In this RSA video, Jeremy Rifkin looks at what he calls the emerging “Empathic Civilisation”. He says that in the last ten years there have been many developments in Evolutionary Biology, Neuro-Cognitive Science, Child Development and many other forms of research that are beginning to challenge some of the long-held assumptions we have about human nature and the meaning of “the human journey” and this information challenges the institutions that we have created based on many of these assumptions – our educational institutions, our business practices and our Governing Institutions. So could our new coalition Government with its brief beyond traditional Party Dogma be a seed for the start of such a revolution in our thinking?
On 05.17.10, In Know-What/Why, Non Political Party, by Barry Mapp
In this RSA video, Jeremy Rifkin looks at what he calls the emerging “Empathic Civilisation”. He says that in the last ten years there have been many developments in Evolutionary Biology, Neuro-Cognitive Science, Child Development and many other forms of research that are beginning to challenge some of the long-held assumptions we have about [...]
On 10.28.09, In Creating Creation Companies, Non Political Party, Uncategorised, numeracy, by Barry Mapp
In this piece I introduce some more differences between Math 1.0 and Math 2.0, and in the next piece (now that I have finally found how to put tables into wordpress) I will be drawing up a table that summarises examples of the differences between Math 1.0 and Math 2.0
Math 1.0 can be considered to [...]
In this piece I introduce some more differences between Math 1.0 and Math 2.0, and in the next piece (now that I have finally found how to put tables into wordpress) I will be drawing up a table that summarises examples of the differences between Math 1.0 and Math 2.0
Math 1.0 can be considered to be a special case of Math 2.0, where certain aspects of reality are ignored for the purpose of making things black and white and therefore easier to manipulate and compute.
Math 1.0 is helpful in specific circumstances like simple counting and manipulation of number, adding, subtracting, multiplying, dividing of pure number, and for making approximations, and is also useful in statistical manipulations where it is valid to manipulate data away from its context. Math 1.0 thinking successfully delivered a rocket to the moon but has failed to deliver insight into most chronic problems affecting humanity today. Math 1.0 thinking is part of the problem!
Math 1.0 is not valid in the domain of measurement nor when ‘counting’ is actually for the purpose of measuring ‘things’. And yet we use Math 1.0 with measurement all the time!
Using Math 1.0 as the ‘logic vehicle’ for interpreting changes in measurement data is a major reason why we have witnessed so many decisions by leaders and politicians in the last few decades that have turned out to be wasteful and that have exacerbated rather than solved ‘problems’. This happens when the Math we learn at school (Math 1.0) is applied into the world of measurements. And a science based around this maths re-inforces it as a science of reduction and ‘ism’ (“ism” happens when a discipline comes to believe its working model of the ‘world’ as true rather than ‘useful in defined situations’). So the belief (as true) in the mechanistic universe and the use of Math 1.0 as a sturdy, reliable and incontrovertible companion has led the traditional Newtonian scientist up the proverbial garden path and is still being led there daily. Multi-billion pound projects based on the assumptions of a reductionist science leading absolutely nowhere, whereas situations that could be drastically improved based on a science thinking in terms of systems and Math 2.0 are not being allocated the same research money.
To fully appreciate the meaning and consequences of data measurements, a good understanding of Math 2.0 and its application is required. If we care to look, we will find that the scientific, political and business literature is littered with examples where statisticians (who we would think would know better) have fallen into the trap of applying the thinking of Math 1.0 to the situations described best by Math 2.0, thereby giving us misleading ‘expert’ information and advice
This venn diagram shows the relationship between Math 1.0 and Math 2.0:
On 10.06.09, In Non Political Party, numeracy, by Barry Mapp
Are we really Numerate? How numbers lead us up the garden path!
Our Politicians and Business Leaders talk about the need for us all to be both literate and numerate when we leave school and as such literacy and numeracy are key subject components of the National Curriculum and beyond.
But are we infact teaching the literacy [...]
Are we really Numerate? How numbers lead us up the garden path!
Our Politicians and Business Leaders talk about the need for us all to be both literate and numerate when we leave school and as such literacy and numeracy are key subject components of the National Curriculum and beyond.
But are we infact teaching the literacy and numeracy required for success in the real world?
I think not and I will be posting my thoughts on this over the next few weeks on this blog
Here I make a start, looking at Numeracy.
I call the numeracy that we learn at school and in our universities “Math 1.0″ (And in general this is the only form of numeracy we are taught, so most if not all of our leaders are only numerate to the level of Math 1.0)
This is a Math that is useful, but only in the very simple domain of counting and manipulating pure numbers. This domain is what Donald Wheeler (one of the few statisticians in the world who seems to understand this stuff) calls “Math World” a strange world that has very little bearing on everyday reality. It is very misleading in fact when, in the Real World, we use Math 1.0 to manipulate, interpret and compare measurements
It was Walter Shewhart (the man who has been called the father of quality) who said “Data is meaningless outside of its context”. Using my language here, he could have rephrased this as “Data is meaningless unless processed using Math 2.0″ (Math 2.0 is a way of working with numbers that keeps the important context ‘in view’)
Math 1.0 is the Math of the Counters. Math 1.0 works for the abstract Math-World. Math 2.0 however is needed for Real-World Problems.
Many of our “number experts” (mathematicians and statisticians for example) base their life-long working knowledge on this Math 1.0, so they are then part of the problem. Math 1.0 is entrenched in academia and science.
It is now one of those implicit unquestioned assumptions (like water is to fish and air to birds) that Math 1.0 is numeracy and that Math 1.0 describes the sole reality of numbers. There will certainly be a few people in very high powerful places who know about Math 2.0 but are happy for the rest of us to just learn Math 1.0. When it comes to comparing things, Math 1.0 does not clarify issues, instead it clouds them.
All this means so few people know or understand the limitations of numbers, and therefore that numbers can be used to keep us all in the dark (ages?) about most things. We will never really know whether our Health Service or Schools are getting better or worse using Math 1.0. What is certain is that using Math 1.0 we get into endless debate about the trivia from the data (we can call this “noise”) and we will nearly always be missing the important understandings (we can call this the “signal”). Without Math 2.0 the useless information (noise) is drowning out the important information (signal).
So although it seems ludicrous that some, if not most, of our main ‘experts’ in Maths and Statistics use a Math that was devised for the special case of pure numbers and counting and that is strictly NOT applicable to numbers as MEASUREMENT.
But it is such experts that write a numeracy curriculum for our schools, universities and accountants that is based on a special case with numbers (the Math of simple counting – Math 1.0).
In the real world most of the important numbers we deal with on a day to day basis are to do with measurement, or involve counts that are being used as measures, and so we need to apply “Math 2.0″ in order to interpret these situations.
When we use simple Math 1.0 for interpreting data measurements we create problems and misunderstanding. Because we have come to rely on numbers in every facet of life and business (we found we could no longer trust the word of leaders, doctors, scientists etc so we needed their numbers) numbers now heavily impinge on our emotions.
We can get very angry when we see numbers we don’t like. The problem is often there is no valid reason to get angry with the numbers, it is Math 1.0 we should be getting angry with. We should be getting angry that we are not taught the ‘numeracy of measures’ at all.
Everyday we are all making decisions with sometimes life-threatening or very severe unintended consequences because of a lack of real-world numeracy because we don’t have the skills of Math 2.0
No-one is excluded. Politicians, scientists and business leaders all continually make poor decisions when they apply Math 1.0 thinking to real-world Math 2.0 situations, making us depend on numbers in a way that is totally irrelevant, abstract, misleading, artificial, and distorting.
Our lack of real-world numeracy Math 2.0 skills is I believe a big part of the problem why so much today seems to be going wrong. We follow the numbers but we don’t understand the numbers and as a consequence we jump to the wrong conclusions and we take actions misguidedly on the numbers and actually then make matters worse rather than better. (Deming called action based on misguided interpretation of data – tampering and he devised the funnel experiment to help us understand how tampering makes matters worse)
So at this point you may be asking what is this Math 2.0, why isn’t it taught in school and what difference would it make? I will some outline the key differences between Math 1.0 and Math 2.0 next time but here is a taster.
Math 1.0 is an artificial world where lines have no thickness, parallel lines can’t meet and numbers are absolute. When we use Math 1.0 there is only one correct answer and it is not possible to have variation in the answer. (in the real world however variation is always present)
Math 2.0 on the other hand is a real-world Math where lines have thickness, parallel lines can meet and most importantly measured numbers are never absolute. As variation exists in all things Math 2.0 does not ignore its effects (whereas Math 1.0 assumes random variation does not exist)
So here is a little teaser to see if you are working from Math 1.0 or Math 2.0
MATH 1.0
Math 1.0 2 + 2 = 4 YES this is absolute, there is only one answer and that is 4
Math 1.0 implies that this answer is the same whether we are using simple counts or measures.
So 2 inches plus 2 inches will always equal 4 inches
MATH 2.0
Math 2.0 – when simply counting, the results are the same as for Math 1.0
So 2 + 2 = 4 this is absolute, there is only one answer and that is 4
However when adding together measures or comparing measures:
2 + 2 = 4 but only on the average (so each time we take measurements and add them together the answer can vary either side of the number 4 by an amount which Math 2.0 can reliably approximate )
this scenario would be more precisely written as:
2 (v1) + 2 (v2) = 4 (v3)
where v1,v2,v3 is the variation (plus minus 3-standard deviations) that is inherent in each measurement
This brings me on to a further significant difference between Math 1.0 and Math 2.0.
In Math 1.0 there is ALWAYS significance in any change of number and therefore there is value in comparing just two data points. So if something measured 20 last month and 23 this month Math 1.0 says there is a change (an improvement if good stuff, a worsening if the measure is bad stuff. So as Math 1.0 is the math of pure counting if we have 20 apples in one basket and 23 apples in another it is clear that the second basket has (three) more apples in it. Math 2.0 would come to the same conclusion. However if the tree in your garden produced 23 apples this year and 20 last year we actually need Math 2.0 when seeking to make a decision about whether this difference means the tree yield is improving? For we are now not looking at the pure count of the apples we are seeking to use the numbers to give us knowledge about the tree. Now instead of apples and tree performance think of pupil exam success and school performance. And then by way of extrapolation think school success and league tables.
In Math 2.0 we CANNOT KNOW IF THERE IS A DIFFERENCE between 20 and 23 unless we have more data (and then a lot of the time Math 2.0 will show there will be no likely significant change). Math 2.0 tells us that comparing just two data points is ALWAYS meaningless (and of course it can provide the evidence for this). Each time we just compare two data points we are viewing the data outside of its context.
If only journalists were schooled in Math 2.0 we would not have so many meaningless, stupid headlines in our papers. But there again, they probably wouldn’t sell so many newspapers, so you could see that their bosses would be quite happy that their journalists are only numerate to Math 1.0 level.
Using Math 2.0 many headlines in the newspapers would read “Probably no change in the trade figures this month” rather than something that appears very dramatic like “4% fall in trade figures throws UK back into recession”.
Which of these two headlines would make you buy the newspaper – the first one (‘probably no change” so nothing much is happening - a quite likely scenario using Math 2.0) or the second headline derived using the inappropriate use of Math 1.0 ?
Have I grabbed your attention?
If you already know what I mean by Math 2.0 great, please post your own examples here about how Math 1.0 misleads, If you think I am a raving lunatic and it simply can’t be possible that we are being taught the wrong numeracy at school for making sense of the real-world, then please follow, watch and learn. And if you still think I’m being stupid tell me so.
In the next two articles in this series I will be comparing in much more detail some of the differences between Math 1.0 and Math 2.0 and seeking to impress upon the sceptics out there that this is really important stuff.
Next Time: Maths and Science leading us up the (wrong) garden path
On 10.04.09, In Creating Creation Companies, Non Political Party, by Barry Mapp
It would appear that Very Large Bonuses Attract – Very Greedy People.
Now if experience tells us this is so (and certainly Alfie Kohn’s research showed that one thing that bonuses and other rewards don’t do is to lead to long-term improvement) how should we read the statements that have been made by the top [...]
It would appear that Very Large Bonuses Attract – Very Greedy People.
Now if experience tells us this is so (and certainly Alfie Kohn’s research showed that one thing that bonuses and other rewards don’t do is to lead to long-term improvement) how should we read the statements that have been made by the top British Institutions that if they don’t pay large bonuses their top earners will go and work for European or American Companies.
Put these two ideas together (Greedy People and Go Elsewhere) and a super strategy for British Companies would be to – wait for it – stop paying bonuses.
Bonuses might attract top earners but experience (with the credit crunch etc) is telling us that these top earners do not benefit their organisations IN THE LONG TERM (and therefore do not benefit any of their stakeholders in the long term either).
So are there some British Companies out there brave enough to stop paying ‘performance related’ bonuses and to see what happens? The consequences could be very good! Not a loss at all but a gain.
All the greedy earners who don’t care a stuff about the customers, will go to the competitors (hooray I hear from all those people who have suffered from all this miss-selling), leaving space for a new type of entrepreneur to take up these jobs within companies – (those with an innerpreneur mindset). Would not it be good for the long-term success of financial institutions for example if all the work was done by employees wanting to do the very best they can to give good service for past, current and future customers. Unfortunately as Kohn showed many years ago, big ‘carrots’ move the focus away from the service. The focus in the bonus culture is “what do I need to do today to make my carrot bigger (and also give me bragging rights to the biggest carrot)”. The focus should be of course be “what do I need to do today to really help my customer?”
So should not our politicians be suggesting that bonuses simply STOP in order to make our Institutions better? This then leaves one question. If such an organisation goes on to make increased profit in a ‘no bonus for performance’ model, how do all the employees get to share in this success as an intended consequence? (Answers not on a postcard, but please post your suggestions here)
What is a fair way to keep the focus on customer service, and to share in the benefits that accrue from being a truly long-term customer-focussed (as opposed to a bonus-focussed) company?
On 07.08.09, In Non Political Party, by Barry Mapp
Some more ways in which all main Political Parties are the same
Surveillance – generally in favour of more surveillance, more cameras
Nanny State – generally in favour of new laws and telling people how they should behave (whilst they carry on as usual) including:
Roads – in favour of more and more ‘restrictions’ particularly with regard to [...]
Some more ways in which all main Political Parties are the same
- Surveillance – generally in favour of more surveillance, more cameras
- Nanny State – generally in favour of new laws and telling people how they should behave (whilst they carry on as usual) including:
Roads – in favour of more and more ‘restrictions’ particularly with regard to speed limits
Food and Drugs – Tell us what to do based on the limited ‘science’ of the day
- Statistics and numbers – all Parties misuse data thereby confusing issues and preventing true debate (not always deliberately but this reflects general numerical literacy of people in high places)
- Health – All Parties promote a National “Illness” service rather than a National “Wellness” service, where the priorities are not on helping to promote wellness but to prioritise illness.
However we must not forget that ‘Parties’ follow some (not all) of these policies because they believe that is what the ‘voter’ wants (and thus will keep them in power). Indeed we ourselves have created a Society that makes most of its decisions from a culture of blame and fear rather than one of community and love. So many of the “sameness’ policies are doing what ‘fearful’ people really feel they want. However what sort of a life is it when all of us are being led by fear rather than by Joy .
If we are to educate and change society’s unhelpful behaviours (these behaviours are unhelpful if we want to improve the real quality of life) – then politicians should be leading the people and not simply following them.
So are all Political Parties the same (except in the detail)?
On 07.06.09, In Non Political Party, by Barry Mapp
All Main Political Parties are the Same
I want to discuss just one example where all the main political parties are the same (and therefore we have limited choice when we vote) and this is how al the Parties seek to initiate real change and improvement. They call it ‘Target Setting’ and it is destroying everything [...]
All Main Political Parties are the Same
I want to discuss just one example where all the main political parties are the same (and therefore we have limited choice when we vote) and this is how al the Parties seek to initiate real change and improvement. They call it ‘Target Setting’ and it is destroying everything it touches.
Target Setting
All the main political party’s use ‘target setting’ as their main vehicle for change. There is not one main Party that will improve our services by getting rid of target setting all together – even though all the research suggests that setting arbitrary targets (find me a target that is not arbitrary!) distorts systems and does not actually improve them.
Politicians seem oblivious to the fact that that there are three ways to achieve a target, some ways help some ways don’t help at all. The three ways (perhaps there are more) are distort the data, distort the system or improve the system.
(1) Distort the Data
One way to achieve a target is to manipulate the data in some way. To find a loophole that can be exploited so that the data collected looks better than it really is. This can be leaving some data out, or collecting the data in a way that was not actually intended. This is a relatively easy way to reach ‘targets’ and the staff that collect the data are under enormous pressure to see that the figures look right. Where there is a Blame Culture (which of course there is everywhere because this seems to be characteristic of Government itself) this subtle ‘fiddling of the data’ is happening all of the time. Those that get caught out are the unlucky ones, because this is endemic.
A favourite way that Government themselves do this, is to change collection methods, or change data definitions when things are not happening the way they would like i.e. they move the goalposts. Classic examples of how manipulating the data has worked have been (1) in order to hit waiting list targets hospitals delayed putting people on a waiting list in the first place (2) to reach exam targets in some schools, children were prevented from taking the exams that their teacher thought they were likely to fail. And incidentally what makes matters worse for morale was that it was those schools who ‘cheated’ that won Government plaudits (‘most improved school’, ‘top school’) whereas those schools that refused to play these games often got put into ‘special measures’.
(2)Distort the System
The second way to achieve a target is to distort the system i.e. to focus effort on achieving the targets at the expense of the things that are not being targeted or monitored. System thinkers often refer to this way of achieving targets as ‘moving the deck-chairs around on the Titanic’. We have seen this in schools where the extra tuition is targeted at the group of students that will benefit the school’s exam results the most (as measured by the targets set). We are continually distorting all of our Public Services in the name of target reaching. When I worked for two years as a Quality Consultant to a Health Authority I saw many examples of targets distorting services for the worse.
(3) Improve the System !
One way to reach a target is of course to actually improve the system, but to do this you have to change the system. Changing the System (and what, why, and how it can be changed for the better) is always the most difficult way to achieve a target, because this requires real knowledge about the current capability of the product or service (and despite all the measures we take, we never seem to have any useful data on this) and understanding the key influencers of quality improvement (which unfortunately no main political party has this knowledge – or they would not be setting targets in the first place).
Two pertinent quotes:
“Eliminate Targets and work standards that prescribe arbitrary numerical quotas and goals” W.Edwards Deming (the father of quality improvement)
“Targets are capricious. While they are assumed to provide a spur to improvement, they actually make performance worse. The next time we hear about the Government’s use of targets, we should be asking why they have not been abandoned.” John Seddon (Vanguard Consulting)
Without knowledge of what a better way of working might look like, all that anyone can do, given a ‘target’ is ‘more of the same faster’; whereas quality improvement requires finding, researching, planning, trialing, studying and implementing ‘a different method’, so much easier to distort the system or fiddle the data.
I will leave you with some additional quotes taken from a John Seddon article “On Target To Achieve Nothing” in the Guardian Newspaper in 2000 (full article here http://www.systemsthinking.co.uk/6-targets.asp) And this article demonstrates to me that NOT ONE of our main Political Parties has learnt anything about improvement in the nine years since this was written! (It is my underlining in the text)
On a recent Radio 4 Today programme a Liberal Democrat spokesman was invited to criticise the Government’s use of targets for managing the public sector At last, I thought, someone is going to point out that targets don’t get us what we want.
Alas, the spokesman could only suggest that they should be used better. The fact is that targets don’t help us get to where we want to be. Worse, they actually obviate the possibility by making people focus on the wrong things. In the police, schools, health service and local authorities targets are hindering performance rather than fostering improvement.
What I had hoped the spokesman would say was that the whole idea of targets is flawed – that their use in a hierarchical system engages peoples’ ingenuity in managing the numbers instead of improving their methods. Peoples’ attention turns to being seen to meet the targets – fulfilling the bureaucratic requirements of reporting that which they have become ‘accountable’ for – at the expense of achieving the organisation’s purpose. In simple terms, all this effort constitutes and causes waste – inefficiency, poor service and, worst of all, low morale.
The notion of a target is plausible. In principle, there is nothing wrong with individuals having targets that they may set themselves – lose weight, run further, get another job, earn more money. But targets in a hierarchical system is that it is imposed with authority, by people who are generally detached from the work being carried out. Targets are therefore arbitrary. They may suit a plan, but they do not start from a knowledge of capability – what the system predictably achieves and why.
What the spokesman should have said was that instead of targets people need measures that lead to questions of method – ‘How can we do this better?’
So currently no main political party has in their manifesto “we will abolish targets so we can get on with improving not distorting services”
Coming Next: More on areas where Political Parties are the same
On 07.01.09, In Know-What/Why, Non Political Party, by admin
A view on politicians - ”A politician thinks of the next election. A statesman, of the next generation.” ~ James Freeman Clarke.
A view on Politics- ”Politics is the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich, by promising to protect each from the other.” ~ Oscar Ameringer
This Blog: On the need [...]
A view on politicians - ”A politician thinks of the next election. A statesman, of the next generation.” ~ James Freeman Clarke.
A view on Politics- ”Politics is the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich, by promising to protect each from the other.” ~ Oscar Ameringer
This Blog: On the need for something different in Politics
We need something new and something completely different in Politics. Believing that tinkering with what we have will lead to something much better is madness. The current political system regardless of the ‘Party’ elected to power has consistently failed to do the job for which it was elected.
Why is Government Failing?
This could be due to several things. Firstly that ‘Government’ thinks it can control things that it cannot (and therefore will always under-deliver); (2) the thinking and assumptions about the ‘problems’ are wrong or the methods by which Government seek to implement their policies simply don’t work; or (3) that the system itself is the problem (the system is the one that embraces what we currently accept – Political Parties in charge (rather than independent thinkers), whips to maintain Party discipline and ideology regardless of consequences; ideological thinking tempered often only by charged polarised debate (or in the UK- the slanging match) as the best vehicle to find the new solutions to existing problems or (4) the system fails because we the voters either lack the knowledge or the wherewithal to canvas effectively for something better. This latter viewpoint incidently espoused by James Garfield “Now more than ever the people are responsible for the character of their Parliament. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption.” So perhaps rather than the politicians canvassing for our vote we need to canvas them about what we expect from them (and it certainly isn’t all those things we seem to have been getting and seeing recently)
Could we dispense with Political Parties and still elect a Government?
This blog will look at all the possible aspects of why the current system is failing us. The blog will look at some of the things we could do differently. Indeed we will explore whether we can dispense with political “Parties” all together. Would it be possible to elect, manage and orchestrate a Parliament filled with independent members? What knowledge, mechanisms, processes would need to be in place to allow this scenario to not only happen but succeed in doing better than what we currently have? If we actually need Parties, can we construct a Non-Political Party to promote different ways of doing things? Is the idea of a Non-Politcal Party an Oxymoron? What’s an Oxymoron?
Can a Political Party Think the Unthinkable? Of course not! (not if it is truly ‘political’)
One thing seems clear. Our existing Political Parties will not be able to make the drastic changes in thinking that are required to take society into a 21st Century where things actually improve rather than keep getting worse. Therefore there is a strong need for some new energy and ideas to come into Politics and ultimately there must be a real choice at the Ballot Box where individuals can place their vote with that person or Party that is singing from a different song-sheet. Most political parties would do most things the same in office; the differences are merely in the detail or in the method.
Coming Next: How all the current main political Parties are actually 95% all the same and What is Politics anyway?