China Getting Old Before Getting Rich

Following up from my last post on low Chinese labor cost observations, the Mercury Center (website for the San Jose Mercury News) has an article "China's Getting Old Before It Becomes Rich." It's an obvious story once you think about it, but has not been covered much. The gist: China's one-child policy reduces young people while better healthcare and nutrition increase the elderly. It's the U.S. social security crisis on steroids. In one estimate, the number of people over 60 will be larger than the entire U.S. in several decades. The crisis part? China is still a developing country even as it becomes an industrial powerhouse. So the challenge of feeding this number of seniors may be a nightmare. The one-child policy has been going since the late 70s, which would put those unborn kids in their 30s now--prime production years. And the move to capitalist ideals, including rural kids moving to cities to find fortune runs headlong into ideals about honoring and providing for one's elders. Yikes.

At the risk of an overly ridiculous analogy (I'll take ridiculous, but not overly ridiculous), this brings back memories of the era when Japan, Inc. was going to crush the U.S. And along the way, the geopolitical shift was derailed by Japan's banking system, real estate bubble, and more. I'm not dismissing in the slightest the massive impact I expect from the exploding Chinese industrial might, but just noting that a few twists may happen on the way to the party (or should I say "Party").

Why You Should Write Blogs--Not by me

In my shortest entry, I encourage you to read a long one: Steve Yegge's "Why You Should Write Blogs." It's a fun read and I came across it after I'd been messing with blogging for 5+ months and figured I'd gotten a sense of it...and could just stop. But after reading Yegge's comments, maybe I'll keep it up for a little while longer....

How is the World Different with (Near) Zero Labor Cost?

A while back, I spent several weeks traveling through China. I came away with one staggering observation--or perhaps I should say question: "How is the world different with (near) zero labor cost?" Westerners hear constantly about the current and future impact of low labor costs in China...and elsewhere. But I found seeing it myself showed a more extreme magnitude than even the media expresses. Imagine driving out of town on a good road that, after 2 hours, turns into a poor road. At the transition sit three men on white, plastic chairs (the sort you might buy for $3 at Target or Walmart). Each has a 3'-long chisel and a hammer. And each is using these hand tools to break up the old road. From the looks of their progress, the three might move a couple of feet per hour. A single front loader could move that distance in 45 seconds. And it's not like China has no front loaders. Needless to say, the equipment to create that Yang Tze dam is massive and plentiful. Using people and hand tools just makes more sense. And that's a terrible example because the "world isn't different." It's just the same old task, but with people instead of machines. OK, here's a better one: a very old traditional building had been painted a bazillion times over the centuries. Apparently the layer of paint four or five layers down was the one they really wanted. So rather than repainting the building that color or stripping the paint off and starting again, an army of people with tiny hammers and tiny chisels was tapping away at the top layers of paint to remove them and leave a particular layer of paint. Again tracking the progress, I'd estimate each person finished 1 square foot every 30+ minutes. A generous soul tells me this is typical of these sorts of preservation projects....but it is staggering to see. And I don't expect to see it done the same way with any preservation projects in Chicago. To trade my anecdotal stories for those of someone with far more focus and time on the subject, I highly recommend "China, Inc." by Ted Fishman (paper, audio)--fascinating and great fun.

Evangelicals Going Green Revisited

In a December post, I noted interest at hearing a claim of growing support among religious leaders, in particular Evangelicals, for fighting global warming. The Associated Press put out an article on the subject, mostly confirming it, but with a requisite denial also. Definitely a changing landscape. Here's the article via the San Jose Mercury News' site (the maroon bold highlight is mine...I just find that quote very intense):

Evangelicals, scientists unite on climate

GROUPS SAY LEADERS MUST FACE REALITY OF GLOBAL WARMING

By John Heilprin, Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Saying they share a moral purpose, a group of evangelicals and scientists said Wednesday that they will work together to convince the nation's leaders that global warming is real.

The Rev. Rich Cizik, public policy director for the National Association of Evangelicals, and Nobel-laureate Eric Chivian, director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School, were among 28 signers of a statement that demands urgent changes in values, lifestyles and public policies to avert disastrous changes in climate.

``God will judge us for destroying the creation. Therefore, we as evangelicals have a responsibility to be even more vigilant than others,'' Cizik told a news conference.

``Science can be an ally in helping us understand what faith is telling us,'' he said. ``We will not allow the creation to be degraded, destroyed by human folly.'' >> more

Lies, Damn Lies, and...well, you know

A while back, I mentioned Steven Levitt's Freakonomics, including some of his more interesting assertions (poor economics of selling drugs, parenting techniques that matter, etc.) One of his most controversial points is that the real cause of the drop in crime in the 90s was Roe v. Wade. His story is in-depth, of course, but the gist is that unwanted children have the highest risk of a life of crime. He looks at a wide range of data throughout the U.S. to prove this effect is real. In fact, he asserts that it is far more important to the drop in crime than traditional views, including more cops on the street, "innovative" policing tactics, changes in drug use patterns, and others.

Enter Franklin Zimring, author of The Decline of American Crime. To be clear, I have not read this book, I only listened to an interview on public radio's Forum with Michael Krasny. So this entry isn't about the book...it's about how even reasonable, academic, smart, diligent people can come up with such different views. Zimring looks specifically at the Roe v. Wade assertion and finds it wanting. In a gentle way, he even accuses Levitt of one of the greatest sins for an academic: confusing correlation with causality. Yes, Zimring says, the timing is right to believe that reducing unwanted children would cut the crime rate, but the U.S. isn't the only story. He decided to check for the same effect outside the U.S.--and didn't see it. Then he makes a variety of other contrasting claims: hospital admittances for drugs actually went up in this period, birth rates for young, unwed mothers went up, etc. Zimring says there is some modest effect, but explicitly says it is not even close to the most important.

I sure don't know the answer and I guess I could write this off with the positive view that "I'm confused at a higher level." But it is less than satisfying....

What Matters--the Expected or Unexpected?

I encourage you to read Cognomad's comment to my "On Intelligence II" post below (as well as checking out his blog). I was about to just respond to the comment, but the thing that caught my eye seemed a new entry: First--to Cognomad--enjoyed your blog...thanks for coming by and commenting. Cognomad seems to have far more physiological background in this stuff than I do, so I'll stay at the model level. If we accept any flavor of the "escalation" approach of Hawkins, that new perceptions get "noticed" or "passed upwpard" in the brain based on something about the perceptions, it's a pretty fundamental question whether the brain "notices" and "passes upward" the expected or the unexpected. Hawkins asserts the unexpected, while Cognomad asserts the expected. It's a tough question because seeing the difference physiologically is way beyond us for now (hmm, a neural packet sniffer?) AND I suspect it has the sort of Ptolemaic/Copernican thing is going on. Remember in high school science learning that Ptolomy said the earth is the center of the universe and Copernicus said we went around the Sun? I remember being interested at the time that the Ptolemaic model --with a few tweaks--was apparently working just fine helping ships navigate. So the question was still important, but on a practical basis, it didn't matter. For a while at least, I bet the same thing is true here: a good model (i.e. one that is pretty good at predicting outcomes) might be possible assuming either expected or unexpected things get escalated in the brain.

Anyway...I'm still on the Hawkins side that "unexpected stuff gets passed upward." My current pondering is whether the underlying algorithm might be something like a default binary test of "This doesn't matter." Then, when a perception breaks that default (i.e. it does matter because it's not only different, but different in a way that seems important), it gets passed upward. Arguably, this just begs the bigger question of how "importance" is measured. But at least it gets me going thinking about it....

Cognomad makes a case in his/her comment that escalating the unexpected would get bogged down by random noise. But given the length of connections between neurons, I'm not sure this causes the implied problem. That is, it seems plausible that direct connections between neurons at different levels could--once the escalation is established--bypass lots of levels to support the speed of thought. But that's just guessing. And although this is another topic (sorry), I also wonder whether this same mechanism might deal with Cognomad's comment about "deep" hierarchies being slower. If anything, this seems to be exactly what Gladwell, in Blink, called the benefit of expertise: lots of connections offering a deeply textured understanding of a topic allow extremely fast, accurate conclusions.

Infrared (IR) Thermometer: This Season's Hot Toy

An Infrared (IR) thermometer--sometimes called a touchless or non-contact thermometer--is an amazing tool. It looks like a toy gun and when you pull the trigger, it takes the temperature of whatever it is pointed at. Often they have an integrated laser pointer to help you point at things further away. The laser is only useful in certain use modes, but it makes the toy more fun. I first saw one on a Food Channel cooking show. One of the hosts (probably Alton Brown on Good Eats, but it's been a while) casually used it to check the temperature of a pan before adding ingredients. My wife and I immediately looked at each other, saying "What is that?" Followed by "We need one." A little research told me it was a common device and key professional tool of food inspectors (Is that chicken salad in the "death zone" of 40-140 degrees Fahrenheit?) In theory, it gets the same temperature whether it's 10 inches from the target or 10 feet, but theory being what it is, that isn't actually true. The temperature dissipates by a few degrees (as if that ever really matters).

The key variables are: range of temperature (e.g. up to 400º or up to 600º), accuracy (typically 2º or 2%, whichever is greater), and focus precision (e.g. 8:1 means at 8" distance the field of measurement is 1" wide). As a toy, you want the answers to be "higher temp," "more accurate," and "smaller field."

I find myself using this all this time. I actually do keep it near the range: I want stir fry oil to at least 440º but not over 500º, I want pancake pans at 350º, etc. But it is also a source of endless amusement. The dog? The kid? The TV? The outside lid of a boiling pot? How's the freezer doing? When the oven says 350º, is that the side or the top? Why is their so #$*@% much temperature variation on the surface of the BBQ? This room is freezing, what's the temperature of various surfaces? (I could go on, but I'd just embarrass myself.)

Search for a new one on eBay to save 50%+. For 20 or 30 bucks, you'll be glad you did.

Cisco v Apple: A Fascinating Legal Doc?!

Who would have thought that my one "news" story below would result in another comment on a recent event, but I honestly recommend you read the original legal complaint filed by Cisco against Apple over the iPhone name. The link is below, with thanks to ZDNet. The beginning looks like another dull formulaic legal document, but read on about the way Cisco makes its case. Fascinating....

Cisco v Apple Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition Complaint by ZDNet's Dan Farber -- Following is the complaint filed by Cisco over Apple's use of the iPhone name: COMPLAINT FOR TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT, UNFAIR COMPETITION, FALSE DESCRIPTION, AND INJURY TO BUSINESS REPUTATION; CASE NO.[...]

On Intelligence II: Does Hierarchy Shape Matter?

In my first entry on Jeff Hawkins' On Intelligence, I said it became a filter for an unbelievable number of the things I notice and wonder about...and yet I haven’t added new entries about it. Truth is, it's mostly because I fear it may seem so bizarre to use a single set of ideas as a filter for so many things, that you'll find my selection of blog topics even more oddly random than you already do. But it's time. To kick it off, I'll briefly mention step 1: The Hawkins Memory-Prediction model of the brain focuses on hierarchy. Ignoring the details, parts of your brain get information (typically from the senses) and if it matches what they expect, they do nothing. If it doesn't, they pass the information up the hierarchy. It's sort of like an entry-level worker escalating a new problem to his or her boss. And like the CEO (which, in a sense, you are), you don't have time or mental cycles to stay on top of what's happening at the low levels in the hierarchy, so you generally keep track of what's being passed up the chain. You could say, "Your brain--and therefore, you--only notice something if it differs from expectation." Simple, elegant, and able to explain many of our perceptions.

OK, step 2. The more accurate the predictions are at the lower levels of the hierarchy, the less they have to pass upward. How do the predictions get more accurate? By experiencing information more often, predicting something, and checking results. Practice makes perfect. They get "smarter." Suffice to say this works identically for observing something--as in knowing immediately whether a dirty, brown rock is a clump of dirt, a piece of quartz, or a diamond OR for doing something--like playing a sonata on a violin or designing a brilliant ad for a new soft drink (is there such a thing?).

Step 3. If a talented person spends 18 hours a day playing the violin, the violin-connected parts of their brain will be very smart. The lower levels of the hierarchy won't need to escalate messages often. When this happens, the theory claims, the upper levels of the hierarchy don't just take a vacation. Instead, they think higher thoughts. They look for connections between the things the lower levels are doing. It's like a lucky manager leading such a great team that she gets to spend time focusing on long-term strategy, integration between functions, or new ways to think about everyday tasks. The hierarchy of the dedicated violinist becomes very "deep." It has many levels because what is complicated and "escalated" one day becomes rote and simple the next. Of course, our master violinist will probably be a lousy diamond finder.

Now things get interesting (at least for me ;-). Imagine another person who is a dilettante. He dabbles in a thousand things, paying attention in the moment, but gaining no expertise. The theory would say his brain is constantly passing messages upward. Little is rote. The lower levels have mastered little, so escalation is the norm. You could say this person's brain hierarchy is extremely flat. Poor guy, right? But along the way, he is certainly creating connections and, if the theory is right, his dabbling brain is still making constant predictions. And he's really fun at parties. And since the brain doesn't "know" when it's playing the violin and when it's looking at dirty rocks, it seems clear that experiences in one field will start to inform predictions in others. I'm not speculating that if you look at enough rocks you'll be able to play the violin. But if your brain only has random data, it's going to use it the best way it can.

So here's my quandary: Of these two people, who would you trust to build your kid a treehouse? Or set up your Tivo? Or make you dinner? Or join your bowling team?

If you had them both on your team doing something neither had done before, would you assign them to different types of tasks?

Too ridiculous a question? Ok, then how about just this: What would you encourage for your child? What do you wish was encouraged for you when you were young? (Assuming this sort of thing can be encouraged at all.)

Will a flat hierarchy drive more diverse connections and relationships? Will a deep hierarchy--more practiced in "thinking about thinking"--provide more abstract, in-depth considerations in other fields?

Apple iPhone...and Website

As anyone reading this blog knows, this is not a site about latest news. But today's Apple iPhone announcement can't pass without comment. I bought the 128k Mac in 1984 and was ecstatic to upgrade it to 512k. I remember the revolution when I could afford a hard disk (external, of course). I'm a PC user today and we have 5 or 6 PCs in our home network. We have one Mac also--mostly to run HyperCard (remember that?) which holds, yep, recipes and phone numbers. Similarly, I was an intense Newton user who now uses a Pocket PC. And I used to use my Pocket PC for music and audiobooks...until the iPod Nano came out. All this is to say, I've got a foot in both camps: obsessive about well-designed products, but with little patience for blind allegiance.

Back to phones and soon to websites: In the schism between big, functional Blackberry-like phones and small, sleek Razr-like phones, I'm in the second camp. I remember seeing my first StarTac. It was one of only a dozen or so products I've ever seen that made my legs go weak. The Razr is just a StarTac with six more turns of the crank. Yes, phones were getting smaller before StarTac, but some devices establish a standard so clearly they leave their mark on the trend that follows them. The iPhone will be such a device.

The iPhone will define a class of phones for years to come: sleek, touchscreen, elegant, multi-functional, computer-friendly, multimedia, etc. The question that is now so old it is cliche? Will Apple profit from this in the long term or will someone else?

You'll find unending iPhone reviews, so I won't add one. Instead, I point you to a website you have to see: http://www.apple.com/iphone/phone/. Apple always had a beautifully designed site, so it's not just that the plain white background is now plain black. The magic of the iPhone site is the product experience . You see a world-class product demo before you even know you're seeing a demo. You know intuitively that the little translucent dot is your finger. There is no conscious leap to "oh, I see, that's the pointer" or "that thing represents my finger." No, you just understand the metaphor intuitively...almost subconsciously. Some (like me ;-) may look for more direct interaction with the product, but I don't know what it does yet. And even I have to admit the most intuitive interface is hard pressed to make interaction obvious when you don't even know what you want to do.

Am I behind the times? Are there similar--maybe far better--examples of transparent product experience on websites? Could be. If so, let me know....

What Makes it OK to Rage at Work??

I've worked at big companies and startups. Young companies and old. In no way a representative sample, but enough to taste different styles. And one question always intrigued me: What makes people visibly mad at others when at work?

There's two parts to this:

• What makes people mad?
• What makes it OK to show you are mad?

Both are interesting and I suspect understanding either would make for a more productive--and pleasant--workplace and group dynamic. But I'm so far from really understanding either that I'm combining them for now. Maybe it's simple and I'm just missing that simplicity: Bad stuff happens. People are human. They get madPublish and show it. But I think there's more. Anger…really getting mad at someone…seems tied to one of three things (am I missing some?):

1. Intention (undermining you, your job, or the company)
2. Incompetence (how could you not know?!)
3. Negligence (why are you here if you don't care?)

If those aren't involved and something just goes wrong, say rain at an outdoor product launch, the stock tanks just before a merger, a good sales or marketing or product development plan goes south, etc., then you're still not happy…but it's not the same sort of focused rage. And it doesn't seem to come out with as much noise and fury.

If you have thoughts on this, email me or comment. I'm going to keep trying to tease out more, but I suspect at minimum, it may help me to try to figure out which of the three aspects above is a contributor--whether I'm the angry one or not. ;-)

The Great Courses are Great

I’m on an audiobook break, listening instead to audio from “The Great Courses” company. I know, that name is incredibly stuffy and obnoxious sounding, but hold on. Their pitch: they figure out the top 1% of prof’s in the country and invite them to audition. Of the 1%, 1 in 20 is picked to do a course. Each lecture is 30 or 45 minutes and a course is 20-40+ lectures. In listening time, a total course ranges from one long book to two or more very long books. List price is outrageous, but they have an annual sale where everything is ~70% off. I’m guessing the company just takes the rest of the year off. Anyway, somehow I got on their catalog list a few years ago and was frequently tempted. I finally took the dive and got three that seemed like slam dunk topics that showed a broad range: Great Ideas of Philosophy, Books that Changed History, and Relativity. (I was surprised and then amused that all three started in the same place, but that's another topic.) I’ve listened to some of each so far, but more Philosophy than the other two. They are awesome. Whether the numbers in their pitch are real or not, their promise about prof quality seems real. At least for these three, I think they actually think about the art of lecturing differently…hell, for that matter, they just seem to think it is an art. Period. Yes, they are more entertaining than lectures I’ve had. But also more memorable. And far (far!) more thought-provoking. For example, in comparison to books, they realize someone is listening and that the best path might not be linear. They seem to have more link-backs and connections than would seem natural in a book. As a comparison, when listening to a book, I frequently repeat sections. Maybe I get distracted when working out or I just miss a point. No problem, just "rewind" and keep going. But that's where the impressiveness of the lectures comes in: I've delayed my rewind instinct because half the time I need it during one of these lectures, the prof decides that moment is the time to restate their point. It's as if they are trying to be sensitive to which moments a listener will need greater clarity or reinforcement. It doesn't feel like a repeat, but rather a useful reconnection to make sure nothing gets missed. There’s definitely a sense of listening to folks who are simply more expert at lecturing than I’m used to. And at least in theory, my ancient school days put me in front of some top lecturers.

I suppose it's weird that I'm talking so much about style rather than substance. So I'll end by saying the content itself has been excellent. I suppose it's hard to miss with the three test courses I picked and I'll probably get motivated to talk about them in a future blog. But the gist is that there have been topics on which I've taken courses and tests (yes, ancient history)--and only now realize I never really "got" before. It's very cool. Even calling what they sell "courses" can probably make them sound dull and heavy. But that's far from true. If their catalog has any topics that interest you and you don't at least try out a course or two, you're missing out.

[On a totally differnt topic, if anyone else knows why Blogger sometimes has this weird glitch where you paste something in and can't make everything that same font, please shoot me a message, OK?]

"Thinking Like a Genius" list

There's a lot of "be smarter," "be more creative," "lose weight," "run a marathon" stuff on the web. Most seems worth what it costs. I happened across this list and quite liked it. Maybe you will too...

Thinking like a Genius

1. Look at problems in many different ways, and find new perspectives that no one else has taken (or no one else has publicized!) Leonardo da Vinci believed that, to gain knowledge about the form of a problem, you begin by learning how to restructure it in many different ways. He felt that the first way he looked at a problem was too biased. Often, the problem itself is reconstructed and becomes a new one. 2. Visualize! When Einstein thought through a problem, he always found it necessary to formulate his subject in as many different ways as possible, including using diagrams. He visualized solutions, and believed that words and numbers as such did not play a significant role in his thinking process. 3. Produce! A distinguishing characteristic of genius is productivity. Thomas Edison held 1,093 patents. He guaranteed productivity by giving himself and his assistants idea quotas. In a study of 2,036 scientists throughout history, Dean Keith Simonton of the University of California at Davis found that the most respected scientists produced not only great works, but also many "bad" ones. They weren't afraid to fail, or to produce mediocre in order to arrive at excellence. 4. Make novel combinations. Combine, and recombine, ideas, images, and thoughts into different combinations no matter how incongruent or unusual. The laws of heredity on which the modern science of genetics is based came from the Austrian monk Grego Mendel, who combined mathematics and biology to create a new science. 5. Form relationships; make connections between dissimilar subjects. Da Vinci forced a relationship between the sound of a bell and a stone hitting water. This enabled him to make the connection that sound travels in waves. Samuel Morse invented relay stations for telegraphic signals when observing relay stations for horses. 6. Think in opposites. Physicist Niels Bohr believed, that if you held opposites together, then you suspend your thought, and your mind moves to a new level. His ability to imagine light as both a particle and a wave led to his conception of the principle of complementarity. Suspending thought (logic) may allow your mind to create a new form. 7. Think metaphorically. Aristotle considered metaphor a sign of genius, and believed that the individual who had the capacity to perceive resemblances between two separate areas of existence and link them together was a person of special gifts. 8. Prepare yourself for chance. Whenever we attempt to do something and fail, we end up doing something else. That is the first principle of creative accident. Failure can be productive only if we do not focus on it as an unproductive result. Instead: analyze the process, its components, and how you can change them, to arrive at other results. Do not ask the question "Why have I failed?", but rather "What have I done?"