Tag: Anthropology

Anthropology is the scientific study of humanity, concerned with human behavior, human biology, cultures, societies, and linguistics, in both the present and past, including past human species. Social anthropology studies patterns of behavior, while cultural anthropology studies cultural meaning, including norms and values. A portmanteau term sociocultural anthropology is commonly used today. Linguistic anthropology studies how language influences social life. Biological or physical anthropology studies the biological development of humans.

Talking To Strangers

My folks have an everyday expression that goes ‘assumptions make an ass out of you and me‘. I’d get to hear it when I made a spur of the moment decision. Malcolm Gladwell compounded powerful stories in Talking To Strangers to outline the communication dynamic behind assumptions, our preconceived notions, and he explains why we sometimes misunderstand one another.

Talking To Strangers begins and ends with the events surrounding the case of Sandra Bland. She was pulled over for a minor traffic violation. Both, State Trooper Brian Encinia and Sandra Bland misunderstood, misread, and misinterpreted each other, which led to Bland’s arrest and subsequent passing while in jail. Her story illustrates the complexity of human interaction and our personal responsibilities and burdens that often elude even our closest confidants. At the core of this book, Gladwell states our default understanding about a strangers intentions, emotions, and honesty is fundamentally flawed. This isn’t so much an individual shortcoming, but a systemic issue that traces back to psychological bias and perverted societal incentives.

Another example is about Ana Montes, a former senior analyst at the Defense Intelligence Agency, who was convicted for espionage after deceiving her superiors for 17 years. Montes leaned into confirmation bias of her superiors, who did not want to view her as a potential traitor. Her behavior was understood as normal for a person in her position, which led to overlooking bright, red flags visible to outsiders and those critical of her actions.

Bland and the State Trooper Encinia were strangers. Montes and her superiors were close confidants. Both examples illustrate our default to truth mindset often leads to catastrophic misunderstandings. Bernie Madoff, Elizabeth Holmes or Sam Bankman-Fried are only a few names on a long list of people who used our default trust to one up society.

So, what does it mean for our communication and engagement with people? Gladwell remains undecided about a clear position whether to trust or not trust by default. Instead he advocates for a calibrated approach towards trust. Believing someone is a necessity of society, but being aware of blind spots in our biases and systems around communication is crucial too. Especially high pressure or unusual decisions should receive more critical review, empathy and patience. For example, when a gas station clerk informs you about a traffic accident with the intent to save you time, the harm of following his advice is insignificant compared to your children making a case for their share of inheritance. The latter clearly requires more thought, awareness of biases, and potentially detaching yourself from emotions before reaching a decision.

Malcolm Gladwell has a wonderful writing style. He writes in simple terms, illustrates complex theories with visual storylines, and wraps it with a current event ribbon and the scent of society’s latest pulse. This simplicity sometimes results in moral and conceptual ambiguity leaving the reader unclear about the specifics of a concept or theory but also Gladwell’s personal position on an issue.

Nevertheless, I tend to enjoy his works. I enjoy learning about different psychological and human concepts without expanding an inordinate amount of brain energy. Plus, his critical review of current and historic events invites any interested reader to explore beyond the confines of Talking To Strangers.

Embrace The Joy Of Being Wrong

Questioning our beliefs and value systems is hard, but regularly revisiting, reimagining, and reconsidering our established patterns, protocols, and perspectives may help us understand why we do what we do and why it is so important to us that we do it. To think again means to retain an open mind and invite opportunities to grow. 


Think Again surprised me with an incredibly clean writing style. With it, Adam Grant truly demonstrates rethinking in practice and how it makes the reading experience so much more captivating. Think Again is partitioned into individual, interpersonal, and collective rethinking. Among the many intriguing ideas in this book, his ideas around “modes” stand out. In essence, the author believes, we are all subject to four modes that govern or at least influence our actions. We are either preachers, politicians, prosecutors, or scientists. Sometimes we will find ourselves channeling a combination of different modes for no good reason other than to make a point. In the view of the author, however, we have an opportunity to grow if we keep the preacher, politician, and prosecutor in us at bay and leverage our inner scientists to test hypotheses, seek evidence, and revise our convictions. 

On its face, Think Again states the obvious. But I can’t remember a recent book that had a greater impact on my own modus operandi. As I write these lines, I can’t help but think about my protocol or approach to book reviews, social media, and blogging. How do I read books? What are my lessons? And am I carrying each lesson forward? What happens to my notes? Is this blog an excuse for taking fewer notes? Or engage in less reflection of the content? Grant acknowledges a state of paralysis or feelings of discomfort may be a side-effect of rethinking and unlearning. These feelings can quickly become unsettling and depressing. While he advocates for a metrics-based method to mitigate paralysis, basically measuring everything like a scientist would and comparing the before and after, we are not scientists in our daily, real lives – at least most of us. Moreover, we are fallible humans. Therefore his advice to simply break down processes, measure their components, and embrace the uncertainty that arises from rethinking isn’t convincing enough because it places us at the hands of discipline, for those of us who can summon it, or the subject of our whims, for those who can’t. 

This book will find a permanent home on my desk within reach. Even if it only serves as a reminder that our established protocols and patterns sometimes need adjustment or justification.

Why We Mourn For Strangers

The death of Matthew Perry made me reflect on my emotional response to a stranger’s passing. I found intriguing research that explores the psychological concept of parasocial relationships and cybermourning to help me understand why I experience a sensation of loss when an entertainer’s final curtain is lowered. 

tl;dr
Using thematic analysis, the researcher studied 1,299 condolences posted on the obituary website Legacy.com to come up with themes that opened the window to cybermourning and parasocial relationships on the night worldly-famous comedian and actor Robin Williams hanged himself, August, 11, 2014. In addition to the themes that emerged, loss, appreciation and celebration, the study revealed that a majority of cybermourners had developed a deep parasocial relationship with Williams and viewed him as more than a comedian. They saw him as a close friend or relative who had died. The deeply emotional posts outnumbered two to one the posts from cybermourners whose condolences were respectful, short and generic. Fans also shared intimate life struggles associated with drug and alcohol abuse and mental illness with their virtual “close” friend Williams who was also struggling with the same demons. This paper discusses cybermourning, parasocial relationships and the pros and cons of such online relationships.

Make sure to read the full paper titled More than a Comedian: Exploring Cybermourning and Parasocial Relationships the Night Hollywood Star Robin Williams Died by Kim Smith at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3078704


On October 28, 2023 news broke about the passing of television actor and “Friends” star Matthew Perry. The Hollywood Reporter described his passing feels like “when a Beatle dies”. Perry struggled with alcoholism his entire career and he was outspoken about mental health. I can’t remember when I first watched the show Friends. When I watched it, I never reached a level of binge-watching episode after episode. Yet the writers delivered a storyline so universally applicable that we, as the audience, really bought into a group of friends just trying to grow up and find their place in this ever-expanding world. It was my story. It was your story. It was our story. 

Perry’s passing reminded me of the deaths of other celebrities: Steve Jobs, Anthony Bourdain, Chester Bennington, Sean Connery, Paul Walker, Carrie Fisher, Kirstie Alley, Betty White, and many more. But perhaps most notable among them is Robin Williams. The paper starts by explaining the concept of cybermourning as a process to take grief to social media and immortalize it in cyberspace. Facebook will become a place where more deceased than alive profiles make up their account statistics. Websites like legacy.com offer a last farewell that can be revisited at all times. It is a collective experience as others are allowed to share their condolences. The concept of our human response to death itself is complex. Mankind has always mourned the passing of one of us. Mourning can be described as an elevated emotional grief induced by the outside event of the passing of a loved one. It does help to reunite those left behind, but it also serves as a healing period. On the other hand, parasocial relationships are a concept almost entirely tied to the onset of audiovisual communication technology, e.g. cinema, television, and streaming. It describes the identification of the viewer with the portrayed character. People seek out similarities, similar behaviors, and other personality traits. In extreme cases, people want to be that person (even when they know it is a fictional character that only exists in a Hollywood storyline). The internet and relentless news coverage impact the intensity of a parasocial relationship. 

Against this backdrop, the author designed two research questions to study the public’s emotional response when actor Robin Williams died. 

  1. What themes explain how cybermourners mourned the night Williams died?
  2. What happened to cybermourners who developed parasocial relationships with Williams?

The research reviewed 1,299 responses posted to the obituary page of Robin Williams on legacy.com. His page continues to receive postings to this day. They identified three themes among the posts: loss, appreciation, and celebration. Most strikingly, they found people had developed a near-intimate relationship with Robin Williams because of the shared emotional struggles, alcoholism, and humor that get us through the day. The internet’s permanent access and appearance of a “personal space” that lives on our computers or in our phones lowered inhibitions to share fears, secret desires, and vulnerable emotions associated with the career of Robin Williams.  

Early psychological research suggested these types of parasocial relationships are linked to fears, isolation, and diminished social experiences. More recent research, however, found that parasocial relationships, and their natural end, may invoke cathartic effects that help people to develop a better understanding of themselves and the world around them. Cybermourning can provide a therapeutic relief that is shared by thousands or millions of others online. Therefore it can neutralize the experience of grief and sadness that commonly occur with learning about someone’s death. Lastly, it can raise awareness of the universal human struggle that we all experience – from addiction to mental health. 

Matthew Perry playing Chandler on Friends helped millions of non-English speakers to learn English. The show introduced everyday cultural norms, although exaggerated, to an audience unfamiliar with American customs and traditions. This helped shape the social fabric of the United States. Anyone lucky to watch Friends during their late teenage years may look back fondly on the curiosity that surrounded social experiences, your first relationship, your first disagreement, your first job loss, your first financial struggle, and all these other experiences that we all universally endure and overcome. 

Perhaps learning about Chandler’s passing made me reflect on my mortality and how fleeting this experience that we call life really is (loss). It is a stark reminder of the importance of healthy relationships, compassion, and compromise (appreciation) – but really that these things are worth working for because they are so rare and the cast of Friends made us whole showing us that (celebration).   

About Black-Box Medicine

Healthcare in the United States is a complex and controversial subject. Approximately 30 million Americans are uninsured and at risk of financial ruin if they become ill or injured. Advanced science and technology could ease some of the challenges around access, diagnosis, and treatment if legal and policy frameworks allow innovation to balance patient protection and medical innovation.  

tl;dr
Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly moving to change the healthcare system. Driven by the juxtaposition of big data and powerful machine learning techniques, innovators have begun to develop tools to improve the process of clinical care, to advance medical research, and to improve efficiency. These tools rely on algorithms, programs created from health-care data that can make predictions or recommendations. However, the algorithms themselves are often too complex for their reasoning to be understood or even stated explicitly. Such algorithms may be best described as “black-box.” This article briefly describes the concept of AI in medicine, including several possible applications, then considers its legal implications in four areas of law: regulation, tort, intellectual property, and privacy.

Make sure to read the full article titled Artificial Intelligence in Health Care: Applications and Legal Issues by William Nicholson Price II, JD/PhD at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3078704


When you describe your well-being to ChatGPT it takes about 10 seconds for the machine to present a list of possible conditions you could suffer from, common causes, and treatment. It offers unprecedented access to medical knowledge. When you ask how ChatGPT concluded your assessment, the machine is less responsive. In fact, the algorithms that power ChatGPT and other AI assistants derive their knowledge from a complex neural network of billions of data points. Information – some publicly available, others licensed and specifically trained into the model’s predictive capabilities – that is rarely analyzed for accuracy and applicability to the individual circumstances of each user at the time of their request. OpenAI, the current market leader for this type of technology, is using reinforced learning from human feedback and proximal policy optimization to achieve a level of accuracy that has the potential to upend modern medicine by making healthcare assessments available to those who cannot afford it. 

Interestingly, the assessment is something of a black box for both medical professionals and patients. Transparency efforts and insights into the algorithmic structure of machine learning models that power these chat interfaces still seem to be insufficient to explain reason and understanding about how the specific recommendation came to be and whether the prediction is tailored to the users’ medical needs or derived from statistical predictions. The author paints a vivid picture by breaking down the current state of medicine/healthcare and artificial intelligence and characterizing it with the “three V’s”: 

  1. Volume: large quantities of data – both public and personal, identifiable (health) information that is used to train ever-voracious large language models. Never before in history has mankind collected more health-related data through personal fitness trackers, doctor appointments, and treatment plans than it does today.  
  2. Variety: heterogeneity of data and access beyond identity, borders, languages, or culture references. Our health data comes from a wealth of different sources. While wearables track our specific wellbeing; location and travel data may indicate our actual wellbeing. 
  3. Velocity: fast access to data – in some instances with seconds to process medical data that otherwise would have taken weeks to process. Arguably, we have come a long way since WebMD broke down the velocity barrier. 

The “three V’s” allow for quick results, but usually lack the why and how a conclusion has been reached. The author coined this as “Black-Box Medicine”. While this creates some uncertainty, it also creates many opportunities for ancillary medical functions, e.g. prognostics, diagnostics, image analysis, and treatment recommendations. Furthermore, it creates interesting legal questions: how does society ensure black-box medicine is safe and effective and how can it protect patients and patient privacy throughout the process? 

Alomst immediately the question of oversight comes to mind. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not regulate “the practice of medicine” but could be tasked to oversee the deployment of medical devices. Is an algorithm that is trained with patient and healthcare data a medical device? Perhaps the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services or local State Medical Boards can claim oversight, but the author argues disputes will certainly arise over this point. Assuming the FDA would oversee algorithms and subject them to traditional methods of testing medical devices, it would likely subject algorithms to clinical trials that couldn’t produce scientific results because an artificial intelligence, by virtue of its existence, changes over time and adapts to new patient circumstances. Hence the author sees innovation at risk of slowing down if the healthcare industry is not quick to adopt “sandbox environments” that allow safe testing of the technology without compromising progress. 

Another interesting question is who is responsible when things go wrong? Medical malpractice commonly traces back to the doctor/medical professional in charge of the treatment. If medical assessment is reduced to a user and a keyboard will the software engineer who manages the codebase be held liable for ill-conceived advice? Perhaps the company that employs the engineer(s)? Or the owner of the model and training data? If a doctor is leveraging artificial intelligence for image analysis – does it impose a stricter duty of care on the doctor? The author doesn’t provide a conclusive answer and courts yet have to decide case law of this emerging topic in healthcare. 

While this article was first published in 2017, I find it to be accurate and relevant today as it raises intriguing questions about governance, liability, privacy, and intellectual property rights concerning healthcare in the context of artificial intelligence and medical devices in particular. The author leaves it to the reader to answer the question: “Does entity-centered privacy regulation make sense in a world where giant data agglomerations are necessary and useful?”   

Can Elon Musk Turn “X” Into Humanity’s Collective Consciousness? 

What is the end goal of “X” formerly known as Twitter? A recent article about a cryptic tweet by Elon Musk tries to make a case for a platform that centralizes mankind’s shared cultural beliefs and values, and, the authors argue that it will not be “X”. 

tl;dr
On August 18th, 2023, a thought-provoking tweet by the visionary entrepreneur, Elon Musk – owner of “X” (formerly known as Twitter), set the stage for public contemplation and attention. That tweet forms the basis of this article which examines the captivating ideas that have sprung from that fateful Friday tweet.

Make sure to read the full article titled Does X Truly Represent Humanity’s Collective Consciousness? by Obinnaya Agbo, Dara Ita, and Temitope Akinsanmi at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4558476

Overview

The authors focus the article on a post by Elon Musk that reads: “𝕏 as humanity’s collective consciousness”. They start defining the term humanity’s collective consciousness with a historical review of the works of French sociologist Emile Durkheim and Swiss psychiatrist and psychoanalyst Carl Jung. Those works responded to industrialization, which influenced contemporary viewpoints and connected collective consciousness to labor. The authors define it as “shared beliefs, values, attitudes, ideas, and knowledge that exist within a particular group or society. It is the sum of an individual’s thoughts, emotions, and experiences of people within a group, which combine to create a common understanding of the world, social norms, and cultural identity. It is also the idea that individuals within a society are not only influenced by their own thoughts and experiences but also by broader cultural and societal trends.” The authors continue to review a possible motive for Elon Musk. They refer to the name change earlier this year from Twitter to “X, the everything app”. Elon Musk defended the decision by providing the scope planned for “X”. He stated Twitter was a means for bidirectional communication in 140 characters or less – and nothing more. “X” on the other hand allows different types of content, at varying levels of length, and it plans to allow users “to conduct your entire financial world” on “X”, implying similar features as WeChat. The authors interpret Elon Musk’s statements as “X” becoming a mirror for the world’s thoughts, believes and values at any given point in time. The authors continue to review comments and reactions from users concluding humanity’s collective consciousness must be free from censorship and oppression. Moreover, it requires digitization of human content, which in and of itself is a challenge considering the influence of artificial intelligence over human beliefs and values. This leads the authors to explore spiritual and religious motives asking “Does Elon Musk intend X to play the role of God”? They then ask the true question “Can X achieve to truly influence cultural norms and traditions” but conclude it to be a mere means to an end of humanity’s collective consciousness.       

Evaluation

At first glance, this article is missing a crucial comparison to other platforms. The elephant in the room is, of course, Facebook with more than 3 billion monthly active users. WhatsApp is believed to be used by more than 2.7 billion monthly active users. And Instagram is home to approximately 1.35 billion users. This makes their owner and operator, Meta Platforms, the host for more than 7 billion users (assuming the unlikely scenario that each platform has unique users). “X” by contrast is host to around 500 million monthly active users. Any exploration that concerns a social network or platform could become or aims to be humanity’s collective consciousness must draw a comparison.

The authors do conduct a historical comparison between “X’s” role in shaping social movements, revolutions, and cultural shifts and the Enlightenment Era and the Civil Rights Movement. They correctly identify modern communication as being more fluid and impacted by dynamic technologies allowing users to form collective identities based on shared interests, beliefs, or experiences. Arguably, the Enlightenment era and the Civil Rights Movement were driven by a few, select groups. In contrast, modern movements experience crossover identities supporting movements across the globe and independent of cultural identity as demonstrated in the Arab Spring of 2011, the Gezi Park Protests of 2013, or Black Lives Matter. It can be interpreted that humanity’s collective consciousness is indeed influenced by social networks, but the critical miss, again, is the direct connection to “X”. Twitter did assume an influential role during the aforementioned movements. But would they have played out the way they did – soley on Twitter – without Facebook, WhatsApp, and other social networks?  

The authors make a point about “X’s” real-time relevance arguing information spreads on “X” like wildfire often breaking news stories before traditional media outlets. However, the changes to the “X” recommendation algorithm, the introduction of paid premium subscriptions, and some controversial reinstatements of accounts that were found to spread misinformation and hate speech have made “X” bleed critical users, specifically journalists, reporters, and media enthusiasts. 

Lastly, the authors conclude that “X” has evolved from a microblogging platform to an everything app. They state it has become a central place for humanity’s collective consciousness. Nothing could be further from the truth. To date, “X” has yet to introduce products and features to manage finances, search the internet, plan and book travel or simply maintain uptime and mitigate bugs. Users can’t buy products on “X” nor manage their health, public service, and utilities. WeChat offers these products and features and it doesn’t make a claim to be humanity’s collective consciousness.

Outlook

A far more interesting question around social networks and collective consciousness is the impact of generative artificial intelligence on humanity. While the authors of this article believed a (single) social network could become humanity’s collective consciousness, it is more likely that the compounding effect of information created and curated by algorithms is already becoming if not overriding humanity’s collective consciousness. Will it reach a point, at which machine intelligence will become self-aware, independent of its human creators, and actively influence humanity’s collective consciousness to achieve (technological) singularity?