Monthly Archives: June 2014

Are Our Brains Trading Breadth for Depth?

ebrain1In last week’s column, I looked at how efficient our brains are. Essentially, if there’s a short cut to an end goal identified by the brain, it will find it. I explained how Google is eliminating the need for us to remember easily retrievable information. I also speculated about how our brains may be defaulting to an easier form of communication, such as texting rather than face-to-face communication.

Personally, I am not entirely pessimistic about the “Google Effect,” where we put less effort into memorizing information that can be easily retrieved on demand. This is an extension of Daniel Wegner’s “transactive memory”, and I would put it in the category of coping mechanisms. It makes no sense to expend brainpower on something that technology can do easier, faster and more reliably. As John Mallin commented, this is like using a calculator rather than memorizing times tables.

Reams of research has shown that our memories can be notoriously inaccurate. In this case, I partially disagree with Nicholas Carr. I don’t think Google is necessarily making us stupid. It may be freeing up the incredibly flexible power of our minds, giving us the opportunity to redefine what it means to be knowledgeable. Rather than a storehouse of random information, our minds may have the opportunity to become more creative integrators of available information. We may be able to expand our “meta-memory”, Wegner’s term for the layer of memory that keeps track of where to turn for certain kinds of knowledge. Our memory could become index of interesting concepts and useful resources, rather than ad-hoc scraps of knowledge.

Of course, this positive evolution of our brains is far from a given. And here Carr may have a point. There is a difference between “lazy” and “efficient.” Technology’s freeing up of the processing power of our brain is only a good thing if that power is then put to a higher purpose. Carr’s title, “The Shallows” is a warning that rather than freeing up our brains to dive deeper into new territory, technology may just give us the ability to skip across the surface of the titillating. Will we waste our extra time and cognitive power going from one piece of brain candy to the other, or will we invest it by sinking our teeth into something important and meaningful?

A historical perspective gives us little reason to be optimistic. We evolved to balance the efforts required to find food with the nutritional value we got from that food. It used to be damned hard to feed ourselves, so we developed preferences for high calorie, high fat foods that would go a long way once we found them. Thanks to technology, the only effort required today to get these foods is to pick them off the shelf and pay for them. We could have used technology to produce healthier and more nutritious foods, but market demands determined that we’d become an obese nation of junk food eaters. Will the same thing happen to our brains?

I am even more concerned with the short cuts that seem to be developing in our social networking activities. Typically, our social networks are built both from strong ties and weak ties. Mark Granovetter identified these two types of social ties in the 70’s. Strong ties bind us to family and close friends. Weak ties connect us with acquaintances. When we hit rough patches, as we inevitably do, we treat those ties very differently. Strong ties are typically much more resilient to adversity. When we hit the lowest points in our lives, it’s the strong ties we depend on to pull us through. Our lifelines are made up of strong ties. If we have a disagreement with someone with whom we have a strong tie, we work harder to resolve it. We have made large investments in these relationships, so we are reluctant to let them go. When there are disruptions in our strong tie network, there is a strong motivation to eliminate the disruption, rather than sacrifice the network.

Weak ties are a whole different matter. We have minimal emotional investments in these relationships. Typically, we connect with these either through serendipity or when we need something that only they can offer. For example, we typically reinstate our weak tie network when we’re on the hunt for a job. LinkedIn is the virtual embodiment of a weak tie network. And if we have a difference of opinion with someone to whom we’re weakly tied, we just shut down the connection. We have plenty of them so one more or less won’t make that much of a difference. When there are disruptions in our weak tie network, we just change the network, deactivating parts of it and reactivating others.

Weak ties are easily built. All we need is just one thing in common at one point in our lives. It could be working in the same company, serving on the same committee, living in the same neighborhood or attending the same convention. Then, we just need some way to remember them in the future. Strong ties are different. Strong ties develop over time, which means they evolve through shared experiences, both positive and negative. They also demand consistent communication, including painful communication that sometimes requires us to say we were wrong and we’re sorry. It’s the type of conversation that leaves you either emotionally drained or supercharged that is the stuff of strong ties. And a healthy percentage of these conversations should happen face-to-face. Could you build a strong tie relationship without ever meeting face-to-face? We’ve all heard examples, but I’d always place my bets on face-to-face – every time.

It’s the hard work of building strong ties that I fear we may miss as we build our relationships through online channels. I worry that the brain, given an easy choice and a hard choice, will naturally opt for the easy one. Online, our network of weak ties can grow beyond the inherent limits of our social inventory, known as Dunbar’s Number (which is 150, by the way). We could always find someone with which to spend a few minutes texting or chatting online. Then we can run off to the next one. We will skip across the surface of our social network, rather than invest the effort and time required to build strong ties. Just like our brains, our social connections may trade breadth for depth.

The Pros and Cons of a Fuel Efficient Brain

Transactive dyadic memory Candice Condon3Your brain will only work as hard as it has to. And if it makes you feel any better, my brain is exactly the same. That’s the way brains work. They conserve horsepower until when it’s absolutely needed. In the background, the brain is doing a constant calculation: “What do I want to achieve and based on everything I know, what is the easiest way to get there?” You could call it lazy, but I prefer the term “efficient.”

The brain has a number of tricks to do this that involve relatively little thinking. In most cases, they involve swapping something that’s easy for your brain to do in place of something difficult. For instance, consider when you vote. It would be extraordinarily difficult to weigh all the factors involved to truly make an informed vote. It would require a ton of brainpower. But it’s very easy to vote for whom you like. We have a number of tricks we use to immediately assess whether we like and trust another individual. They require next to no brainpower. Guess how most people vote? Even those of us who pride ourselves on being informed voters rely on these brain short cuts more than we would like to admit.

Here’s another example that’s just emerging, thanks to search engines. It’s called the Google Effect and it’s an extension of a concept called Transactive Memory. Researchers Betsy Sparrow, Jenny Liu and Daniel Wegner identified the Google Effect in 2011. Wegner first explained transactive memory back in the 80’s. Essentially, it means that we won’t both to remember something that we can easily reference when we need it. When Wegner first talked about transactive memory in the 80’s, he used the example of a husband and wife. The wife was good at remembering important dates, such as anniversaries and birthdays. The husband was good at remembering financial information, such as bank balances and when bills were due. The wife didn’t have to remember financial details and the husband didn’t have to worry about dates. All they had to remember was what each other was good at memorizing. Wegner called this “chunking” of our memory requirements “metamemory.”

If we fast-forward 30 years from Wegner’s original paper, we find a whole new relevance for transactive memory, because we now have the mother of all “metamemories”, called Google. If we hear a fact but know that this is something that can easily be looked up on Google, our brains automatically decide to expend little to no effort in trying to memorize it. Subconsciously, the brain goes into power-saver mode. All we remember is that when we do need to retrieve the fact, it will be a few clicks away on Google. Nicholar Carr fretted about whether this and other cognitive short cuts were making us stupid in his book “The Shallows.”

But there are other side effects that come from the brain’s tendency to look for short cuts without our awareness. I suspect the same thing is happening with social connections. Which would you think required more cognitive effort: a face-to-face conversation with someone or texting them on a smartphone?

Face-to-face conversation can put a huge cognitive load on our brains. We’re receiving communication at a much greater bandwidth than with text.   When we’re across from a person, we not only hear what they’re saying, we’re reading emotional cues, watching facial expressions, interpreting body language and monitoring vocal tones. It’s a much richer communication experience, but it’s also much more work. It demands our full attention. Texting, on the other hand, can easily be done along with other tasks. It’s asynchronous – we can pause and pick up when ever we want. I suspect its no coincidence that younger generations are moving more and more to text based digital communication. Their brains are pushing them in that direction because it’s less work.

One of the great things about technology is that it makes our life easier. But is that also a bad thing? If we know that our brains will always opt for the easiest path, are we putting ourselves in a long, technology aided death spiral? That was Nicholas Carr’s contention. Or, are we freeing up our brains for more important work?

More on this to come next week.

When Are Crowds Not So Wise?

the-wisdom-of-crowdsSince James Surowiecki published his book “The Wisdom of Crowds”, the common wisdom is – well – that we are commonly wise. In other words, if we average the knowledge of many people, we’ll be smarter than any of us would be individually. And that is true – to an extent. But new research suggests that there are group decision dynamics at play where bigger (crowds) may not always be better.

A recent study by Iain Couzin and Albert Kao at Princeton suggests that in real world situations, where information is more complex and spotty, the benefits of crowd wisdom peaks in groups of 5 to 20 participants and then decreases after that. The difference comes in how the group processes the information available to them.

In Surowiecki’s book, he uses the famous example of Sir Francis Galton’s 1907 observation of a contest where villagers were asked to guess the weight of an ox. While no individual correctly guessed the weight, the average of all the guesses came in just one pound short of the correct number. But this example has one unique characteristic that would be rare in the real world – every guesser had access to the same information. They could all see the ox and make their guess. Unless you’re guessing the number of jellybeans in a jar, this is almost never the case in actual decision scenarios.

Couzin and Kao say this information “patchiness” is the reason why accuracy tends to diminish as the crowd gets bigger. In most situations, there is commonly understood and known information, which the researchers refer to as “correlated information.” But there is also information that only some of the members of the group have, which is “uncorrelated information.” To make matters even more complex, the nature of uncorrelated information will be unique to each individual member. In real life, this would be our own experience, expertise and beliefs.  To use a technical term, the correlated information would be the “signal” and the uncorrelated information would be the “noise.” The irony here is that this noise is actually beneficial to the decision process.

In big groups, the collected “noise” gets so noisy it becomes difficult to manage and so it tends to get ignored. It drowns itself out. The collective focuses instead on the correlated information. In engineering terms this higher signal-to-noise ratio would seem to be ideal, but in decision-making, it turns out a certain amount of noise is a good thing. By focusing just on the commonly known information, the bigger crowd over-simplifies the situation.

Smaller groups, in contrast, tend to be more random in their make up. The differences in experiences, knowledge, beliefs and attitudes, even if not directly correlated to the question at hand, have a better chance of being preserved. They don’t get “averaged” out like they would in a bigger group. And this “noise” leads to better decisions if the situation involves imperfect information. Call it the averaging of intuition, or hunches. In a big group, the power of human intuition gets sacrificed in favor of the commonly knowable. But in a small group, it’s preserved.

In the world of corporate strategy, this has some interesting implications. Business decisions are almost always complex and involve imperfectly distributed information. This research seems to indicate that we should carefully consider our decision-making units. There is a wisdom of crowds benefit as long as the crowd doesn’t get too big. We need to find a balance where we have the advantage of different viewpoints and experiences, but this aggregate “noise” doesn’t become unmanageable.

Have the Odds Caught Up with Apple?

google-vs-appleGoogle has just surpassed Apple as the most valuable brand in the world. In diving deeper on this, there are several angles one could take. If you live in the intersection of brand and technology marketing, as I have for the last several years, this is noteworthy on many levels. One, for instance, are the dramatic shifts in Millward Brown’s assigned brand value for the two companies – with Google soaring 40 percent, and Apple plunging 20 percent. According to Millward Brown’s Brandz™ Study, Google’s brand is worth $158 billion, up from $113 billion last year. And the post-Jobs Apple is down to $147 billion from last years $185 billion number one spot. Combined, that’s an $83 billion swap in valuations. Apple was one of the few brands to actually loose ground in this year’s report.

I personally find this interesting because of some recent research I’ve been doing on corporate strategy for an upcoming book. It comes as a surprise to no one reading this column that I’m a big believer in corporate strategy. But in my research, I’ve been forced to admit that strategy is a little understood and over-hyped concept. Actually, let me clarify that – strategy as it’s taught in most MBA programs is little understood and over-hyped. Executives and consultants pull matrices and strategic frameworks out of thin air, and injudiciously apply them to any and all situations. With all due deference to the Michael Porters, Peter Druckers, Jim Collins and Tom Peters of the world, I suspect the world of corporate strategy is more complex than 5 universal steps, a four box matrix or simple models illustrated with a few circles and arrows. The mistaken assumption with all this is that all strategic wisdom must flow from top to bottom.

Let’s go back to Apple and Google. Apple, under Jobs, was a traditional hierarchy. More than this, it was a hierarchy ensconced in an ivory tower. Due, no doubt, to the considerable hubris of Mr. Jobs, Apple believed that all good things had to be laboriously squeezed out of their own design process and mercilessly tweaked to perfection.

Google, on the other hand, fully embraces the concept of a market to drive innovation. Notice I say “a market”, not “the market.” Here, I refer to markets as a tool, not an entity. The distinction is important. Markets are built to facilitate exchanges. They use valuation mechanisms (such as pricing) to protect fairness and introduce equilibrium in the market. It their most ideal form, markets allow any member of the marketplace to contribute and be judged on the value of their contribution, not their status. In Google’s case, the 20% free time rule, Google Labs and their experimentation with prediction markets all use market dynamics to drive both innovation and corporate strategy. Markets allow for a Darwinian approach to strategy, pulling it up from the bottom rather than driving it down from the top. And, as evolutionary biologist Leslie Orgel liked to say, “Evolution is cleverer than you are.”

But there are trade-offs. Bottom up approaches to strategy need some mechanism to pick winners and losers. There needs to be the corporate equivalent of natural selection. This, again, is where markets can help. Without robust and definitive selection tools, the bottoms-up organization can vacillate endlessly, never making any headway. Also, management of execution in bottom-up organizations can be a much more challenging balancing act. Dictatorships might not be a lot of fun for the “dictatees” but you can definitely get the trains running on time.

Here’s one last thing to keep in mind. Every time we trot out Apple in the era of Steve Jobs as an example of anything to do with corporations, we tend to forget that in the normal distribution of visionary talent, Jobs was an extreme outlier. He was a once in a generation anomaly. You can’t build a corporate strategy around the hope that you have a Steve Jobs on the executive payroll. Sooner or later, the odds will catch up to you.

Will Apple’s brand value bounce back in 2015? Perhaps. But in the dynamically complex market that is today’s reality, I’d be placing my bets on organizations that have learned to adapt and evolve in complexity.