"Goodbye, Anecdotes", says @Butterworthy, "The Age Of Big Data Demands Real Criticism" (AWL, January 2013). Thanks to @milouness, who comments "Important concepts here about what is knowable!". The article tries to link Big Data with Big Questions about the Big Picture, and what @Butterworthy calls The Big Criticism. From this perspective, Bill Franks' advice, To Succeed with Big Data, Start Small (HBR Oct 2012), is downright paradoxical.
But why would we expect Big Data to help us answer the Big Questions? Big Data is rather a misnomer: it mostly comprises very large quantities of very small data and very weak signals. Retailers wade through Big Data in order to fine-tune their pricing strategies; pharma researchers wade through Big Data in order to find chemicals with a marginal advantage over some other chemicals; intelligence analysts wade through Big Data to detect terrorist plots. Doubtless these are useful and sometimes profitable exercises, but they are hardly giving us much of a Big Picture. Big Data may give us important clues about what the terrorists are up to, but it doesn't tell us why.
A few years ago, Chris Anderson promoted The End of Theory, and published an article claiming that The Data Deluge Makes the Scientific Method Obsolete (Wired June 2008), although this may have only been an ironic reference to Fukuyama's earlier idea of The End of History. Claiming obsolescence seems like hyperbole, although scientific method has always been modified by technological progress. Even in mathematics, computer power and human brilliance have combined to crack some previously unsolved problems. See for example, Proof and Beauty (The Economist, March 2005).
Although @Butterworthy claims to have identified some critical ("Big Critical") questions, there seems to be only one real question - the dialectical question of quantity becoming quality. Are we on the cusp of aggregating utilitarianism into new tyrannies of scale? Are the numbers are so big, they leave interpretation behind and acquire their own agency? How much information and of what kind would you need to conclude something - for example, something like gender bias in the media?
A recent academic study looked at 2.4 million pages of newspaper and came to the conclusion that there was some gender bias. That's a lot of newspaper. It's like examining every single grain of sand in the forest for traces of ursine faeces. (In other words, looking for microscopic proof that bears defecate in the woods.) From a technophile perspective, Big Data seems to be raising the bar for scientific methodology: following this impressive piece of research, those who don't understand the concept of statistical significance can dismiss any smaller study - for example, one that merely studied thousands of pages - as unscientific anecdote. At a stroke, decades of careful analysis by feminists can be discredited because their sample sizes were too small by modern Big Data standards, and so there is now less scientifically credible evidence of gender bias than there was before.
Seriously, how many pages of newspaper do you have to read to convince yourself of gender bias? Clearly this is an example of Big Data getting in the way of the Big Picture. @Butterworthy clearly understands this danger, and sees the redemptive possibility of Big Crit (whatever that is) revitalizing the notion of critical authority and restoring some balance to the universe. I'm not sure I follow how he thinks that is going to happen.
Related post: Big Data and Organizational Intelligence (November 2018)
Showing posts with label big picture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label big picture. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Sunday, June 5, 2011
Big Picture Again
In my post Getting the Big Picture, I included a pair of pictures from the Daily Mail showing a house from two perspectives - one bigger than the other. The Daily Mail labelled them as Advert and Reality, but as I pointed out at the time, but of course it is only one reality, and there are many other big pictures.
The Daily Mail has now published another example.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1393109/Art-Deco-mansion-Bishop-Auckland-County-Durham-views-scrap-yard.html (2 June 2011).
By juxtaposing these two pictures, the Daily Mail implicitly contrasts the devious wiles of estate agents with the campaigning integrity of journalists. But don't just read the Daily Mail's version, read the comments below the article. Some of these comments suggest that the Daily Mail's version of "reality" is also misleading, and the picture has been taken with a very long lens to create a false impression of proximity. (One comment recommends using Google Earth to check the distances between the buildings.) In other words, the Daily Mail's picture has been chosen for the sake of a good story. (Google Earth provides a different "big picture".)
Furthermore, the gasworks is possibly scheduled for demolition, so a long view might see the ugly buildings replaced by "leisure and retail facilities" and Tindale Towers becoming "a highlight of a new residential area". Which may be okay for those who don't regard "leisure and retail facilities" as a new kind of wasteland. Beauty in the eye of the beholder.
The backstory seems to be that Tindale Towers only got planning permission in the first place because of its inauspicious location. It was relatively cheap to build, and its value increases as the area is dragged upmarket. An internet search for Tindale Towers reveals lots of previous newspaper and TV coverage (e.g. Northern Echo Jan 2008, Independent March 2008), as well as a book by Chris Foote Wood.
The Daily Mail has now published another example.
"Impressive: Tindale Towers as it is featured in the estate agent's brochure. It's the home with everything... except a room with a view."
"Reality: What the brochure fails to show is that the mansion (the white building in the middle of this industrial landscape) is nestled between a scrapyard and a gas works"
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1393109/Art-Deco-mansion-Bishop-Auckland-County-Durham-views-scrap-yard.html (2 June 2011).
By juxtaposing these two pictures, the Daily Mail implicitly contrasts the devious wiles of estate agents with the campaigning integrity of journalists. But don't just read the Daily Mail's version, read the comments below the article. Some of these comments suggest that the Daily Mail's version of "reality" is also misleading, and the picture has been taken with a very long lens to create a false impression of proximity. (One comment recommends using Google Earth to check the distances between the buildings.) In other words, the Daily Mail's picture has been chosen for the sake of a good story. (Google Earth provides a different "big picture".)
Furthermore, the gasworks is possibly scheduled for demolition, so a long view might see the ugly buildings replaced by "leisure and retail facilities" and Tindale Towers becoming "a highlight of a new residential area". Which may be okay for those who don't regard "leisure and retail facilities" as a new kind of wasteland. Beauty in the eye of the beholder.
The backstory seems to be that Tindale Towers only got planning permission in the first place because of its inauspicious location. It was relatively cheap to build, and its value increases as the area is dragged upmarket. An internet search for Tindale Towers reveals lots of previous newspaper and TV coverage (e.g. Northern Echo Jan 2008, Independent March 2008), as well as a book by Chris Foote Wood.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Selling the Big Picture
In my previous post, I asked what Getting the Big Picture meant, and what was it dependent upon. In this post, I shall explore the relationship between the people who "get" the bigger picture and the people who (for whatever reason) "don't get it".
@enectoux people are afraid of complexity. Show EA is NOT complex and you'll get them understand and calm down.
@richardveryard But show people that EA is NOT complex and they'll think they can do it themselves.
@pauljansen But EA is (all) about complexity. If not, it probably is not EA but f.i. Systems Engeneering
@enectoux EAs mission is to deal w/ this complexity, not to throw it in the face of their customers. Otherwise you are useless
@enectoux Look a Wimbledon tennis game, doesn't It seem easy for you? Do you thinking you'll ever be able to return Nadal's service?
But there is a deeper reason for my being uncomfortable about the relationship between those who "get it" and those who don't. What kind of authority does "getting the bigger picture" bestow? How do those who get the bigger picture avoid conveying a sense of we-know-best superiority over those whom they are trying to influence?
@pauljansen EA is about Servant Leadership and keeping the right, effective balance between serving and leading
@MartinHowittEA shouldn't be about being superior. there's no long-term model there. We need to focus on helping others realise potential
It is important to remember that even if a lens appears to provide a "bigger picture", this picture is never the only possible one, and should never be regarded as uniquely authoritative. Systems leadership doesn't mean pushing people into accepting the consequences of a picture they don't understand, it means working with them to create a meaningful, rich and well-grounded picture against which to steer a robust course of action.
Complexity
Some people think that the difficulty of "getting" the bigger picture is due to a kind of complexity. So to communicate with a broader audience, "we" have to hide the complexity from "them". But does this encourage "them" to undervalue the bigger picture? At what point does a simplistic "big picture" become merely a meaningless and content-free abstraction?@enectoux people are afraid of complexity. Show EA is NOT complex and you'll get them understand and calm down.
@richardveryard But show people that EA is NOT complex and they'll think they can do it themselves.
@pauljansen But EA is (all) about complexity. If not, it probably is not EA but f.i. Systems Engeneering
@enectoux EAs mission is to deal w/ this complexity, not to throw it in the face of their customers. Otherwise you are useless
@enectoux Look a Wimbledon tennis game, doesn't It seem easy for you? Do you thinking you'll ever be able to return Nadal's service?
Leadership
But there is a deeper reason for my being uncomfortable about the relationship between those who "get it" and those who don't. What kind of authority does "getting the bigger picture" bestow? How do those who get the bigger picture avoid conveying a sense of we-know-best superiority over those whom they are trying to influence?
@pauljansen EA is about Servant Leadership and keeping the right, effective balance between serving and leading
@MartinHowittEA shouldn't be about being superior. there's no long-term model there. We need to focus on helping others realise potential
It is important to remember that even if a lens appears to provide a "bigger picture", this picture is never the only possible one, and should never be regarded as uniquely authoritative. Systems leadership doesn't mean pushing people into accepting the consequences of a picture they don't understand, it means working with them to create a meaningful, rich and well-grounded picture against which to steer a robust course of action.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Getting the Big Picture
A discussion about enterprise architecture on Twitter exposed an interesting difference of opinion about this topic. In response to the question whether people felt threatened by enterprise architecture, @pauljansen replied "yes and rightfully so. An EA often sees the bigger picture 'they' cannot."
Paul's comment raises several interesting questions.
Firstly, let's acknowledge that enterprise architecture (as commonly practised) mandates a particular set of lenses for viewing the enterprise - based on a set of abstract structural models - and these lenses frame what enterprise architects mean by "seeing the bigger picture".
More generally, seeing the bigger picture entails an understanding of how things join up. EA models are supposed to document this understanding. For some people, "seeing the bigger picture" is equivalent to "strategic thinking", and the two terms were used interchangeably in the discussion.
Does "seeing the bigger picture" call for some special ability or mindset?
@jpmorgenthal said that "strategic is a skill that cannot be learned", adding "it's genetic", and in answer to @aleksb6, who asked "if all behaviors are both nature and nurture, why is strategic thinking unique in your opinion?", @jpmorgenthal answered "strategic thought is not a behavior, it's an attribute like eye color".
@pauljansen took the view that it was both nature and nurture. "Some had 'the right eye color' but never used / recognised / cultivated it." @pauljansen "Short: left brain versus whole brain; those in certain positions came there because their rational focus, by talent or nurtured."
This sounds like enterprise architects have some special power to understand complex problems, which distinguishes them from the rest of the management team. To my mind, the trouble with this belief is that it encourages a kind of them-and-us attitude, which perhaps reinforces the feelings of threat and frustration on both sides.
The idea that some people have a superior ability to see the bigger picture resembles an earlier belief that some people had a superior ability to take a long-term view. Elliott Jaques based his theory of requisite organization on the principle that each level in the management hierarchy should be associated with a different time horizon, and it was this that justified higher remuneration for people in senior management positions.
In contrast with this view, @aleksb6 thought that many people would be capable of seeing the bigger picture if they wanted to. "They can, but not incented to see!" In other words, not seeing the bigger picture is often a question of perspective and motivation, not intrinsic ability. I agree with this.
I also partially agree with @enectoux 's comment that "Not everyone is able to see the big picture. Take an expert in any area... Not the right mindset." as long as it is understood that mindset changes with perspective and motivation. If someone goes to work for a large software vendor, or a technical person moves into a sales role, she will need to adopt a mindset that is appropriate for the new role.
And it is not hard to see how the "bigger picture" mindset conflicts with the mindset needed for certain activities, as @pauljansen acknowledges. "Alas, for many clients it is a disability, be it 'unlearned' in favor of focus (convergence)."
Perspective and mindset, motivation and interest - these are all important factors that influence which pictures we see. I recently came across a great example of the importance of perspective. Here's a pretty rural cottage for sale ...
... and here's a bigger picture ...
Source: Daily Mail, 29 October 2009
The Daily Mail bills the second picture as "Reality" - but of course it is only one reality, and there are many other big pictures. If you take the photograph from the other side, you can see miles of uninhabited landscape surrounding the cottage [BBC News, 28 October 2009, Daily Telegraph, 29 October 2009]. How you take the picture depends on what outcome you want. Bigger isn't necessarily better, if you are standing in the wrong place.
@pauljansen perspective is a nonrational rightbrain ability, and there4 it matters indeed @sboray perspective is a notion not logically deduced
@sboray what meets the eye and what meets the mind r different
@jpmorgenthal re: pictures, a strategic person would not look at each in isolation, but in relation to each other
In my next post Selling the Big Picture, I shall discuss (with further quotes from the Twitter debate) how pictures great and small, simple and complex, can be used to help or hinder the relationship between those who think they "get" the big picture, and those who apparently "don't get it".
For another example, see Big Picture Again (June 2011) See also Special Powers of the Architect - Getting The Big Picture (December 2010)
Paul's comment raises several interesting questions.
- What does "seeing the bigger picture" really mean?
- What is the ability to "see the bigger picture" dependent on - is it inborn talent or something else?
- What is (or should be) the relationship between people who "see the bigger picture" and those who don't (for whatever reason)?
Firstly, let's acknowledge that enterprise architecture (as commonly practised) mandates a particular set of lenses for viewing the enterprise - based on a set of abstract structural models - and these lenses frame what enterprise architects mean by "seeing the bigger picture".
More generally, seeing the bigger picture entails an understanding of how things join up. EA models are supposed to document this understanding. For some people, "seeing the bigger picture" is equivalent to "strategic thinking", and the two terms were used interchangeably in the discussion.
Does "seeing the bigger picture" call for some special ability or mindset?
@jpmorgenthal said that "strategic is a skill that cannot be learned", adding "it's genetic", and in answer to @aleksb6, who asked "if all behaviors are both nature and nurture, why is strategic thinking unique in your opinion?", @jpmorgenthal answered "strategic thought is not a behavior, it's an attribute like eye color".
@pauljansen took the view that it was both nature and nurture. "Some had 'the right eye color' but never used / recognised / cultivated it." @pauljansen "Short: left brain versus whole brain; those in certain positions came there because their rational focus, by talent or nurtured."
This sounds like enterprise architects have some special power to understand complex problems, which distinguishes them from the rest of the management team. To my mind, the trouble with this belief is that it encourages a kind of them-and-us attitude, which perhaps reinforces the feelings of threat and frustration on both sides.
The idea that some people have a superior ability to see the bigger picture resembles an earlier belief that some people had a superior ability to take a long-term view. Elliott Jaques based his theory of requisite organization on the principle that each level in the management hierarchy should be associated with a different time horizon, and it was this that justified higher remuneration for people in senior management positions.
In contrast with this view, @aleksb6 thought that many people would be capable of seeing the bigger picture if they wanted to. "They can, but not incented to see!" In other words, not seeing the bigger picture is often a question of perspective and motivation, not intrinsic ability. I agree with this.
I also partially agree with @enectoux 's comment that "Not everyone is able to see the big picture. Take an expert in any area... Not the right mindset." as long as it is understood that mindset changes with perspective and motivation. If someone goes to work for a large software vendor, or a technical person moves into a sales role, she will need to adopt a mindset that is appropriate for the new role.
And it is not hard to see how the "bigger picture" mindset conflicts with the mindset needed for certain activities, as @pauljansen acknowledges. "Alas, for many clients it is a disability, be it 'unlearned' in favor of focus (convergence)."
Perspective and mindset, motivation and interest - these are all important factors that influence which pictures we see. I recently came across a great example of the importance of perspective. Here's a pretty rural cottage for sale ...
... and here's a bigger picture ...
Source: Daily Mail, 29 October 2009
The Daily Mail bills the second picture as "Reality" - but of course it is only one reality, and there are many other big pictures. If you take the photograph from the other side, you can see miles of uninhabited landscape surrounding the cottage [BBC News, 28 October 2009, Daily Telegraph, 29 October 2009]. How you take the picture depends on what outcome you want. Bigger isn't necessarily better, if you are standing in the wrong place.
@pauljansen perspective is a nonrational rightbrain ability, and there4 it matters indeed @sboray perspective is a notion not logically deduced
@sboray what meets the eye and what meets the mind r different
@jpmorgenthal re: pictures, a strategic person would not look at each in isolation, but in relation to each other
In my next post Selling the Big Picture, I shall discuss (with further quotes from the Twitter debate) how pictures great and small, simple and complex, can be used to help or hinder the relationship between those who think they "get" the big picture, and those who apparently "don't get it".
For another example, see Big Picture Again (June 2011) See also Special Powers of the Architect - Getting The Big Picture (December 2010)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)