<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
   <channel>
      <title>Cognitive Edge - Guest Blog</title>
      <link>http://www.cognitive-edge.com/blogs/guest/</link>
      <description></description>
      <language>en</language>
      <copyright>Copyright 2008</copyright>
      <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Apr 2008 14:54:59 +0000</lastBuildDate>
      <generator>http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/</generator>
      <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs> 

            <item>
         <title>Gaussianitis: a subtle (and nearly) universal disease</title>
         <description><![CDATA[Gaussianitis: compulsive disorder characterised by a subject’s compulsive use of ‘Normal’ statistics in order to get away with the complexity and ambiguity of life 

How does Gaussianitis work? Let me give you a couple of examples

The interview with Nick Clegg (the LibDem leader) in GQ Magazine has stimulated a <a href="http://lifeandhealth.guardian.co.uk/privatelives/story/0,,2270160,00.html">flurry of articles</a> on sexual partner number. Is 30 normal for a 40 year old man? Should I worry if my Casanova index is stuck at 5? Is my Don Giovanni parameter abnormal if I am at 100? Well, what does it mean to be normal in sexual life anyway? Now, this is an interesting question!

]]></description>
         <link>http://www.cognitive-edge.com/blogs/guest/2008/04/gaussianitis_a_subtle_and_near.php</link>
         <guid>http://www.cognitive-edge.com/blogs/guest/2008/04/gaussianitis_a_subtle_and_near.php</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Sat, 05 Apr 2008 14:54:59 +0000</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>On average, averages are the exception not the rule</title>
         <description>In  a nice article on the pitfalls of statistics published today on KnowledgeWharton (The Use -- and Misuse -- of Statistics: How and Why Numbers Are So Easily Manipulated - http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1928) there is an interesting discussion on statistics and how tricky it actually is. Nice, but it doesn’t go far enough.</description>
         <link>http://www.cognitive-edge.com/blogs/guest/2008/04/on_average_averages_are_the_ex.php</link>
         <guid>http://www.cognitive-edge.com/blogs/guest/2008/04/on_average_averages_are_the_ex.php</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Thu, 03 Apr 2008 16:26:05 +0000</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>microprojectors: the poverty of predictions!</title>
         <description>On the New York Times (March 30) there is an interesting article on micro-projectors

 “The (micro)projectors may be particularly useful for business presentations — for example, when road warriors need to show a product video to small groups. No coordination would be needed to arrange for a screen. Instead, a patch of wall within a cubicle or restaurant could serve for an impromptu presentation. Carolina Milanesi, a research director in London for Gartner, the research firm, says she thinks the microprojectors are most likely to appeal to business travellers who, for example, could use them to beam PowerPoint shows from their smartphones”
And: “Insight Media forecasts a substantial and fast-growing market. “We anticipate total sales of more than $2.5 billion by 2012 for the companion models,” Mr. Brennesholtz said, and $1 billion in revenue for projector modules that are integrated into cellphones and other devices”.

What is the problem with this prediction? Simple, it ignores exaptation and more generally how new applications emerge. 
</description>
         <link>http://www.cognitive-edge.com/blogs/guest/2008/03/microprojectors_the_poverty_of.php</link>
         <guid>http://www.cognitive-edge.com/blogs/guest/2008/03/microprojectors_the_poverty_of.php</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Sun, 30 Mar 2008 23:13:59 +0000</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>What do feathers and microwave ovens have in common?</title>
         <description>Nearly all biological traits and many products for particular markets and functions, began life as something different. Feathers were selected for thermal insulation, microwave ovens started life as radar magnetrons and gin&amp;tonic was a concoction to mask the unacceptable quinine taste to British troups in India. The analysis of history of technology and biological evolutions shows that at  the root of any adaptive trajectory it is usual for a structure to have been subverted – perverted –from a different function (Gould and Vrba called it “exaptation”). I did a quick review of 19th century innovations and found that about 30% (the real number is likely to be higher) of innovations have an exaptational origin.

Generally exaptation has been regarded as contingent, serendipitous.  But, if, as we think, there are regularities, if not rules, then the question becomes: can we exploit these regularities to improve innovation? 
</description>
         <link>http://www.cognitive-edge.com/blogs/guest/2008/03/what_do_feathers_and_microwave.php</link>
         <guid>http://www.cognitive-edge.com/blogs/guest/2008/03/what_do_feathers_and_microwave.php</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Thu, 27 Mar 2008 20:48:42 +0000</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>Technological and biological evolution</title>
         <description><![CDATA[A few weeks ago Nature published an interesting <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080123/full/451385a.html">article</a> on a the memory of slime mould, a common bacterial film. Bacteria form aggregates with emergent properties, one of which is memory. This triggers some interesting considerations, some of which should not surprise complexity sympathisers. Bacteria are close to zero intelligent agents, like certain financial traders in modern agent based modelling simulations. However, by interacting with each other they form a kind of super-organism and develop memory. ]]></description>
         <link>http://www.cognitive-edge.com/blogs/guest/2008/03/technological_and_biological_e.php</link>
         <guid>http://www.cognitive-edge.com/blogs/guest/2008/03/technological_and_biological_e.php</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Tue, 25 Mar 2008 18:32:33 +0000</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>Chess, change and obliquity</title>
         <description><![CDATA[To bring my guest blogging time to a close here are a couple of ideas from <a href="http://www.johnkay.com/">John Kay</a> to mull on: the first is <a href="http://johnkay.com/society/533">Business lessons from chess grand masters</a> where "People who hold to a single idea, or a fixed design, generally lose in chess, as they lose in battle, in business and in economics."]]></description>
         <link>http://www.cognitive-edge.com/blogs/guest/2008/03/chess_change_and_obliquity.php</link>
         <guid>http://www.cognitive-edge.com/blogs/guest/2008/03/chess_change_and_obliquity.php</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Sun, 23 Mar 2008 09:19:40 +0000</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>OD - as good as it gets?</title>
         <description><![CDATA[Ben Ramalingam of <a href="http://www.alnap.org/index.html">ALNAP</a> was kind enough to get in touch with a link to a working paper he co-authored: "<a href="http://www.odi.org.uk/rapid/Publications/RAPID_WP_285.html">Exploring the science of complexity - ideas and implications for development and humanitarian efforts</a>". I confess that so far I have only skimmed it but it seems really worth a read if you have any interest in developing your ability to take part in creating change. The context is international aid, but as with Jake Chapman's <a href="http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/systemfailure">paper on UK governmental policy making</a> the diligent application of control freakery and recipe driven programmes shines through <a href="http://www.phespirit.info/montypython/oscar_wilde.htm">like a stream of bat's piss</a>, as Monty Python would say.
]]></description>
         <link>http://www.cognitive-edge.com/blogs/guest/2008/03/od_as_good_as_it_gets.php</link>
         <guid>http://www.cognitive-edge.com/blogs/guest/2008/03/od_as_good_as_it_gets.php</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Fri, 21 Mar 2008 08:11:45 +0000</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>Spatulas and learning</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.johnniemoore.com/blog/archives/001983.php">Johnnie Moore</a> passes on a cracking story that does a great job of capturing the (sometimes tiny) gap between control freaks/celebrity chefs and learners. Unfortunately I'm also reminded of a little challenge I talked myself out of a couple of years back when he put out an <a href="http://www.johnniemoore.com/blog/archives/001397.php">invite</a> for a series of improv workshops. Ideal practice for consultant as learner and participant I said to myself - and then bottled it, although, thinking back, there was an urgent need to clean out the goldfish tank every Tuesday evening for three months so perhaps I shouldn't be too hard on myself. So on the assumption that public commitment is harder to back out from - do you have any plans for a repeat Johnnie? ]]></description>
         <link>http://www.cognitive-edge.com/blogs/guest/2008/03/spatulas_and_learning.php</link>
         <guid>http://www.cognitive-edge.com/blogs/guest/2008/03/spatulas_and_learning.php</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Thu, 20 Mar 2008 08:39:57 +0000</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>Change by staying the same</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTED_06.htm">Force field analysis</a>, derived from what Lewin termed '<a href="http://wilderdom.com/theory/FieldTheory.html">field theory</a>', is often bandied around as a tool to support a change initiative. If you browse the various resources available you'll discover that analysing the forces for and against the change creates a couple of options: reduce the strength of forces opposing or increase the forces pushing. ]]></description>
         <link>http://www.cognitive-edge.com/blogs/guest/2008/03/change_by_staying_the_same.php</link>
         <guid>http://www.cognitive-edge.com/blogs/guest/2008/03/change_by_staying_the_same.php</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:09:59 +0000</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>System failure</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/systemfailure2">System Failure</a> by Jake Chapman was initially published in 2001 and updated in 2004 - the focus is on the failure of public policy making and makes a thoroughly argued case for more learning and less control. ]]></description>
         <link>http://www.cognitive-edge.com/blogs/guest/2008/03/system_failure.php</link>
         <guid>http://www.cognitive-edge.com/blogs/guest/2008/03/system_failure.php</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:34:05 +0000</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>Kolb, OODA and real time learning</title>
         <description><![CDATA[First of all – apologies for this not appearing by the tomorrow mentioned in the first entry; main excuse is I’ve been thinking, which almost always means delays. Anyway, in the previous entry I was making the case for those of us that work as consultants to act more like learners and participants on the assumption that organisations can be considered complex and essentially unpredictable. Today I’ll expand on the learner issue a little with the help of another four box model: <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Experiential-Learning-Experience-Source-Development/dp/0132952610">David Kolb’s</a> (or Kurt Lewin’s if you prefer) process of experiential learning. Given that Kolb defines learning as “the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience” it’s intriguing to note the apparent lack of enthusiasm for applying his principles in the change/KM industries. ]]></description>
         <link>http://www.cognitive-edge.com/blogs/guest/2008/03/kolb_ooda_and_real_time_learni.php</link>
         <guid>http://www.cognitive-edge.com/blogs/guest/2008/03/kolb_ooda_and_real_time_learni.php</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Mon, 17 Mar 2008 12:26:18 +0000</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>We’re all learners now</title>
         <description>If you’re involved in organisational change you’ll be aware that - like reincarnation - four box models are making a big comeback at the moment. I thought I’d use my guest blog opportunity to run through a few that seem pertinent from a change perspective. And where better to begin than with Cynefin? After all, once you strip away the squiggly bits, ditch that awkward disorder space and straighten a few lines you have a proper looking four box model:</description>
         <link>http://www.cognitive-edge.com/blogs/guest/2008/03/were_all_learners_now.php</link>
         <guid>http://www.cognitive-edge.com/blogs/guest/2008/03/were_all_learners_now.php</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:44:58 +0000</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>The Weakest Link: Child Protection</title>
         <description>Hugh Connor  director of social work in the eastern area of N Ireland said to me a couple of years ago that child protection is a very weak chain. He said the links are broken by two things in particular: poor professional practice and breakdowns in the relationships between the adults who are meant to be caring for the child or young person. 

Can&apos;t think of an exception to this rule. The chain is fragile in the first place because children have a very weak voice in society. </description>
         <link>http://www.cognitive-edge.com/blogs/guest/2008/02/the_weakest_link_child_protect.php</link>
         <guid>http://www.cognitive-edge.com/blogs/guest/2008/02/the_weakest_link_child_protect.php</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Fri, 29 Feb 2008 21:30:54 +0000</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>Drugs and alcohol</title>
         <description>Belfast is beautiful today. Spring is kicking winter into touch. I went out for a run along the river Lagan at lunchtime. I was thinking about a piece in the HBR which I had been reading this morning about medical diagnostic mistakes due to &quot;poor thinking&quot; and the benefits and risks of what they describe as heuristics. It reminded me of a recent experience.

</description>
         <link>http://www.cognitive-edge.com/blogs/guest/2008/02/drugs_and_alcohol.php</link>
         <guid>http://www.cognitive-edge.com/blogs/guest/2008/02/drugs_and_alcohol.php</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:55:06 +0000</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>Wednesday 27th February 2008</title>
         <description>&quot;That was a gorilla I missed...&quot; Have heard a few public sector/third sector leaders in Belfast use this coded phrase this since they were at Dave&apos;s Masterclass on the 15th.  Gorillas in many guises. Right under our noses. At least people now know they are there. 

 </description>
         <link>http://www.cognitive-edge.com/blogs/guest/2008/02/wednesday_27th_february_2008.php</link>
         <guid>http://www.cognitive-edge.com/blogs/guest/2008/02/wednesday_27th_february_2008.php</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2008 06:29:27 +0000</pubDate>
      </item>
      
   </channel>
</rss>
