When goals flounder - review your Central Purpose

This past week, I've been avoiding a thorough review of my goals as I had a sneaky suspicion that I had failed at a number of them. That seemed debilitating and counter-productive. But as I forced myself to start writing this post, I began to realize just how much I had accomplished and more importantly, I came to realize that most of the failed goals floundered because I had not stayed true to myself.  In the end, I had a major revelation.  By confronting my anxiety, I destroyed it.

Last January, I had 3 major goals that were in part contingent on a number of factors.  One of course was the pending job candidacy with ECU.  As to those three goals, all were accomplished.

After our move to North Carolina, I re-wrote my year end goals (why? I'm not quite sure.)  A number of those goals I did not accomplish.  It left me wondering why not.  Had I lost my mo-jo?  Were the goals unrealistic?  Was I not motivated to accomplish them?  The truth is mostly the latter in part because I have been misleading myself away from my central purpose in life (CPL). 

After numerous talks with some friends of mine, I have been re-conceptualizing the direction of my career to integrate my research, teaching, consulting, service, blog writing, and potential business ventures.  Until just about 30 minutes ago, I had been considering two different directions, each of which seemed plausible for establishing that integration.  I thought that by focusing on one of those two directions, I could stay true to my CPL.  I was wrong!  My original CPL already established the direction - to teach others how to make better decisions, specifically in designing, building, maintaining, and using information systems.  Today, I see no reason to pick one of the two different directions.  The goals I was failing were all connected with choosing between these two directions.  I need to web development knowledge in order to make better decisions.  I need philosophic knowledge in order to make better decision.  I need to understand how habits, information technologies, values, analysis and design techniques, epistemology, rationality, psychology, and productiveness can impact decision making.  In short, my CPL already integrates these two passions of mine.  Instead of picking one, I just need to remind myself of my ultimate passion - helping others to make better decisions.  The rest follows. 

So why did I fail at these goals?  They failed because they met a mental block.  Although crafted with my best intentions, I couldn't find the motivation to pursue them with the passion they deserved.  Something just didn't seem right, although I couldn't put my finger on exactly what.  The cognitive dissonance I experienced (and hence my failure to act on a number of projects/goals) stemmed from my mismatch between the reality of my CPL and the inappropriate goals I was setting.  Contradictions cannot exist.  My subconscious identified the contradiction first.  It wasn't until today that my consciousness caught up.

So how to move forward?  Rather than being frustrated with myself for not accomplishing my goals or falling behind in projects, I need to review all my projects and decide which ones will help me accomplish my CPL best and cut the rest.  And that is my very next project!

Confirmation bias

Recently, I read an article about confirmation bias that made me realize that this is major impediment to being productive.  So, what is confirmation bias?  According to Science Daily, confirmation bias is "a type of cognitive bias and represents an error of inductive inference toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study."  Wikipedia lists some of the traits of confirmation bias to be:

• Interpretation - When giving evidence both for and against your belief, the bias tends to focus only on the evidence for your belief and ignore evidence against your belief
• Search for information - You seek evidence from someone you know agrees with you and do not seek evidence from those that disagree with you.
• Memory - you tend to remember evidence that supports your argument and forget evidence that contradicts your position

Let's unpack this concept.  Confirmation bias seems to be misappropriation of evidence, leading to incorrect inductions.  Most often, confirmation bias is an automatic response.  These automatic responses are based on heuristics.  People use heuristics (rules of thumb) to quickly make evaluations. Without heuristics, we would never have time to make all the decision necessary in our lives. We would spend all of our time re-hashing the same evidence, the same logical steps, and the same conclusions.  Where heuristics go wrong is when they are applied to emotionally charged ideas.  The pain at looking at contrary evidence leads many individuals to ignore that evidence in favor of positive evidence that confirms our original ideas.  Individuals do not like dissonance in their thoughts.  They want certainty.  Unfortunately, that certainty comes at the expense of objectivity, leading to ill founded beliefs.

There are two times confirmation bias can be observed, when you first develop an idea and when you are presented with new evidence that contradicts one of your existing ideas.  If confirmation bias can be avoided in the former, the easier it will be managed in the latter.  However, many people, myself included, have adopted ideas without fully evaluating all the evidence for and against when initially presented to them. Young kids are particularly susceptible. This may require re-evaluation of ideas that were once closely held.  I have done this before when I reevaluated my belief in God and my interaction with The Objectivist Center, both of which led me to reject my earlier decisions based on new evidence.

Fortunately, there is a way to avoid confirmation bias - scientific inductive reasoning.  Two principle techniques to scientific reasoning are establishing reliability and validity.  Validity can be further sub-divided into both internal and external validity.  So how can these be employed to avoid confirmation bias?

1. For evidence to be reliable, new evidence should confirm older evidence.  If it contradicts it, chances are something fishy is going on or evidence is not being placed within its appropriate context.  Seek evidence from multiple, disparate sources, particularly in emotionally driven complex issues.  In highly controversial issues, its especially important to gather evidence from sources, both pro and con, and place that evidence within their proper context.
2. Internal validity looks at the internal logic of an argument.  Ask yourself if the evidence presented shows only part of the picture. Ask yourself if you have fully considered ALL of the evidence.  Ask yourself if the conclusions are as solid as claimed. It may help to break up the argument into all of its component parts and verify that evidence supports each part.  In short, play "devil's advocate" to establish internal validity.
3. External validity verifies an idea is consistent with the wider context of one's knowledge base. Ask yourself if this conclusion is true, what does it mean for other ideas.  Ask yourself honestly what the evidence means for my life.  The conclusion from the evidence should integrate with knowledge you already have without contradictions.  If it doesn't, either something is wrong with your new conclusion or something is wrong with your existing ideas.

By employing these methods consistently, you can avoid confirmation bias.  Take a step back from the emotional charged idea and be objective.  If you do this, you have a good chance at avoiding confirmation bias and achieving objectivity in your thoughts.

Thinking Your Way to Productivity

The popularity of Getting Things Done (GTD) system may have as much to do with its focus on efficient thinking as anything else.   The breakdown of conscious, slow, deliberate thinking is paired with subconcious, fast, inspirational thinking such that each process is performed at diffferent times and with different goals.  But when done in the proper order, leads to effective results.  The steps in GTD bare a striking resemblance to how Ayn Rand described the most efficient writing process in The Art of Nonfiction.  She broke up the steps to writing into clear functional processes that best utilize your conscious and subconscious thinking. Brainstorming what to write about is largely a subconscious and emotionally driven process.  Once a topic is decided, the conscious process begins with writing the outline.  Once the outline is completely thought out, Rand recommends letting the subconscious process take over while writing the content of the article, letting words flow from your mind on to the page without limiting yourself.  Lastly, Rand recommends a thorough edit, reverting back to a fully conscious process.

In many ways, the steps in GTD are similar.  David Allen recommends breaking your thinking up into descrete steps such that conscious and subconscious processes are in full effect at appropriate times.
While filling your inbox throughout the day, you are letting any brainstorm or inspirational idea that strikes you be saved for further review.  This process is subconcious oriented.  In fact, Allen strongly suggests spending zero time consciously thinking about the ideas - at that time.  Then, once or twice a day, Allen recommends you clear your inbox by engaging your conscious thinking - considering what to do each and every item in the inbox, identifying how to classify each item, breaking down projects into sub-tasks, and evaluating next action items.  The rest of the day is then spent performing tasks, which if fully thought through, should become more subconscious oriented where inspiration and flow drive your actions.  That's not to say all of your actions should be fully subconscious or emotionally driven, as there will likely be many times when completing tasks will require thoughtful, conscious engagement.  But by breaking projects into next action items, it is possible to fly through each action item with less deep concentration and fewer distractions because some of that thought has already been accomplished.  Lastly, Allen recommends a periodic review, which again engages the conscious process to evaluate whether you are still on track (or not) with your long term goals.

It would be interesting to discover if there are more similiarities between productive achievement and the deliberate usage of different thinking processes that best take advantage of each process's strengths and avoid each process's weaknesses.

Concepts in Learning

Lately, I've been rereading Ausubel's Educational Psychology (1968).  Ausubel's Assimilation Learning Theory offers one of the best descriptions of conceptual learning I have found in education research. 

Here's a quote from the book that captures but a small picture of his theory:

"Thus preschool children are likely to classify objects on the basis of nonessential, incidental features, spatial and temporal contiguity, or similarity of action and location.  During the elementary-school years, similarity of structure and function becomes a more important classificatory criterion.  With advancing age, however, as children approach adolescence and become verbal-directed and freed from dependence on concrete-empirical experience in their conceptualizing operations, categorical classification on the basis of abstract criterial attributes becomes the dominant mode of organizing experience." 

The core of his theory is on the dictonomy between meaningful learning and rote learning.  An instructor's goal should be to enable students to meaningfully learn class concepts by providing the proper materials in the proper order.  What are those necessary preconditions to meaningful learning?

1. Clear definitions
2. Must integrate with students' prior knowledge
3. Must provide relevant examples
4. Students must be motivated

While I have some disagreements with Ausubel on the particulars of motivation, these four criteria echo statements made by Peikoff in his Philosophy of Education lecture.  They also share many similarities to Lisa VanDamme's implimentation at VDA.  Objectivists interested in educational and pedagogical theory might find Ausubel's theory a good place to start.

How to do Abstract Integrative Reading

Inspiration flowed while reading Study Methods & Motivation Chapters "How to do Abstract Reading" and "How to do Abstract Integrative Reading".  I realized that much of his commentary mirrors what I've learned about "meaningful learning" theory proposed by Ausubel.  Besides implications for my own reading, I brainstormed how I can create class exercises for my students that would facilitate this type of reading.  My take away is that I'll spend the first day of class showing students the following process, perhaps even giving them worksheets to fill in.  I provide my own analysis to "How to do Abstract Integrative Reading" below.

1. Start with a definition of the concept you read - but state in your own words.

2. Why is the concept important?

3. Describe the concept (this is where you integrate the concept with your current body of knowledge)

4. Provide examples

1. Definition

Abstract Integrative Reading is a skill used when reading where a book's ideas are integrated into one's current context of knowledge.

2. Importance

Abstract integrative reading is critical for developing a deep understanding of ideas.  This skill makes reading purposeful and useful for thinking and reasoning.  Improving this skill will ultimately help me gain knowledge systematically while reading, allowing me to make better decisions and live a happier, more successful life.

3. Description

Abstract integrative reading includes the ability to define a term appropriately, neither too broad nor too narrow - neither too vague nor too concrete - and avoiding subjective interpretations.  Although Locke never explicitly states it, this approach to study compliments Ayn Rand's theory of concepts.  What I mean by deep understanding of ideas is that this process for reading will make sense to me on many levels.  If I can identify cause/effect relationships, similarities and differences, implications, or categories for concepts, then I can communicate those concepts with ease because I can rephrase my words depending on the context.  Its important that these concepts be integrated with one's context of knowledge because like all learning, concepts should not be floating in the ether regions or else they will fall victim to rote memorization. For example, I identified the similarities with abstract integrative learning with Rand's theory of concepts and Ausubel's Meaningful learning.  I've further integrated his suggestions into another context, my teaching, by developing this process.  Abstract integrative reading provides me with the mechanisms for meaningful learning such that readings will persist in my mind for the long-term and can be used to help me make decisions in the future. 

4. Examples

If a book provides examples, I can brainstorm my own examples that fit within the concept. 

This blog post is an example of the output from abstract integrative reading.  

Notes I take on books or articles I read help facilitate abstract integrative reading.

Conceptual confusion

I noticed a bit of conceptual confusion with my son.  When I ask him what country we live in, he sometimes says Michigan.  Other times, I ask him what state we live in, he'll say North America or Ypsilanti.  Its apparent, he is not understanding he differences between the concepts of state, country, and city.  These ideas are simply too abstract for him to understand.  The word state to him has exact meaning.  He knows it represents some category of geography, but does not recognize the hierarchy of concepts and its placement there-in.

While the concepts of city, state, and country are difficult to understand, he can identify the shape and placement of Michigan on a map of the U.S.  We have a puzzle map of the U.S. that he and his sister love to do.  They are both excellent at doing the puzzle through shape recognition.  They can recite the names of about 6 different states.

This brings up an interesting problem with educating children about geography.  It seems at a young age (my son is 5), they can learn about the names of places where they live, but their conception of such places is so vague as to be next to meaningless.  I have tried to use Google maps and slowly zoom out from our house in order to give him perspective of the size and location.  Yet, after I zoom out further than our route to school, I can't really detect if it means anything to him.  Having children learn the names of the 50 states, country names, continent names, etc. is largely pointless at this age because these names have no meaning to him.  Where I should start?   I would think that names of neighborhood streets and nearby parks would be appropriate.  Maybe even nearby city names.  Any suggestions?

The Concepts of Data and Information

This week, while preparing for a class in information systems, I discovered an integration of the concepts "data" and "information" in terms of Ayn Rand's Epistemological framework as defined in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.  As a check on my thinking, I am posting my thoughts here for feedback.

I begin with Rand's definition of a concept:

A concept is a mental integration of two or more units possessing the same distinguishing characteristic(s), with their particular measurements omitted. - ITOE

Using my own words, concepts represent an abstraction.  By omitting measurements except for essential characteristics, a concept economizes our thinking process by allowing us to think about a vast number of things at the same time, without having to mental refer to perceptual concretes. But when it comes to thinking about the world, it is necessary for the mind to selectively re-introduce measurements to concepts in order to build context around one's thoughts.  For example, if I were to say to myself "I want to buy a new chair for my living room," I have re-introduced the measurement of location (and perhaps function) to my thinking.  Any additional thoughts about this purchase would necessarily introduce more measurements.  Is the chair a recliner?  Do you want it to rock?  What color?  Do you want it overstuffed?  Leather or fabric?  Quality of construction?  Metal or wood legs? Etc.  With these measurements re-introduced, we are prepared to evaluate real chairs for the possibility of purchase.


But what are measurements, other than facts about reality.  In terms of data, data is nothing more than specific facts about some thing.  They are measurements.  They are measurements of real world entity.  As Rand defines it:

Measurement is the identification of ... a quantitative relationship established by means of a standard that serves as a unit. - ITOE p. 7

Data are the result.  Data are the quantitative relationships recorded about a specific entity.

My next question delved into was how information relates to these concepts.  Unfortunately, I could find no definition of information in a dictionary that adequately captured the essential characteristics of this concept.  The definition I offer serves as a working definition.  With that disclaimer, I define information as a set of measurements that denote a perceptual concrete of a concept or set of concepts within a specific context.  If I say "Please provide me with all relevant information," I am requesting data about a specific context.  Not just any data though.  Information is data with meaning.  How do we establish meaning?  Meaning comes from concepts.  So in essence, information represents data re-introduced to relevant concepts within a specific context.  A short hand notation I used to help think about this was information = data + concepts.  The assumption is that the concepts define the context.  Since language serves as a set of symbols to denote concepts, a variation of the above notation could be written information = data + language.  Again, the assumption is that the language defines the context.

In computer terminology, programming languages are used to manipulate data in logically constructed ways in order to add meaning to numbers.  I believe the term programming language is very apt, in that the language is used to define the context in terms of a computer program.  This led to my last integration where information = data + computer program. With this integration, I believe it is possible to better understand the role of information systems and computer programs in helping us think and act.  While computers cannot replace our thoughts, they can add meaning to the vast abundance of data.  But the meaning is limited to the context established by program itself. 

So those are my thoughts.  I believe my overall approach to these concepts is sound, but I'm interesting in hearing your thoughts.