How often do highly complicated systems rely on some level of manual processes?
Or how about this: how often do highly evolved models (used for valuation or forecasting or decision support) incorporate highly subjective data?
In my experience, both of the above happen far more often than one might assume. I find this situation unsettles me. Our society derives much comfort from "systems", and yet very often the efficacy of a given system is highly sensitive to, potentially, one person's subjective input and/or one person's manual manipulation of relevant data.
On a somewhat related topic, how often does "success" in business or life come from non-intentional actions? Stories like the invention of Post-It Note glue being an accident that someone realized could be re-positioned as a new product in it's own right speak to this thought I'm having...
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Are we being myopic?
I'm going to forward the premise that for all of human history until the last ~ 100 years, the presence of some visible body fat was a widely accepted indication of both health and wealth. And now we elevate for acclaim body shapes that would have (historically) been signifiers of malnourishment.
Don't get me wrong - I understand that there are many robust studies linking high percentages of body fat to increased rates of heart disease and stroke - but there also seems to be ongoing controversy and debate as what the optimal diet is for folks (or even if there is one optimal diet for all folks).
The last three decades of "low fat" diets seems now to have only pushed people to eating other foods with high energy density, such as high sugar and high carbohydrate options.
I know that several of my regular readers will have immediate and strong reactions to this suggestion, but I keep returning to the idea of a diet based on a pre-industrialization supply of foods. Let me explain:
My theory runs that there is an ideal mix of those three macro-nutrient categories (fats, proteins, and carbs) that in their most "naturally" occurring forms will gives us the best basis for a healthy diet.
Industrialization and science have allowed us efficiently to separate those macro-nutrients into "convenient" and concentrated forms mostly divorced from their original source. Think of orange juice versus oranges: the amount of fruit sugars a person can consume in a single glass of OJ at breakfast may be equivalent to the juice content of 3 - 4 oranges; had that same person sat down to eat those oranges, the experience of peeling and eating, along with the consumption of the fibrous bits, would likely have limited the overall take of those fruit sugars (also, the fiber consumed would affect the processing of those sugars.)
The same effects appear on the fats side; butter and olive oil and frying oils separate naturally occurring fats from their context, allowing for incredible concentrations at the election of the food prep person.
Proteins seem a little more difficult to separate in this way unless you are willing to drink muscle builder shakes or eat "protein bars", but the idea holds in general that we have attempted to carve out the protein components to dial in to a much more targeted consumption.
It's at this point in the discussion that the "whole foods" folks chime in that their philosophy proceeds from these ideas, that consuming whole and / or minimally processed foods (mostly fruits and veggies) addresses the need for macro-nutrients in context. And I agree.
But I also wonder sometimes about our modern ability to source any food we want in huge quantities and with relatively little effort. I think about the current craze for fish proteins and fish oils, and I compare our access at the grocery store to some intense fish diet culture who historically devoted considerable energy resources to finding, catching, cleaning, and cooking those fish. I think about the pile of avocados at my local grocery, definitely grown and harvested and transported from a great distance, and yet I can take in that concentrated load of healthy fat and fiber in 10 minutes and for an all-in investment of $2-$3.
I'm realizing now that this is going long and rambly...I'll cut it off with a final comment that I want to eat more foods with healthy chunks of naturally occurring fats, proteins, and carbs.
Don't get me wrong - I understand that there are many robust studies linking high percentages of body fat to increased rates of heart disease and stroke - but there also seems to be ongoing controversy and debate as what the optimal diet is for folks (or even if there is one optimal diet for all folks).
The last three decades of "low fat" diets seems now to have only pushed people to eating other foods with high energy density, such as high sugar and high carbohydrate options.
I know that several of my regular readers will have immediate and strong reactions to this suggestion, but I keep returning to the idea of a diet based on a pre-industrialization supply of foods. Let me explain:
My theory runs that there is an ideal mix of those three macro-nutrient categories (fats, proteins, and carbs) that in their most "naturally" occurring forms will gives us the best basis for a healthy diet.
Industrialization and science have allowed us efficiently to separate those macro-nutrients into "convenient" and concentrated forms mostly divorced from their original source. Think of orange juice versus oranges: the amount of fruit sugars a person can consume in a single glass of OJ at breakfast may be equivalent to the juice content of 3 - 4 oranges; had that same person sat down to eat those oranges, the experience of peeling and eating, along with the consumption of the fibrous bits, would likely have limited the overall take of those fruit sugars (also, the fiber consumed would affect the processing of those sugars.)
The same effects appear on the fats side; butter and olive oil and frying oils separate naturally occurring fats from their context, allowing for incredible concentrations at the election of the food prep person.
Proteins seem a little more difficult to separate in this way unless you are willing to drink muscle builder shakes or eat "protein bars", but the idea holds in general that we have attempted to carve out the protein components to dial in to a much more targeted consumption.
It's at this point in the discussion that the "whole foods" folks chime in that their philosophy proceeds from these ideas, that consuming whole and / or minimally processed foods (mostly fruits and veggies) addresses the need for macro-nutrients in context. And I agree.
But I also wonder sometimes about our modern ability to source any food we want in huge quantities and with relatively little effort. I think about the current craze for fish proteins and fish oils, and I compare our access at the grocery store to some intense fish diet culture who historically devoted considerable energy resources to finding, catching, cleaning, and cooking those fish. I think about the pile of avocados at my local grocery, definitely grown and harvested and transported from a great distance, and yet I can take in that concentrated load of healthy fat and fiber in 10 minutes and for an all-in investment of $2-$3.
I'm realizing now that this is going long and rambly...I'll cut it off with a final comment that I want to eat more foods with healthy chunks of naturally occurring fats, proteins, and carbs.
Monday, June 13, 2011
economic tweaking
The US and world economies are incredibly complicated systems, possibly as complicated as any global "natural" systems like the weather.
With that in mind, how long do you have to let a change in policy play out to see if it is a "success" or "failure"? This question is on my mind as the US campaign cycle is entering the "intense rhetoric" stage.
The primary economic legacy of the Bush administration, at least in terms of policy changes, is likely what are called the "Bush tax cuts". That restructuring of the tax code turned 10 years old recently...taken in isolation, looking at the state of the economy then and now, would anyone consider the tax cuts a "success"? (this is rhetorical, I guess...I'm sure that a large number of people who paid significantly less taxes over those 10 years would find that a success).
But there are other tweaks currently under evaluation that have had far less than 10 years to play out; namely, the Obama administration actions are being described as "failures" by several Republican and Independent candidates for the coming presidential elections. What are the metrics we (the voting public) can use to know if something like a Federal stimulus or tax cut or trade agreement is working? This part is not rhetorical - I sincerely want to know how we are supposed to conceptualize evolutions in a system as complicated as our economy.
What I have observed is that governments of any ideology tend to reach for the biggest tool in the box every time and adjustment is needed, at least when that adjustment is part of the national conversation. Tax policy is extremely powerful and creates both immediate shifts in behavior and long term drifts in outcomes. And massive nudges to monetary supply (throw stimulus or "tightening") is like the fat kid cannonball at the pool party - there are both predictable and highly unpredictable consequences that can really affect the crowd's enjoyment of said party.
If the philosopher poets were in charge, would there be a rule that said "any change in policy must come with a period of X years to study outcomes"? Wouldn't the presence of such a rule create more robust debate prior to any meaningful changes?
With that in mind, how long do you have to let a change in policy play out to see if it is a "success" or "failure"? This question is on my mind as the US campaign cycle is entering the "intense rhetoric" stage.
The primary economic legacy of the Bush administration, at least in terms of policy changes, is likely what are called the "Bush tax cuts". That restructuring of the tax code turned 10 years old recently...taken in isolation, looking at the state of the economy then and now, would anyone consider the tax cuts a "success"? (this is rhetorical, I guess...I'm sure that a large number of people who paid significantly less taxes over those 10 years would find that a success).
But there are other tweaks currently under evaluation that have had far less than 10 years to play out; namely, the Obama administration actions are being described as "failures" by several Republican and Independent candidates for the coming presidential elections. What are the metrics we (the voting public) can use to know if something like a Federal stimulus or tax cut or trade agreement is working? This part is not rhetorical - I sincerely want to know how we are supposed to conceptualize evolutions in a system as complicated as our economy.
What I have observed is that governments of any ideology tend to reach for the biggest tool in the box every time and adjustment is needed, at least when that adjustment is part of the national conversation. Tax policy is extremely powerful and creates both immediate shifts in behavior and long term drifts in outcomes. And massive nudges to monetary supply (throw stimulus or "tightening") is like the fat kid cannonball at the pool party - there are both predictable and highly unpredictable consequences that can really affect the crowd's enjoyment of said party.
If the philosopher poets were in charge, would there be a rule that said "any change in policy must come with a period of X years to study outcomes"? Wouldn't the presence of such a rule create more robust debate prior to any meaningful changes?
Thursday, June 9, 2011
mobile browser versions of this blog
Blogger in their Googly goodness rolled out some automatic versioning options for this blog format, so if you view the DRW, Food, or Media pages on your phone in the future, it should be optimized for your screen.
Yay?
Yay?
momentous non-changes to the status quo
the last 7 days were truly momentous, with real big things in play that offered the potential to shake up the status quo over here...does it matter that nothing really changed? Is the status quo truly the same if it there were truly viable possible changes that simply did not materialize?
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Mittwoch link sharing
This article from the Times talks about high fat / low carb + exercise diets.
And this video tweaks the "we are the world" model into something more enjoyable, albeit less celeberity-ridden:
And this video tweaks the "we are the world" model into something more enjoyable, albeit less celeberity-ridden:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)