New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Russian military leaders have expressed concern about US plans for a national missile defense system. Will defense technology be limited by possibilities for a strategic imbalance? Is this just SDI all over again?

rshowalter - 12:42pm Mar 24, 2001 EST (#1434 of 1444)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I've been suggesting elsewhere that neural function, incorporating the corrected S-K neural conduction equation, might have that approximate effect. Whether that's true or not, LSA approximates capacities that people have, and is now a powerful part of computer search algorithms. It makes "hiding related information" much harder than it used to be -- and gives computers something powerfully close to human "associational intuition." Other mathematical techniques, linked to LSA, may give computers more of this "associational intuition" - more ability to draw reasonable conclusions from massive amounnts of data -- more ability to suggest where people should look themselves.

LSA is the best illustration I have encountered of the potential power of correlation (that is, the potential power of complicated association) with nearly unlimited computational resources devoted to it. That power is great. That power also seems strongly complementary to inherently sequential and inherently symbolic logical processes.

. . . . If there IS much latent, inexpressible, extensive information in our brains, this is a STRONG argument for the power (but not the infallibility) of human feelings of intuition. . . . . If there IS much latent, inexpressible, extensive information in our brains, this is a STRONG argument against over-reliance on "logical rigor" and stark "simple solutions" to human problems, human feeling, and human communication.

This is a strong argument for letting people "construct their models and inter-relations" piece by piece, and wait to get comfortable with them -- on a step by step, incremental basis. This is not "illogical" -- but it is extra-logical --- it gives people time to get things to fit together, for them, in a mind where things are evaluating in terms of consistency in a VERY complicated world.

One consequence is that people adjust to new ideas slowly - there's a lot of adjustment, usually, before the "light bulb goes on." That means it may take time, and multiple approaches, and enough repetition, to persuade real people that something must be wrong -- when in simple logic, one counter-example should do.

Quinn shows how this "logical incrementalism" is important in practical administration. Putin has to know this well, and probably does:

rshowalter - 12:50pm Mar 24, 2001 EST (#1435 of 1444)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

The need for repetition, for multiple views, for multiple pieces of evidence, is a central reason why people in interaction exchange such a huge number of words, and is also an essential reason why, regardless of eloquence or logical correctness, there may have to be STAFF WORK to generate enough information to build a case that satisfies and persuades PEOPLE so that they can actually ACT.

(9 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense