options. In this essay we explore the relation between the innovation dilemma and the robustness of a decision, and the relation between robustness and probability. A decision is robust to uncertainty if it achieves required outcomes despite adverse surprises. A robust decision may differ from the seemingly best option. Furthermore, robust decisions are not based on knowledge of probabilities, but can still be the most likely to succeed.Squirrels, Stock-Brokers and Their DilemmasDecision problems.Imagine a squirrel nibbling acorns under an oak tree. They're pretty good acorns, though a bit dry. The good ones have already been taken. Over in the distance is a large stand of fine oaks. The acorns there are probably better. But then, other squirrels can also see those trees, and predators can too. The squirrel doesn't need to get fat, but a critical caloric intake is necessary before moving on to other activities. How long should the squirrel forage at this patch before moving to the more promising patch, if at all?Imagine a hedge fund manager investing in South African diamonds, Australian Uranium, Norwegian Kroners and Singapore semi-conductors. The returns have been steady and good, but not very exciting. A new hi-tech start-up venture has just turned up. It looks promising, has solid backing, and could be very interesting. The manager doesn't need to earn boundless returns, but it is necessary to earn at least a tad more than the competition (who are also prowling around). How long should the manager hold the current portfolio before changing at least some of its components?These are decision problems, and like many other examples, they share three traits: critical needs must be met; the current situation may or may not be adequate; other alternatives look much better but are much more uncertain. To change, or not to change? What strategy to use in making a decision? What choice is the best bet? Betting is a surprising concept, as we have seen before; can we bet without knowing probabilities?Solution strategies.The decision is easy in either of two extreme situations, and their analysis will reveal general conclusions.One extreme is that the status quo is clearly insufficient. For the squirrel this means that these crinkled rotten acorns won't fill anybody's belly even if one nibbled here all day long. Survival requires trying the other patch regardless of the fact that there may be many other squirrels already there and predators just waiting to swoop down. Similarly, for the hedge fund manager, if other funds are making fantastic profits, then something has to change or the competition will attract all the business.The other extreme is that the status quo is just fine, thank you. For the squirrel, just a little more nibbling and these acorns will get us through the night, so why run over to unfamiliar oak trees? For the hedge fund manager, profits are better than those of any credible competitor, so uncertain change is not called for.From these two extremes we draw an important general conclusion: the right answer depends on what you need. To change, or not to change, depends on what is critical for survival. There is no universal answer, like, "Always try to improve" or "If it's working, don't fix it". This is a very general property of decisions under uncertainty, and we will call it preference reversal. The agent's preference between alternatives depends on what the agent needs in order to "survive".The decision strategy that we have described is attuned to the needs of the agent. The strategy attempts to satisfy the agent's critical requirements. If the status quo would reliably do that, then stay put; if not, then move. Following the work of Nobel Laureate Herbert Simon, we will call this a satisficing decision strategy: one which satisfies a critical requirement."Prediction is always difficult, especially of the future." - Robert Storm PetersenNow let's consider a different decision strategy that squirrels and hedge fund managers might be tempted to use. The agent has obtained information about the two alternatives by signals from the environment. (The squirrel sees grand verdant oaks in the distance, the fund manager hears of a new start up.) Given this information, a prediction can be made (though the squirrel may make this prediction based on instincts and without being aware of making it). Given the best available information, the agent predicts which alternative would yield the better outcome. Using this prediction, the decision strategy is to choose the alternative whose predicted outcome is best. We will call this decision strategy best-model optimization. Note that this decision strategy yields a single universal answer to the question facing the agent. This strategy uses the best information to find the choice that - if that information is correct - will yield the best outcome. Best-model optimization (usually) gives a single "best" decision, unlike the satisficing strategy that returns different answers depending on the agent's needs.There is an attractive logic - and even perhaps a moral imperative - to use the best information to make the best choice. One should always try to do one's best. But the catch in the argument for best-model optimization is that the best information may actually be grievously wrong. Those fine oak trees might be swarming with insects who've devoured the acorns. Best-model optimization ignores the agent's central dilemma: stay with the relatively well known but modest alternative, or go for the more promising but more uncertain alternative."Tsk, tsk, tsk" says our hedge fund manager. "My information already accounts for the uncertainty. I have used a probabilistic asset pricing model to predict the likelihood that my profits will beat the competition for each of the two alternatives."Probabilistic asset pricing models are good to have. And the squirrel similarly has evolved instincts that reflect likelihoods. But a best-probabilistic-model optimization is simply one type of best-model optimization, and is subject to the same vulnerability to error. The world is full of surprises. The probability functions that are used are quite likely wrong, especially in predicting the rare events that the manager is most concerned to avoid.Robustness and ProbabilityNow we come to the truly amazing part of the story. The satisficing strategy does not use any probabilistic information. Nonetheless, in many situations, the satisficing strategy is actually a better bet (or at least not a worse bet), probabilistically speaking, than any other strategy, including best-probabilistic-model optimization. We have no probabilistic information in these situations, but we can still maximize the probability of success (though we won't know the value of this maximum).When the satisficing decision strategy is the best bet, this is, in part, because it is more robust to uncertainty than another other strategy. A decision is robust to uncertainty if it achieves required outcomes even if adverse surprises occur. In many important situations (though not invariably), more robustness to uncertainty is equivalent to being more likely to succeed or survive. When this is true we say that robustness is a proxy for probability.A thorough analysis of the proxy property is rather technical. However, we can understand the gist of the idea by considering a simple special case.Let's continue with the squirrel and hedge fund examples. Suppose we are completely confident about the future value (in calories or dollars) of not making any change (staying put). In contrast, the future value of moving is apparently better though uncertain. If staying put would satisfy our critical requirement, then we are absolutely certain of survival if we do not change. Staying put is completely robust to surprises so the probability of success equals 1 if we stay put, regardless of what happens with the other option. Likewise, if staying put would not satisfy our critical requirement, then we are absolutely certain of failure if we do not change; the probability of success equals 0 if we stay, and moving cannot be worse. Regardless of what probability distribution describes future outcomes if we move, we can always choose the option whose likelihood of success is greater (or at least not worse). This is because staying put is either sure to succeed or sure to fail, and we know which.This argument can be extended to the more realistic case where the outcome of staying put is uncertain and the outcome of moving, while seemingly better than staying, is much more uncertain. The agent can know which option is more robust to uncertainty, without having to know probability distributions. This implies, in many situations, that the agent can choose the option that is a better bet for survival.Wrapping UpThe skillful decision maker not only knows a lot, but is also able to deal with conflicting information. We have discussed the innovation dilemma: When choosing between two alternatives, the seemingly better one is also more uncertain.Animals, people, organizations and societies have developed mechanisms for dealing with the innovation dilemma. The response hinges on tuning the decision to the agent's needs, and robustifying the choice against uncertainty. This choice may or may not coincide with the putative best choice. But what seems best depends on the available - though uncertain - information.The commendable tendency to do one's best - and to demand the same of others - can lead to putatively optimal decisions that may be more vulnerable to surprise than other decisions that would have been satisfactory. In contrast, the strategy of robustly satisfying critical needs can be a better bet for survival. Consider the design of critical infrastructure: flood protection, nuclear power, communication networks, and so on. The design of such systems is based on vast knowledge and understanding, but also confronts bewildering uncertainties and endless surprises. We must continue to improve our knowledge and understanding, while also improving our ability to manage the uncertainties resulting from the expanding horizon of our efforts. We must identify the critical goals and seek responses that are immune to surprise. Full Article betting innovation dilemma probability proxy property robustness
