In 1970, Jo Freeman wrote an article called Tyranny of Structurelessness, in which she discussed how the lack of explicit structure in the feminist movement allows smaller networks of people to coopt the movement for their own ends. She advocates active decision making about representation and leadership rather than passively allowing structure to emerge. In The Invisible Dogma, Mitch Ratcliffe issues a similar call to arms about technology deployment. He categorizes the various ways in which technology can affect group behavior and dynamics and suggest we be more alert to these effects as we design systems.
Technology, because it is usually deployed en masse is a blunt force instrument that often treats everyone the same way. This is especially apparent within the confines of a small group, where individual differences are starkly evident and can be exaggerated by the introduction of a tool that favors one form of participation or mode of dealing with knowledge over others.My favorite example of this problem is the street lights that change in response to cars but not bicycles. Mitch's favorite example is the interruptive nature of IM and the "walkie-talkie-like press-to-talk" feature of Nextel and other new mobile phone systems and the fact that many people find the interuptions utterly counterproductive. Applying Freeman's analysis here, we should think seriously about how and why these architectural decisions get made and try to explore ways of making these decisions that best serve all members of the group.
Elites are nothing more and nothing less than a group of friends who also happen to participate in the same political activities. They would probably maintain their friendship whether or not they were involved in political activities; they would probably be involved in political activities whether or not they maintained their friendships. It is the coincidence of these two phenomena which creates elites in any groups and makes them so difficult to break.These friendship groups function as networks of communication outside any regular channels for such communication that may have been set up by a group. If no channels are set up, they function as the only networks of communication. Because people are friends, usually sharing the same values and orientations, because they talk to each other socially and consult with each other when common decisions have to be made, the people involved in these networks have more power in the group than those who don't. And it is a rare group that does not establish some informal networks of communication through the friends that are made in it.
[...]
[These] informal structures have no obligation to be responsible to the group at large. Their power was not given to them; it cannot be taken away. Their influence is not based on what they do for the group; therefore they cannot be directly influenced by the group. This does not necessarily make informal structures irresponsible. Those who are concerned with maintaining their influence will usually try to be responsible. The group simply cannot compel such responsibility; it is dependent on the interests of the elite.
Tim Oren critiques Ross Mayfield's review of the various valuation models for social network topologies: Sarnoff, Metcalfe, and Reed's laws. Oren notes that these models all predict untrammeled growth, but that is not what we see. He explains this contradiction by noting that these oversimplified models don't take into account commons failure (think spam), scaling issues (moderation and representation systems), and competition among various networks.
There is a simpler explanation. When economists talk about value (or price), they are generally talking about
Even this demand curve model is actually optimistic about customer adoption. It assumes a smooth distribution of demand. In practice, market tastes are frequently clustered. A network that connects physicists together is of little interest to Britney spears fans and vice-versa. Patrick Ball's paper on "circuits" of reported killings in Kosovo shows that not all social groups have overlapping membership, meaning that increased participation by one group is of no value to members of other groups.
Lastly I would note that all of these models fail to take into account time. If the cost of joining is going down sufficiently rapidly (think Moore's Law), I may be willing to trade the present value of the network for the discount in the future. If a large number of potential members choose this route, this decision becomes self-justifying.
The NYTimes reports(Reg. Req.) that most of the payments will end up in Iraqi hands. This information won't quiet the more strident of the Bush/Cheney-fought-the-war-to-enrich-their-cronies crowd. But for everyone else, this should be good news.
The WSJ reports that specialists (the people who match buyers and sellers) are taking advantage of their priviledged position to trade for their own account. The article says computers and decimalization are crowding the profits out of the core business so these specialists have to make money through trading for their own accounts. My suspicion is that the computers just made the illicit behavior much more visible.
The problem here is the humans and not the intermediation of the specialists. There is no reason why the exchange couldn't modularize and outsource specialization to whichever firms are willing to bid on the business. They could maintain the NYSE's economic structure but get rid of the human inefficiencies.
Wired reports on a symposium on The Future of Human Nature held in Boston. Somce scientists are concerned that we will modify ourselves into different species that will choose to kill one another. Personally, I think we already have enough differences to justify killing one another whenever we want to without reference to the artificial content of our genes. Perhaps greater diversity will lead to less contention rather than more as different human species contend for different resources.
Either way, I think the last generation of humans is coming quickly.
The WSJ reports(registration required) that a careless Bioterror expert is on trial for losing some vials of plague. What would otherwise be a simple case of abesnt-minded professor, is now a major issue. How do we handle the smart careless people upon whom we rely to advance technology?
http://www.toccionline.com/creations/realhussein/index.html
If you know Eminem, Just go there. If you don't, go there anyway.
Fact: AP and Knight Ridder both report that the losses at the Iraqi Museum appear to be the result of a well organized theft and not the result of random looting. BBC World Service reports that the Iraqi museum pieces are showing up in Paris.
Opinion: The moral unseriousness of people who raise this issue as a legitimate objection to the war or even an objection to the conduct of the war is apalling.
Hat tip to Village Idiot who notes:
So, lets think about this. The Museum, full of priceless antiquities, is located in a country run by a ruthless tyrant who has treated the country and its treasures as his personal playthings. It has been closed to the public for years. War has been threatened for months, and the tyrant knows that the city will be bombed, so does the museum staff. Rumors abound that the tyrant, his henchmen and their families are stashing treasure in foreign countries against the possibility of flight. When the army of liberation arrives, the Museum is empty, its displays and vaults ransacked. The staff blames an anonymous mob of civilians.Motive, Means, Opportunity; isn’t that what Miss Marple would wonder about? The tyrant would certainly have them in spades.
From Knight Ridder on April 16:
Iraqi museum officials and U.S. military authorities now think that the much-publicized looting of antiquities from the world-renowned Iraq Museum was most likely a well-executed theft, perhaps planned before Baghdad fell. Museum officials have determined that most of the looting that did take place at the museum, . . . was focused on office machines and furniture, . . . and that only selected antiquities were taken."The people who came in here knew what they wanted. These were not random looters," Donny George, the director general of Iraq's state board of antiquities, said Wednesday . . . He pointed out that replica items - museum pieces that would have looked every bit as real to an angry mob as authentic items - were left untouched. The museum's extensive Egyptian collection, which is valuable, but not unique to the world, also was left alone. . . American soldiers on guard duty here said that while the damage in the museum areas seemed bad, the appearance was deceiving. "It looked pretty bad inside, much worse than it was," said 2nd Lt. Erik Balascik, 23, of Allentown. Pa. "The administration building, the library, they are a mess. In the museum, there is broken glass and papers on the floor, but a lot of the collection was pulled before the war. And not as much is missing as first thought."
In fact, in the main collection, it now appears that few items are missing, and very little seems to have been the victim of mob violence. . .
The military perspective is that it did all it could to protect the museum at the time. During the looting, "the fighting was still going on. The Republican Guard headquarters are across the street, and they were far from secure," Army Maj. Michael Donovan said. "Frankly, we were here to protect people and property, but in the early days we had to choose, and we chose people." . . .
ON April 17, AP Reports:
Professional thieves, likely organized outside Iraq, pillaged the nation's priceless ancient history collections by using the cover of widespread looting -- and vault keys -- to make off with irreplaceable items, art experts and historians said Thursday. The bandits were so efficient at emptying Iraqi libraries and museums that reports have already surfaced of artifacts appearing on the black market, some experts said.
But the real hypocricy here is that much of what is in Western museums was taken/saved by looters in wartime and has never been returned. The further hypocricy is of course the French who apparently operate the biggest market for the stolen art. From Jeff Jarvis
As I drove home tonight listening to the BBC World Service on the radio, someone from the British Museum said that some of the antiquities stolen from the looted museums of Baghdad are already showing up... where?... in Paris. He said Paris is the headquarters of this trade. He also made clear that much of what is being portrayed as mob looting is, instead, an organized theft ring with a market.
So the fault for the looting of the museums rests in great measure in the laps of those who are criticizing us for not stopping it: with the French.
If the French had agreed to join in the war, perhaps they could have guarded the museums. But we were busy. We were protecting people.
Maybe we didn't stop the looting of the museums.
But we also didn't cause it.
Did the European antique trade? Did the French?
Technology will make ID cards obsolete as face recognition and other biometric technology improves. Affect detection technology (facial expressions, pulse, sweat... think lie detectors) will combine with other database technology effectively to read your mind. Michael Kanellos of CNET discusses these and other issues in "The Paradox of Privacy."
What is not discussed is why people want privacy. Is this akin to fear of being naked and having everyone see ones physical imperfections? Perhaps we just need more tolerance of those imperfections. Is this desire for privacy more about identity theft? Is so, perhaps stronger identity technologies may be more protective than weaker ones. Are people concerned about the interaction between personal data and persuasive technologies? The solution here is in better training of the mind. But I think in general people object to the failure to use persuasive technology; they object to spam. This objection is not about privacy, but about access. Are people concerned that the government can use these technologies to harass people? The solution is controls on government usage akin to 4th Ammendment protections for search warrants.
I have to say, I too am concerned about the loss of privacy, about computers being able to know who I am and to read my mind, but I am not sure this concern is entirely rational.
Lee Felsenstein in How To Make A Revolution In Three Easy Steps says that you make a revolution by
having everybody "get" a project, having everybody talk about their projects with each other, and then updating their projects based on the conversation. Difficult and crucial stuff left out: Getting your group together in the first place and getting people to act rather than just talk. Also left undiscussed is the way these emergent organizations fulfill the tacit agendas of the politically saavy rather than representing the interests of the group as a whole (see
In fairness, representing an organization is difficult and revolutions are inherently political. That being said, if your organization has a goal, would you rather have a company with management and employees or this undirected blob? How bottom-up can you get?
Anti-war folks keep referring to the tragedy of the looting of the Iraqi museum, as a substitute for a serious objection to the war. Imagine in February if we were told that we shouldn't invade Iraq because it would but the Iraqi Museum's at risk.. That is the effective content of this carping. Anyway, here are the details.
>From here
So, lets think about this. The Museum, full of
priceless antiquities, is located in a country run
by a ruthless tyrant who has treated the country
and its treasures as his personal playthings. It
has been closed to the public for years. War has
been threatened for months, and the tyrant knows
that the city will be bombed, so does the museum
staff. Rumors abound that the tyrant, his henchmen
and their families are stashing treasure in
foreign countries against the possibility of
flight. When the army of liberation arrives, the
Museum is empty, its displays and vaults
ransacked. The staff blames an anonymous mob of
civilians. . . . Motive, Means, Opportunity; isnt
that what Miss Marple would wonder about? The
tyrant would certainly have them in spades.
>From Kanan Makiya http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=iraq&s=diary041403
I spoke by sat-phone with friends in Baghdad.
According to them, the breakdown of authority
familiar to the world is getting better. Citizens
groups are forming to keep order in the streets,
and meeting little preliminary resistance. People
want to be safe, and now that the ministries have
been ransacked, it appears the worst of the
looting has passed. In Basra, too, I understand
these same groups are forming. One friend told me
that the looting of the National Museum--something
that cut deeply into me--was the work of newly
deposed Baathist officials, who had been selling
off our patrimony as they saw their days were
numbered. As the regime fell, these (ex-)Baathists
went back for one last swindle, and took with them
treasures that dated back 9,000 years, to the
Sumerians and the Babylonian
>From Glenn Reynolds:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/856672.asp?cp1=1#030415
Most of the claims that its Americas fault,
however, boil down to people saying that the
United States let it happen.
But what, exactly, does let it happen mean?
The United States wasnt in control of Baghdad last
week. Saddams forces were in the process of
collapsing, but the United States hadnt subdued
all resistance (theres still some sporadic
shooting, etc., going on) and didnt have effective
control over the city. As an occupying power, we
do have the responsibility to maintain civil order
once hostilities are at an end but nobody has a
responsibility to maintain civil order in the
midst of a battle.
>From th AP:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14331-2003Apr12.html
The fact that the vaults were opened
suggests that employees of the museum may have
been involved, said the employee, who declined to
be identified. To ordinarily people, these are
just stones. Only the educated know the value of
these pieces.
>From Gen Brooks:
http://www.centcom.mil/CENTCOMNews/news_release.asp?NewsRelease=200304134.txt
GEN. BROOKS: ...The efforts to secure antiquities.
First, as we entered Baghdad, we were involved in
very intense combat, and our focus was the combat
actions necessary to remove the regime and any of
its appendages. In removing the regime, there is a
vacuum that is created -- that certainly did occur
-- and the vacuum will be filled as time goes on.
I don't think that anyone anticipated that the
riches of Iraq would be looted by the Iraqi
people, and indeed it happened in some places. So
while it may now be after the fact that that
looting has occurred, it's still important to try
to restore it as much as possible. It's simply not
useful to speculate as to why we did, did not,
what could we have done differently. We did what
we did, and our operations were focused on
objectives at hand at the time. And we believe
that as time goes on we will be able to sort out
this issue as well.
>From Alex Jacobson:
If the major cost of this war was the looting of
the Museum, it was well worth it. It serves no
one to complain that the US should have protected
the musuem as well. If the issue is PR, we just
have to keep talking about what we did well. No
one is perfect. Anyone will be a failure held to
that standard.