Bees show the way to making good decisions

I read with interest an article in the Sunday paper this week on the assertion that Bees ‘Decision Making Strategy’ (sic) could help the business world to come to more informed decisions.

Click image for larger version  Name:	worker-bees.jpg Views:	2 Size:	51.0 KB ID:	28

Apparently swarms send out ‘scouts’ to assess the quality of a potential site for a hive. The insects then report back to the old hive and do a ‘dance’ to describe the benefits of the site. The study concluded that the swarm then comes to a group decision on the best site by revisiting sites recommended by others until a consensus emerges and all the bees are performing the same ‘dance’. Actually of course there is no need for any kind of rationalisation process – bees returning from many potential sites will do a dance (‘large wiggle’ for lots of food, ‘direction of dance’ to show where it is and ‘length of path of dance’ to show distance from here) and bees communicate by ‘imprinting’ the movement of the dance in the hive until they get it then off they fly to have a look. Those sites that indeed have a good supply will result in more returning bees doing a repeat performance of the original dance whilst bees that return dissatisfied give a less that enthusiastic display. As a result of this reinforcement process bees will over time appear more frequently at the good sites which may look like a rational process has occurred but is in fact a conditioning process.

The study published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society measured the success of different decision-making processes and showed that if the bees relied on the ‘cosmic accident’ as they put it of all the bees eventually stumbling on the same site, it would leave the swarm homeless and vulnerable. On the other hand if the bees blindly followed the recommendations of other bees without checking the sites out for themselves there is no guarantee that it will be the best decision either.

The study concluded that sending out scouting groups resulted in the best decision. From this natural system they then made the leap of faith to suggest if Humans adopted this process then better investment decisions (for example) in the stock market could be made, groupthink avoided and investors will avoid getting stung! There is some truth in this as investment decisions are often made on the basis that if one stockbroker buys stock in a particular company then it must be good – thus a stampede is generated and everyone buys in and a bubble is created that eventually bursts. The lesson being that if decisions are made by considering options, whether there is real worth in a company (dividends etc.) before a decision made then this is a better decision making strategy.

In decision making strategies in the real world this is what is recommended, proactively acting on the world (scouting), deciding effectively by weighing and thinking about options then moving to action is a known and sound strategy. The problem is it takes thinking power to effect such an approach and there are few who actually do this in practice. In the normal run of events, when the economy is growing or things in a company are going well, then we can get away with sloppy decision making. What recent events have shown is that many so-called experts did not engage themselves in a deep way with their decision making, had little idea of what they are deciding and did not engage in down side risk analysis. Unfortunately all things that take significant cognitive resource and effort of will to do well – and in today’s quick and dirt world there is little reward for doing it right especially when sloppy thinking and management practice gets bailed out by the taxpayer as we are now witnessing across the world.

Royston

Prince Charles treats us to more nonsense

The Deathly GM Crops and The Half-Wit Prince (Book 8)

Most of the time I regard Prince Charles as an amiable affable buffoon who talks a peculiar brand of new age sentiment and claptrap and dresses in a quaint Scottish (kilt commando style) way so beloved by our American friends across the water or who swans down the racecourse in top hat waving to the assembled masses on the rails. This erstwhile Edwardian who I think at heart harks back to those times when obedient yokels tilled the fields from dawn to dusk and tipped a respectful forelock in his ‘ighness’ direction as he swept by in his carriage to the big house (god bless yer guv) and people knew their place and the beautiful class structure of the realm stood in all its glory whilst he sat at the top of the pile as king (eh not yet the Queen is still very much hanging on ed.) with his subjects arraigned about him.

Now on the subject of GM crops (and about time too!!) HH has actually managed to hit a few (very few) good points but what surprised me about this whole issue was that a national newspaper gave his non-scientific bar room opinions front page coverage. I was actually about to buy a copy of the Telegraph to peruse on the train when I saw he was the lead for the day – this forced me to buy the broadsheet version of the Socialist Tribune (the Guardian) as a substitute so dear readers you can guess this was a serious setback.

As always I am interested in the purpose of these things and not in the content per se for if I want to hear some claptrap I can always talk to my pocket memo for five minutes then play it back. The point it seemed to me was to position Charles as next ruler and restate the inevitability of a continuation of the stultifying class structure we have in this country with the Windsor’s at its head. Demonstrating that he has thoughtful and erudite opinions (ok that didn’t work ed.) and in an unquestioning way accept and parade his views before the public. Also the writer sprinkled the article with discourses of justification of why this was an important piece due to the role HH would play as future monarch etc etc – not questioning the reasoning behind this rationalisation at all.

Often it is refreshing for the basis behind some scientific advances to be critically reviewed as to their consequences and costs – the debate about cloning being an example where there is not much understanding so very little control. GM crops are a potential benefit to society as a whole at least in the third world where they don’t have the luxury of choosing ‘organic’ or otherwise as we do in comfortable wet UK – and drought resistant strains of wheat may indeed be a breakthrough for them – and of course there are always the agribusiness monopolies wanting to maximise their profits which should be monitored. So there is a basis for debate which is underway but these more thoughtful insights do not get airtime or the grounds of critical debate are undercut by poorly informed half understood issues expounded for purposes of publicity and positioning of a future king.

Royston

Snippet from the Web

Lord Robert Winston, Imperial’s famously moustachioed professor of fertility studies seems to have got himself in a trouble over his comments relating to critics of GM technology.
In a speech at Whittington Hospital (somewhere in North London, apparently) last week, the celebrity ICSM Prof spoke out against those who criticise any kind of genetic manipulation, saying that many protests were “ill-advised”. He was particularly forthright on Prince Charles, whom he called one of “the most genetically modified people around”.

Labour Party to clone Tony Blair before next election to ensure New Labour for Generations to come

Labour Party to clone Tony Blair before next election to ensure New Labour for Generations to come

Having had a disastrous handover to comrade Brown – in fact those of us in the know when the question of whether Tony or Brown should head up the Labour Party and fight for a new labour government at that time knew Brown would probably never win the first labour election victory. His weaknesses at an early time being evident to all: member of the living dead, no charisma (not surprising as member of living dead), and an unfortunate speaking tic (where the jaw is dropped at the end of each sentence ) that drives one mad. No one doubted his intellect, at least compared with the rest of the Labour Muppets around at that time, but what he lacked was leadership – Brown for all his ability, is a manager, not a leader – no one will identify or aspire to be him or, will internalise his pronouncements and make them their own – In the end this will do for him even if he manages to divert attention from the mess he got us into after ten years in charge at No11 by convincing autocratic millionaire Arab kings to fund his public sector spending splurge. It must be said that we want to be led like sheep in this country, and that’s why Tony Blair was so successful – he talked a load of crap – but did this so well and effectively that we thought it was eminently sensible to follow him to the back of beyond – i.e. Iraq and Afghanistan.

Now we are faced with another year or two of Brother Brown burying this country in debt and then what may be an election defeat for him (even though the labour party has built up quite a client state over the last ten years) the labour party has cooked up a ruse whereby in the future we can ensure a constant supply of party leaders in the mould of good ol Tony. Now personally I find this the kind of hell my Sunday School teacher talked about (can you imagine Tony being on the Throne for ever its almost as bad as thinking of Madge or Charles on the Throne) but almost a logical extension with this blind following of ever more outrageous claims made by scientists in the area of cloning, ’embryo’ research and animal experimentation.

As a stake inoculation I might point out I have several postgraduate science degrees and so know the game quite well when it comes to getting funding for, or permission to experiment in, areas of dubious ethical and scientific value. There is an inevitable testing of the boundaries by scientists researching at the limits of relevancy into some aspects of human health. We have over the last few years seen a procession of eminent scientists telling us poor mortals that a new area of research must be allowed in order that some disease or other will be banished, couples helped to conceive, or needed in order for the brain drain of our top scientists to be prevented. Now the arguments or discursive practices being deployed is never ‘oh we need the Dosh to carry out some PhD research’ because we need the grant money, ‘its’ always posed as: needed to find a cure for genetic diseases, or childhood diseases (usually muscular dystrophy or cystic fibrosis), possibly cancer which is always good for a bob or two, or helping childless couples conceive.

What is disturbing is not obvious good intentions co-opted for political gain but the way this cock and bull nonsense is swallowed by politicians and how a bevy of worthies (my eminent scientists) are wheeled out of the closet to tell us we (Jo Public) should allow all this without any critical discussion. They offer vague platitudes and little critical justification other than implied self interest that we or close family will be helped by this further extension of the ability of science to play with life or to carry out revolting experiments on primates.

Elsewhere in one of the other Blogs on www.Bizface.co.uk the blogger talks about stewardship, doing something that does not have any implied gain but doing something that is right for rights sake. The extension of life for a few months, or the ability to allow someone to overcome biological constraints to conceive, is not enough justification for me to allow playing with the fabric of life. It is not the specific issue of allowing hybrid cells to be created in order to improve stem cell research, as in this case, but the systemic problem of constant leverage of ethical boundaries without informed consent and the labelling of those who raise a yellow card as latter day Luddites – or even labelling them as going beyond their brief and interfering in the secular political world. What’s at issue here is ‘issue selling’ to the public to permit an anything goes approach and we need to think more clearly about setting the bounds. An informed debate in the Commons needs to take place , not constrained by party loyalties to begin this process, as a start to an informed approach.

Some Quotes on this:

“The irony is that this secular utopianism is based on a belief in an unstoppable human ability to make a better world, while at the same time it believes that we have the right to kill unborn children and surplus old people, and to play games with the humanity of those in between.”

Anglican Bishop of Durham Rt Rev Tom Wright

“For people out there suffering from Parkinson’s disease and motor neuron disease, this is not a question of some issue about the procedure through the House of Commons. This is an issue about whether we can find the drugs that can cure their illnesses. So this is the heart of the matter.” Alan Johnson Minister of Health and Former Postman

“It is difficult to imagine a single piece of legislation which more comprehensively attacks the sanctity and dignity of human life than this particular bill.

CARDINAL Keith O’Brian

“This research has massive potential to provide treatments for serious debilitating disorders ranging from developmental abnormalities in young children, to stroke, cancer, HIV/Aids, diabetes and Parkinson’s disease, as well as better and safer treatment for infertile couples.” Medical Research Council (this was a good quote as they managed to get in all the worthy causes in one piece)