The Introverted Network

Introvert / ExtrovertHidden in one of his posts (Measuring your real net worth) John Hagel welcomed some thoughts:

“…I would welcome advice and insight on how introverts (and others) can be more intentional about cultivating the kinds of personal networks that I’ve described above…

 

As a round peg that fits in many square holes, I do have a few things of value I can toss out there. John later mentions writing – writing has always been an asset for me. Photography came into play later on. Speaking for myself, with my own unique set of circumstances, I have certain guidelines for my networks I have created over the years that I still adapt to.

My guidelines are largely for attenuating my network, squelching noise and finding actual signal out there. In some ways, I feel like SETI.

Authentic.

My. Word.

In an age where everyone can communicate, it’s disheartening to see how many people aren’t authentic – they are showing who they want to be; these are the people who was their cars and don’t do maintenance or have it done on their pretty little machines.

To find someone who is authentic is difficult enough, which

Interesting?

I’m someone who ‘lives’ at intersections, always bridging one thing to another. I look for people who are not just specialists – in a world full of specialists – but also generalists and people who have something to offer other than something regurgitated from a newsfeed.

Thoughtful?

I appreciate a thoughtful read, particularly if it opens me up to a perspective I am unfamiliar with that is communicated in a thoughtful way – not the hollow expertise that has become rampant in even the most modern methods of communication. And when communicate back, I expect a level of thoughtfulness in the replies. If the response boils down to, “because I said so” or something similar, I’ll show my way out.

Cross-cultural?

This has become more and more important to me – and while it derives from ‘thoughtful’, it is a true gem to find. When people can communicate effectively across cultures, first they reach a larger audience with what they are saying. This, unfortunately, also means wrong information can spread across that cultural bridge – but oddly, I’ve found that most information I get from people who live at these intersections is pretty well thought out and open to discussion – even, sometimes, starved for it as someone gives voice to things and is heard.

Lines.

I draw lines.

First and foremost, if people get into my personal ‘space’ for no real good reason, I tend to squelch them. This is completely alien to some people and I understand that, but understanding that doesn’t mean I need to tolerate intrusions into my space (I call it my wa, or harmony). But what is this personal ‘space’?

The first time, people typically get a message from me that I’m not one for chit-chat; that I appreciate it all in one message. That usually does the trick. Usually.

The annoying ding of a message that just says, “Hi.” From this, I extrapolate that this will be a tiresome and largely unproductive communication that leads to multiple messages where one message alone would do. When I communicate, I lay it out all in one message.

And yes, I absolutely hate twitter for this. Absolutely. Twitter is good for sharing larger messages encapsulated in a link.

My second line is that if someone has an odd fetish that they post about all the time – for example, if they don’t ‘like Trump and post about Trump all the time – I squelch them. I learn nothing from that. The inverse is true for me as well. That is a form of intellectual masturbation I gave up a few decades ago, and while I appreciate that some have an odd predilection for it, I don’t feel like being near it.

Money

For a certain amount of money, to be negotiated, people can pay me to put up with the above. Never the other way around.

Decisiveness.

I probably could have networks exponentially larger than I have now had I not squelched things. Larger is not my goal. I view a network as something everyone in feeds, and something that feeds everyone.

My Own Counterculture

The typical SEO/social media expert will tell you that you have to put on the Disney smile for everyone. I suppose this is important for corporations who want to appear authentic and alienate as few people as possible. I have never subscribed to this thought for myself, and only over the last decade have stopped trying to make excuses for it or apologizing for it. There is only one me, I am who I am and I am no more and no less.

This is not for everyone, of course, and if you’re paying social media experts to broaden your reach, you need to understand that your reach also has to be managed – and success in this regard can result in cataclysmic failure. Speaking for myself, I deal with the world as I can, and increasingly, as I demand. I see this as a factor of having grown up before the Internet became a ‘thing’, of having dealt with it since it’s inception and having made a living off of it, through it and around it.

Lastly, social media is only that. Real connections with real people trump social media connections. Social media can offer real connections, and I’ve outlined the general rules of how I cultivate those.

Deep Learning, Information Bottlenecks – and Osmosis.

I’ve experimented in the past with deep learning in a few different ways, coming up with my own thoughts on how things work and why they work. It was apparent to me when I stopped that in 2016 that I was missing something, and that I needed some distance between myself and the topic at hand. I gave up those Pine64s, and as it happened, moved away from where I was doing it – more importantly, divorcing me from a Software Engineering world where ‘solutions right now’ always trumped ‘solutions’, the former the harbinger of problems, the latter the Holy Grail of every software engineer who dare dream in a world that, except for the minority, requires lockstep precision within an industry that spends it’s time firefighting because of solutions-right-now.

It’s disenchanting. Being disenchanted allows for little in the way of real solutions, at least for myself.

And today I read, “New Theory Cracks Open The Black Box of Deep Neural Networks“. Of course, deep learning is not that new, and the ‘Information Bottleneck’ thought stems from the original work in 1999, the Information Bottleneck Method. That works perhaps in explaining things on a surface level and on an informational level – but as I read it, I was reminded of secondary school biology: Osmosis. No one has seemed to connect the two when they are so suitably connected, and I’d wager that Osmosis scales better since the information bottlenecks, when themselves in a matrix, pretty much would mimic a tunable osmosis.

That said, I’ve found the major problem with deep learning to be that we define inputs when, quite possibly, we should be more loose in our definitions of what we put in. This aligns better with chaos theory – something that the Wired article seems to dismiss:

…When Schwab and Mehta applied the deep belief net to a model of a magnet at its “critical point,” where the system is fractal, or self-similar at every scale, they found that the network automatically used the renormalization-like procedure to discover the model’s state. It was a stunning indication that, as the biophysicist Ilya Nemenman said at the time, “extracting relevant features in the context of statistical physics and extracting relevant features in the context of deep learning are not just similar words, they are one and the same.”

The only problem is that, in general, the real world isn’t fractal. “The natural world is not ears on ears on ears on ears; it’s eyeballs on faces on people on scenes,” Cranmer said…

Pragmatically, this is what we see when we work on projects – but the problem is not what we see, it’s what we don’t see. It’s the things we don’t intuitively connect ourselves because of our own limitations; with simple deep learning we may get away with what we see, but on a much larger scale, we may be looking at the motion of wings of a butterfly on the other side of the world causing a tipping point that creates a hurricane on the other.

Of course, this is all theory, and hardly some earth shattering change in the way we look at things – but a small change in how we approach things could well be what we need to move forward at various intersections. In this, I am trying to be a simple butterfly flapping his wings.