A Bit Visceral : The Blog

Algorithmic error

We live in a world of duality – light and shade, expansion and contraction, the list is endless. Biology, technology, art and science, right brain, left brain, they’re perpetually intertwined.

Data has evolved into a mental deluge as part of operational consciousness. When even the smartest of organizations can find it hard to process it all, let alone interpret it, maybe algorithmic error and human error are still not that far removed from one another, at potentially great cost. The old adage of ‘lies, damn lies and statistics’ remains.

As we get technically more savvy, humanness is also coming to the fore as its natural counterpoint.

The cumulative effects of a miniscule miscalculation means it’s still all too easy to go off the tracks when data informs what we do. This is why tribes are so important and have such allure today; they protect and validate their own.

One of the hardest things to factor into any equation is that curiosity does not collude with calculation, and when one attempts to streamline and restrict it, somehow life finds a way to escape.

We want rapport in our lives, every bit as much as any analysis, and business needs this. It’s the personal stories that are most illuminating, the ones on the fringes that have the most to offer. We crave uniformity, the comfort and reassurance of code, but also love the lure of the new, the things that are different and make things interesting and fresh. 

The other day a woman joined a train next to me in well-worn biking gear and perfect make-up. She defied categorization. It was clear from the get-go that hers was a deftly crafted commute, individually styled and accessorized, a tale made up of a catalogue of potentially conflicting life-choices that no one without the most appreciative and detailed of insights would have had a chance to understand.

So who captures her story? Who connects with her as she puts together her portfolio for personal brand consumption? How is behavioural analysis going to help build a relationship with her? What's going to make her feel prepared to share?

The difficulty with data is that it’s a numbers game, not a people game. Brands that are data heavy and look at consumers from the outside in should beware.

Science is telling us there is honesty in teams. Communities and group dynamics demand that you be yourself. This is the challenge of the inter-connected society.

The serious implication is that brands must develop the ability to function within other ecosystems and win the trust required to hear the real stories. Only by having a shot at understanding this level of complexity do they have a chance to thrive, beyond emotional connection, into visceral connection, as matter meshing together.

The end of edifice

ed⋅i⋅fice
spelled pronunciation [ed-uh-fis]
–noun
1.     a building, esp. one of large size or imposing appearance.
2.     any large, complex system or organization.

It’s nearly the end of the year, maybe it’s nearly the end of an era.

Old edifices are giving way, economically and organizationally. What were previously very well established systems are now looking very hollow.

It’s fascinating to see how, in various quarters, people respond to this. Some prefer ‘bail out’ others go with ‘belly-up’, we resist the dip, or we embrace the dip.

What’s clear is that, socially connected as we now are, for those that are engaged in change what lies ahead is going to be one massive collective learning experience and it’s time to get iterative.

Many resist the end of edifice or structure, quickly seeking to rebuild. But it’s exploration skills that are needed now in order to take us to new places we haven’t gone before, not building skills.

Helen Fisher at Le Web on Tuesday this week talked about different types of personalities - explorers, builders, negotiators and directors - and how they interact, shape and develop their relationships in the world, all of which has significant impacts for those interested in the development of viable social communities.

Similarly, in an age of some potential anarchy, unpredictability and improvisation are becoming the flavours of a new day.

Times like this can make us twitchy. We sense loss and desperation. In circumstances like this it’s only a brave new dawn can sometimes give sufficient hope. Then again, success is not too often to be found by throwing out all else that has gone before. There’s edifice in that too.

Whatever happens, we’ll cope better if we create adaptive fits with one another. That's why social communities now offer so much promise.

That willingness to flex is going to be what gets the synapses going.

New growth from organizations of old is entirely possible that way.

What lies beyond the wiki

Talk, as they say, is cheap. To some this is a very good thing. It’s never been easier to gather up dialogue using tools for collaboration. In a committed wiki, everyone has a point of view.

But what lies beyond the wiki? Converting talk into action is not so easy for a whole host of reasons.

Some people are simply not motivated to do more than talk. The power of the voice online is a tempting offer to deliver a stream of consciousness that’s attractive to many for the fame simply of being seen.

Once the bonding starts to happen online, collaboration tools like wikis operate through a series of responses to develop a cumulative strength of opinion, and some consensus, but not always.

The wiki is also the domain of cyber-bullying where the egos of thread contributors can be trounced by dominant group members, overwhelmed by points of view so vehement they simply fold, cease to contribute, or exit stage left.

The significance of leadership within wikis is I think heavily underestimated. Failing to recognize that dominant personalities can stifle creativity in other participants, failing to recognize that good leadership is important within a democratic wiki, can prevent wikis from achieving anything at all.

The real opportunity of the wiki is to move beyond talk into valuable and productive collaboration and for many the challenge about how best to do that is upon them.

When digital type was first invented people went crazy with fonts. The sweet shop was just too tasty, the range available just too big, for people not to gorge themselves until typographic indigestion set in. Something had to be done. All the fonts were there, but no-one could actually read anything.

So it is with wikis, where the temptation to add something, to be seen to be seen, to have the last word, can have a massive impact. Sometimes, it’s a good thing just to let an idea be, just as it is; wikis rarely offer that option.

For those who want to go above and beyond the wiki, the real value is in adding to good ideas by firstly letting them rest. A good idea takes time to assimilate and be truly appreciated for what it is.

Contributing to a good idea is then not so much about talk at all, it requires action. Accepting the challenge to step up a gear and get practical, developing a methodology that proves the concept, solving problems, taking responsibility for applying and making it work in certain areas, helping in a hands-on way to iron out the kinks, is a lot harder than telling.

In a streamlined world, and in either real or the virtual environments, the best contributors are prepared to make a commitment to the thread that way, by moving into production. Are yours?