Many social problems can be sorted into two groups—wide problems and narrow problems. Treating one kind as the other creates catastrophe, but we do it all the time, from policing to politics.
This made me think in a new way about my own profession. Cyber security is a wide problem - as wide as the internet. The selection pressure and self selection bias to become a cyber security professional is spectacularly narrow – if you can remain focussed on a complex system you’ve never seen before for 6 hours straight, get the answer, and realise you need a pee you’re a candidate. A wide and growing problem with a very narrow set of people working the solution. Most cyber security professionals provide solutions for businesses leaving personal cyber security (and awareness) way behind. The BBC program “Scam Interceptors” has done more to raise awareness in the UK about the threat than any government or public initiative (in my opinion).
Thank you for pinpointing me and slathering me with butter. And I agree with all the reviews of Fluke. I've been recommending it on Facebook, where self-selection has resulted in a remarkable number of friends who will love it.
Another thing us buttery people appreciate is the breadth of what you focus on. A lot of us are rightly concerned with and interested in the minutiae of current political life in America--the focus on particular court decisions, particular events going on at the local or national level that will impact our lives in ways far beyond those currently hot minutiae. But it is really GOOD to be able to draw back from that, and draw breath, by being pulled out of the "bubble" that is life for any thinking person who cares about where the country is going and the into the bigger things that matter to understand HOW that bubble operates.
Interesting framework. I do feel the need to comment on your science example. As director of a government science institute for many years, I did experience this pressure to select people for technical proficiency Although we did not do research on cancer, we did do research on environmental problems that is also supposed to have applications in the real world. The problem was that selecting primarily for technical skills led us to hire people who have poor social skills (needed because research is collaborative) and have a poor grasp and little interest in the real world that their research is supposed to benefit. As a result, a lot of the research we did was disconnected from what was needed by the policy folks and society. In later years, we pushed to hire people based primarily on personal suitability, which is government jargon for people who have social skills and have interest in the political world in which they operate. My readings tell me that similar problems occur with cancer research (see https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/saving-science for example). There are many examples where science is treated as a narrow problem whereas it is in reality a wider problem. How wide depends on the social complexity of the issue and the level of uncertainty in the science. Climate change is an example of a very wide problem which is treated equally by advocates and contrarians as a narrow scientific one. The contrasting attitudes of follow the science vs denying the science are just mirror images of the same error of reducing climate change to a narrow problem. Covid also was largely treated by policy folks as a narrow problem (get the vaccines) whereas it also was a wider problem of conflicting social values. I could go on. If people are interested in how wide science really is, I found the new book by Geoff Mulgan (When Science meets Power) very illuminating.
I thank you for buttering us all up! We can use that on a daily basis. I loved this as others have said you always write something that is so thought provoking and I learn something new each time! I also think in the US it’s the person with the most money that usually wins.
Thought provoking as always--as Alain points out, the framework isn't perfect given the complexity of problems that defy wide or narrow definitions. I'm thinking about men and women and am curious of your take given both the apparent strong self-selection of women to roles defined as both typical and biologically defined (giving birth for example or nursing) and strong selection pressures, e.g., women aren't often selected as CEO's or for political leadership. Is this a narrow problem in need of a wide solution? I can't get my head around it. Maybe it's not a useful frame for the problem--at least I see it as a problem when we don't have women broadly represented--thus self selection and strong selection pressure means men make decisions for women about health care when they know little or nothing about women biologically? Thoughts?
Loved the book, and excited to read more content here! I’d be interested to know if Brian has any thoughts on how much both capitalism and modern politics depend on, and intentionally manipulate, the public’s general dysmorphia regarding all of the contents of Fluke. Especially Americans, who have an even larger cultural emphasis on individualism, and success as a direct reflection of both a person’s moral continence/choices.
This reminds me that the cop who murdered George Floyd was a long time bad apple who was training a group of new cops - a great way to select for the worst police officers.
This made me think in a new way about my own profession. Cyber security is a wide problem - as wide as the internet. The selection pressure and self selection bias to become a cyber security professional is spectacularly narrow – if you can remain focussed on a complex system you’ve never seen before for 6 hours straight, get the answer, and realise you need a pee you’re a candidate. A wide and growing problem with a very narrow set of people working the solution. Most cyber security professionals provide solutions for businesses leaving personal cyber security (and awareness) way behind. The BBC program “Scam Interceptors” has done more to raise awareness in the UK about the threat than any government or public initiative (in my opinion).
Thank you for pinpointing me and slathering me with butter. And I agree with all the reviews of Fluke. I've been recommending it on Facebook, where self-selection has resulted in a remarkable number of friends who will love it.
Another thing us buttery people appreciate is the breadth of what you focus on. A lot of us are rightly concerned with and interested in the minutiae of current political life in America--the focus on particular court decisions, particular events going on at the local or national level that will impact our lives in ways far beyond those currently hot minutiae. But it is really GOOD to be able to draw back from that, and draw breath, by being pulled out of the "bubble" that is life for any thinking person who cares about where the country is going and the into the bigger things that matter to understand HOW that bubble operates.
Fascinating column, and the reactions expand my understanding of this topic. Thanks!
Interesting framework. I do feel the need to comment on your science example. As director of a government science institute for many years, I did experience this pressure to select people for technical proficiency Although we did not do research on cancer, we did do research on environmental problems that is also supposed to have applications in the real world. The problem was that selecting primarily for technical skills led us to hire people who have poor social skills (needed because research is collaborative) and have a poor grasp and little interest in the real world that their research is supposed to benefit. As a result, a lot of the research we did was disconnected from what was needed by the policy folks and society. In later years, we pushed to hire people based primarily on personal suitability, which is government jargon for people who have social skills and have interest in the political world in which they operate. My readings tell me that similar problems occur with cancer research (see https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/saving-science for example). There are many examples where science is treated as a narrow problem whereas it is in reality a wider problem. How wide depends on the social complexity of the issue and the level of uncertainty in the science. Climate change is an example of a very wide problem which is treated equally by advocates and contrarians as a narrow scientific one. The contrasting attitudes of follow the science vs denying the science are just mirror images of the same error of reducing climate change to a narrow problem. Covid also was largely treated by policy folks as a narrow problem (get the vaccines) whereas it also was a wider problem of conflicting social values. I could go on. If people are interested in how wide science really is, I found the new book by Geoff Mulgan (When Science meets Power) very illuminating.
I thank you for buttering us all up! We can use that on a daily basis. I loved this as others have said you always write something that is so thought provoking and I learn something new each time! I also think in the US it’s the person with the most money that usually wins.
Thought provoking as always--as Alain points out, the framework isn't perfect given the complexity of problems that defy wide or narrow definitions. I'm thinking about men and women and am curious of your take given both the apparent strong self-selection of women to roles defined as both typical and biologically defined (giving birth for example or nursing) and strong selection pressures, e.g., women aren't often selected as CEO's or for political leadership. Is this a narrow problem in need of a wide solution? I can't get my head around it. Maybe it's not a useful frame for the problem--at least I see it as a problem when we don't have women broadly represented--thus self selection and strong selection pressure means men make decisions for women about health care when they know little or nothing about women biologically? Thoughts?
Loved the book, and excited to read more content here! I’d be interested to know if Brian has any thoughts on how much both capitalism and modern politics depend on, and intentionally manipulate, the public’s general dysmorphia regarding all of the contents of Fluke. Especially Americans, who have an even larger cultural emphasis on individualism, and success as a direct reflection of both a person’s moral continence/choices.
This reminds me that the cop who murdered George Floyd was a long time bad apple who was training a group of new cops - a great way to select for the worst police officers.