I've just listened to Nassim Taleb talking about his theories of not bailing out failures in the financial services, but rather encouraging those who experiment on a small scale (with less likelihood of large losses). Similarly, those who fail massively should not be encouraged to continue doing what has been proven to not work - that is, traditional dollar-following behaviour. Those who take large corporations to the brink should suffer from their own misdeeds, directly - that is, should themselves be made bankrupt before the company is. The rule of Hammurabi - the architect of a house that collapses should be punished.
The same should be said of politicians. Small failures are seen as loss of face, & those who might otherwise try something new are discouraged from doing so because the people (or media) will lose faith in them - politicians are expected to be "always right". But those who fail spectacularly by not experimenting - by taking the tried & true course of the past into an unknowable future - are simply retired or shunted aside to do it again somewhere else, with sizable pensions & their dignity intact.
Surely, this is wrong. At the least, it is illogical. The theory of evolution is all about survival of the fittest - organisms experimenting until the most apt becomes dominant. Many inapt variations will not become dominant. The previously dominant - which did not adapt - will die out along with all of the others. This is why it is such a neat theory - people understand that, to progress, we must try different things to find the best way forward.
No-one believes in a straight-line evolution where a species changes over time from one form to another, by hitting on the one & only advantage that will cause successful evolution. Note, too, that evolution is a process that we usually only see as an historical progression from the distant past to now, forgetting all of the deviations that didn't make it this far. It would be arrogant to believe that we - the mankind of today - are the ultimate end of God's plan. If that's the case, then what's the point?
If we don't change our approach to new problems, then we are not evolving. We are engineering our own extinction. Political parties that rely on their past to formulate their future are the dinosaurs of today. Some unexpected event will see their rapid demise, due to their own lack of change. If they do not have the ability to adapt, then they will not be able to face change.
Politicians who will not evolve are holding back progress. Here, progress means making the world a better place. Politicians who will not adapt should not be allowed to stand in the way of those who can. Politicians who stand in the way of progress & manage to fail, should be chastised to the point where such non-evolutionary conduct is discouraged. That's having a direct consequence of non-productive behaviour. Those with the courage to stand up for trying new things & succeeding - for evolving - should be rewarded with greater support & responsibility.
Change is inevitable. What that change is, is unknowable. Good government is about leadership in times of crisis, contingency planning in times of flux, & good management in times of short-term predictability. Without all three, no politician or political party can be a part of good government in the long term.
09 July 2013
03 July 2013
The Family Unit
As loathe as I am to start an entry with a reference to the IT industry - one of the most important parts of delivering a solution to a problem is having a good model of the problem in the first place - one based on the real world or the business process. This seems obvious.
Yet, we often use a bad model in business processes & then promulgate that mode into the rest of society - or else keep a model that is so out-dated that it loses relevance.
A classic example of this is ownership of things. Traditionally, people who owned things were those in power - the ruler, the local lord, the man of the house. Everyone else was beholden to them. This has, I believe, changed. These days, anyone can own things. More to the point, some things aren't owned by one person alone.
In everyday life, we should change our concept of who "owns" things. In the case of big things, now that people can easily own their own homes, the "persons" who own the property have to be listed & are held responsible for the loan, etc. I have already used different nomenclature in describing this scenario - persons own a property, families live in homes. Why can't families own homes?
A child may not be held responsible for a mortgage, but a family is not parents & children. Up until recently, it was next to impossible for a single woman to take out a mortgage, or two people who weren't married, whether that was a de facto relationship, siblings, or parent & child. These are all perfectly good examples of family, from societies point of view, but not examples of collections of people that a bank would consider worthy of a mortgage.
In solution modelling, you would say that an important part of the system is a person. For a mortgage, you would allow for two people - with restrictions on who those people are. Why? A marriage these days is not a permanent thing. De facto relationships are so common & lasting that they are indifferentiable from marriage to, say, the tax department or social services - & this does not even come close to relationships which are not recognised by the state (gay marriages). This still limits non-traditional groups of people who have even stronger ties - siblings, for example.
We need to model the system that allows for a certain group of people (to be specified) to act as a unit in the same way that a lord was once thought of - as a possessor of things.
Even something as simple as a credit card or a car seems to be a problem in collective ownership. A car must have one & only one registered owner (or corporate entity). Yet, in my own case, we have one car in the family - it is shared amongst three drivers. I am now the only member of a motoring association.
A family unit is hard to put your finger on, socially. I know some families where each parent & their children have different surnames - & a family from one country where each individual gets their own surname, not a family name. How do you "name" that family unit? It's not the "Daffy" family because they share a surname. It might be "Daffy's" family to some people, or "Daisy's" family to someone else. Regardless, we should be able to register a group of people as a unit - a family unit - & treat it in the same way that we currently treat individuals & (only) some relationships.
People form their family units in any way that they want to - because there can be no laws to stop them (forming a group - there are laws over what they can do within that group). We should model the system - government - in such a way that it recognises these family units & treats them with the respect that they deserve.
Yet, we often use a bad model in business processes & then promulgate that mode into the rest of society - or else keep a model that is so out-dated that it loses relevance.
A classic example of this is ownership of things. Traditionally, people who owned things were those in power - the ruler, the local lord, the man of the house. Everyone else was beholden to them. This has, I believe, changed. These days, anyone can own things. More to the point, some things aren't owned by one person alone.
In everyday life, we should change our concept of who "owns" things. In the case of big things, now that people can easily own their own homes, the "persons" who own the property have to be listed & are held responsible for the loan, etc. I have already used different nomenclature in describing this scenario - persons own a property, families live in homes. Why can't families own homes?
A child may not be held responsible for a mortgage, but a family is not parents & children. Up until recently, it was next to impossible for a single woman to take out a mortgage, or two people who weren't married, whether that was a de facto relationship, siblings, or parent & child. These are all perfectly good examples of family, from societies point of view, but not examples of collections of people that a bank would consider worthy of a mortgage.
In solution modelling, you would say that an important part of the system is a person. For a mortgage, you would allow for two people - with restrictions on who those people are. Why? A marriage these days is not a permanent thing. De facto relationships are so common & lasting that they are indifferentiable from marriage to, say, the tax department or social services - & this does not even come close to relationships which are not recognised by the state (gay marriages). This still limits non-traditional groups of people who have even stronger ties - siblings, for example.
We need to model the system that allows for a certain group of people (to be specified) to act as a unit in the same way that a lord was once thought of - as a possessor of things.
Even something as simple as a credit card or a car seems to be a problem in collective ownership. A car must have one & only one registered owner (or corporate entity). Yet, in my own case, we have one car in the family - it is shared amongst three drivers. I am now the only member of a motoring association.
A family unit is hard to put your finger on, socially. I know some families where each parent & their children have different surnames - & a family from one country where each individual gets their own surname, not a family name. How do you "name" that family unit? It's not the "Daffy" family because they share a surname. It might be "Daffy's" family to some people, or "Daisy's" family to someone else. Regardless, we should be able to register a group of people as a unit - a family unit - & treat it in the same way that we currently treat individuals & (only) some relationships.
People form their family units in any way that they want to - because there can be no laws to stop them (forming a group - there are laws over what they can do within that group). We should model the system - government - in such a way that it recognises these family units & treats them with the respect that they deserve.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)