Walt Disney Studios in Paris opened last year a new section called “Toy Story Playland”, which will also be launched soon in Disneyland Hong Kong. The area features a series of rides designed for children and based on the characters of the Toy Story franchise: RC Racer, Slinky Dog ZigZag Spin and Toy Soldiers Parachute Drop. Why choosing Toy Story for a new section of a theme park instead of the many other Disney franchises? There are many good reasons to pick it up, such as its popularity and the obvious merchandising opportunities of its toys. I would like to speculate here one more reason that might have led to that choice. Disney did consciously or not a very subtle cultural exercise in promoting cars, consumerism and the American army, in a politically correct way of course.

Promoting cars is not new for Disney theme parks; they did it openly and multiple times in rides such as Test track (Epcot) or the coming Cars Land (Disney California Adventure). It was thus not surprising to see the RC Racer ride in the Toy Story Playland. I can only regret this American obsession with cars and the disastrous environmental consequences it will have on our future. Disney is visibly committed to glorify this mode of transportation to children all over the world, at least as long as it pays off with sponsors. Parents seem neither to realize nor to object to that vision.

Promoting consumerism has always been an implicit and powerful message in all Disney theme parks. Toy Story Playland is about toys, and children encounter consumerism for the first time with toys. It is coherent for Disney to encourage consumption of its products by emphasizing the pleasure that kids get from their toys. It is a logical and predictable consequence of the commercial nature of the Disney corporation.

The novelty comes from the Toy Soldiers Parachute Drop. As far as I know, Disney theme parks never tried before to glorify the image of the American army. The subject is too difficult, associated with war and violence. It could not be addressed directly. Toy Story is a very clever idea in that respect because it adds layers of abstraction. The film is not showing the army, but a toy about war and the army. The Toy Soldiers Parachute Drop ride is not about the army, but is a ride about a film about a toy that is about war and the army. The three layers of abstraction make the connection with war barely noticeable and allow Disney to treat the subject without any problems. An entertaining representation of military forces is presented to children and parents. The ride is not meant to be taken seriously of course. People enjoy the association made with the green colours of military uniforms. The positive experience helps undoubtedly building a positive image of the (American) army for children and their parents.  Magnificent!

ECCS'10 was held in Lisbon, I saw this huge graffiti by the artists Os Gemeos one evening when I went back to my hotel, also about ethics...

Let me conclude my series of posts on the ECCS 2010 with few notes on power and ethics. You will be convinced by reading my previous posts that complex systems theory has many applications. The discipline is relatively new and we are only at the beginning of discovering the impact it will have on our daily life. As for any science, it can lead either to a better world or a nightmarish society, depending on how we use it. I could feel it throughout the week of the conference. Most scientists advocate the positive impacts of their research, but do see the possible misappropriations. Complex systems theory is central in the development of a more sustainable society, as illustrated in innovations such as smart grids and intelligent transport infrastructure, which happen to be decentralized systems. Complex systems theory provide us with a better understanding of our cultures and the way we operate together, which could help us address societal challenges. It could help us better classify knowledge, plan our cities, simplify our laws, reach altogether informed decisions and preserve cultural diversity. But it could also lead to control over public’s opinion, to a wider social gap between influencers and their followers, to a resilience of monopolistic systems, and to partitioned societies. The choice is ultimately to citizens, and it worries me to see that the vast majority doesn’t care much about recent advances in complex systems theory, as in any science, too busy to cope with what has been already decided for them long time ago in other fields. What is necessary to make that change? In the meantime, it seems to me that scientists are left on their own, their only interlocutors being large corporations and short-sighted politics (who cannot carry any public will on the subject because the public doesn’t care). Scientists improvise the best they can social and philosophical criticism of their own research, but it would much more beneficial to have other disciplines involved.

After the inspiring presentation  by Jeffrey Johnson, “Policy and Design of Complex Systems”, I wondered if a form of ethics in social systems analysis might prescribe the modelling of every person involved , including the creators of the model and their commissioners. Self-interest and personal motivations could then become much more apparent than in current researches.

“There is a power struggle for ‘the Truth’ [...] Scientists must model themselves and the politicians, both are inside the system being studied. Modelling the system can change the system!”

http://vimeo.com/15899828

This is what Alexy Khrabrov and George Cybenko attempted to answer at the ECCS 2010 conference in Lisbon. Here is an introduction that I have slightly edited to make it more accessible.

“Mind Economy: Modeling Influence in Communication Networks with Social Capital.”

by Alexy Khrabrov and George Cybenko

Social scientists, businesses, and governments are interested in summarizing the ongoing social network activity to identify the most influential players capable of creating and maintaining high-impact group behaviours. We would like to have metrics of influence in dynamic systems, and generative models which can explain how this influence is accumulated and maintained. Having identified the “stars” or high-influence individuals, we look at the ways they achieve and maintain their influence, comparing their tweeting behaviour to social capital exchange in proportion to the fans ‘contributions. We propose a family of generative models where social capital is exchanged and generated during interactions, reflecting the players‘utilities – such as self-centred or maximizing group benefit. Using our social capital model, we let a system evolve to accumulate most of the capital in those nodes which can be considered influential. We compare those capital-rich nodes with other metrics of influence and show that our model confirms and explains influence of many important types of players, and reveals the behaviours leading to sustained influence. We model recently uncovered Twitter phenomena such as Justin Bieber‘s ecosystem and other high-intensity processes, showing how efficient star behaviour and group preferences lead to various mind economies in social networks.

http://cs.wellesley.edu/~cs315/Papers/khrabrov-twitter-dynamics.pdf

So, even the seemingly chaotic activities of a teenager can be modelled using economic models in which influence and social capital is the currency. Trends on social networks such as twitter and facebook still seem rather unpredictable. But the interests at play in a mind economy are too big to let it go that way. Complex systems theory will undoubtedly be used in an attempt to better target influencers, and shift our attention to a particular subject. The same theory might on the other hand help us making sure that social networks maintain a certain level of social fairness in the mind economy, and diversity in mindshare.

Simulating opinion dynamics in heterogeneous communication systems

By Walter Quattrociocchi, Rosaria Conte, and Elena Lodi

In this video, Rosaria Conte describes opinion dynamics by means of multi-agent based simulations. Agents (i.e. people) are exposed to different sources of information varying both the contents and the perceived reliability of the messages spread. Agents’ internal opinion is updated either by accessing one of the information sources, namely media and experts, or by exchanging information with one another. They are also endowed with cognitive mechanisms to accept, reject or partially consider the acquired information. The study evaluates the impact that reliable sources and peer-to-peer communication can have on the quality of information.

Simulating Opinion Dynamics in Heterogeneous Communication Systems from Assystcomplexity on Vimeo.

At the third minute of the video, Rosaria Conte starts attacking the Italian media manipulated by Berlusconi. Behind the rather tedious title, this presentation is a fantastic example of political engagement through science, which doesn’t undermine at all the scientific value of the research.

Opinion dynamics

By Anthony Woolcock

Many societies exhibit cultural fragmentation. This is despite individuals trying to reach agreement with those they meet. In the model of Axelrod, individuals that are more similar are more likely to interact (homophily). The mechanism where people become more similar after interaction is termed social influence. Axelrod’s model is interesting because for different parameter choices the opinions of all the individuals will either become all the same (consensus), or frozen fragmented state. A phase transition is observed between these two types of frozen state.

Complex systems theory: opinion dynamics

Bounded confidence model: addressed information maintain diversity of opinion

By Krzysztof Malarz and Krzysztof Kulakowski

Models have already been developed to optimize the frequency of let’s say political advertising on tv in order to get the maximum effect on a public’s opinion (see the Zaller mass opinion model). But they didn’t take into account interpersonal communication, which becomes more and more decisive with the advance of online social media. Krzysztof Malarz and Krzysztof Kulakowski developed a model taking this into account. Their model suggests that individually addressed messages maintain diversity of opinion. See the full paper here.

Model for diversity of opinion

Mozart: a talent detected in his early childhood

I attended few weeks ago a seminar organised by the Philosophy and Management association in Brussels. It was all about talent, and how the way artists work and manage their career can be a source of inspiration for talent management within business organisations. Pierre-Michel Menger, French philosopher and research director for the CNRS, presented some of his researches in the sociology of work and art. The expertise of Pierre-Michel Menger in both fields led him to very interesting observations.

He first discerned two types of work:

• the ‘labour’: an effort, constraint with a predictable outcome
• the work as a discovery of yourself, the masterpiece of your life. Success in this type of work is more a derivative, not a predefined goal. It is unpredictable.

The later work is influenced by philosophies from the 19th century emphasising the infinite depth of consciousness and the infinite possibilities opened to us. Because of it’s unpredictability, it is a type of work that involves a lot of risks. The prestige and satisfaction you get from the realisation of a masterpiece is immense, but the risk to fail is in equal proportions. Artists are facing this risk in a hyper competitive environment. Differences in revenues between artists is huge, the small number of successful artists take most of the resources, leaving a small portion of revenues to the vast majority. If you look at just the financial situation of an artist, choosing such a career might look like a bad evaluation of the risks. But it doesn’t take into account the non-monetary value of a potential huge gratification, a relative autonomy and the diversity of the tasks involved in the job.

What influences the likelihood to become a successful artist (at least in the narrow sense of social recognition and monetary compensation) is not clear. There is something about artists that cannot be measured, cannot be put in an equation. It is not enough to make studies, work hard and accumulate experiences. You need to have ‘talent’. The same applies to business. Sure, you can find people able to perform a task by looking at their past experiences and by using rational criteria. But how can you detect the collaborators who will go far beyond, surprise you and develop considerably within the company. How can you make sure to invest more in these people and less in the others? McKinsey invented a marketing term to describe the 10% of your employees who will bring the most to the company: ‘talents’. Talent management is controversial and relates to the many meanings of the word ‘talent’.  Pierre-Michel Menger proposes to define talents as people you cannot isolate using predefined criteria or reading their CV. It helps to stick to this definition and to not take into account all the other meanings and judgements that the word ‘talent’ implies. He argues that the only way to detect talents is to compare them between each others. This is why competitions and awards in the art world are so frequent. The jury don’t know themselves what they are looking for, and the outcome is unpredictable.  It is after comparing the contestants that they can see who has a little something more, a higher potential. This is also why I think you start to see more and more contests and game-like workshops in business (hack day for developers, unconferences, Dragon’s Den kind of internal events), to detect talents you could not screen using a formal HR equation.

I think that this approach raises many ethical dilemma.

• On one hand, I want people to judge me on rational criteria that I can understand and act on. It is a system that protects all of us against arbitrary decisions and favouritism. On the other hand, I also want to be judged for who I am and for my talents, independently of any predefined list of criteria.
• Whatever your boss says, it is reassuring to know that he doesn’t judge you but only your work and your performances. With the concept of ‘talent’, suddenly your boss wants to know what you do in your spare time and wants you to reveal yourself, so that he can detect the ‘talent’. It is a much more personal relation. It surely benefits some people, but not necessary everyone. The opposite leads to the same problem but the other way around. You might have a quality that you know could help your career, but an employer looking only at short term figures and performances might not realise it.
• Is it right to invest more in the 10% of ‘talents’ in your company instead of using that money to raise the general level of expertise of the team? To use an example from Pierre-Michel Menger, if a talented researcher wins an award for a paper he wrote, his reputation will get a boost which will convert probably to a higher salary. But the paper he wrote is most likely based on data that ‘average’ workers collected. Is is fair? On the other hand, if there is no incentive for researchers to excel and be noticed, people will stagnate and become demotivated.
• Even small differences between people of the same level in a specific field, like music composition, can generate disproportionate inequalities. If more is invested to a young ‘talent’ who is a little better than the other children of his class, he will quickly gain more experiences and have more chances to explore his talent. He will then have a reputation, which will encourage people who don’t have time or the knowledge in music composition to hire him instead of someone else, which will give him even more experience, and so on. The ‘talented’ person might truly be exceptional, but was it because of his initial tiny competitive advantage or because of the investment from the community? Does it make a difference? Maybe humans are like bees and need an arbitrary hierarchy for their society to work. (Simply accepting this image of the bees is way too sympathetic with established power though.)
• As it has been pointed during the workshop, talent belongs to the category of work that is unpredictable and can be asserted for sure only a posteriori. Is it legitimate to try detecting talents beforehand? This argument is interesting but theoretical.  Of course, people will always try to detect talents, it happens since the beginning of humanity. And even if it is an inexact science, it probably lead to better results for the community than not trying to support its future ‘talents’. Even if it is not always fair for people.

How to resolve the dilemma depends on your vision of society. If you believe that there is a real opportunity for people from all backgrounds to display their talents, then selecting talents by comparing people between each other on non measurable criteria is legitimate. If on the other hand, you perceive the world as being a constant exploitation of the masses by few people in power, every privilege not based on measurable merit is a potential discrimination. Both extremes are false, the world needs both talented artists and hard workers. I personally believe that the key to resolve the dilemma is to offer multiple ways to succeed, in many different ways, with the help of many different groups of people. Diversity lowers the probability of generating systematic discriminations and enables many understandings of what talent means.

If you are preparing an award or competition in your organisation, you need to understand why you the feel the need to do so. If it is at least partially to detect talents, I hope that the points above will help you design the process in accordance to your values and goals. Don’t simply replicate what has already been done, enable participants to show their talents from a difference angle, the winners might not be the ones you expected.

I collaborated with him to prepare the photographs and Polaroids, you can find the details here.

I hope it conveys the message and the exciting mission of the Philosophy and Management association.

• “Crowdsourcing is the act of taking a job traditionally performed by a designated agent (usually an employee) and outsourcing it to an undefined, generally large group of people in the form of an open call.”

Somehow dubious video from the creator of the name ‘crowdsourcing’

• “Corporate Social Responsibility is a form of corporate self-regulation integrated into a business model. Essentially, CSR is the deliberate inclusion of public interest into corporate decision-making, and the honouring of a triple bottom line: People, Planet, Profit.”

CSR could be the way for big corporations to find a soul again after the economical black hole of the last months, and the revelation of their poor records on ethics.

• Corporate social responsibility is vital for business survival
• The Oxymoron of ‘Business Ethics’ Proves Its Worth
• Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): Simply Good Business?

Crowdsourcing relies on the principle that good business happens when the customer is listened. In fact, so much listened that he takes an active part in the company’s activity.

• Travel company invites clients on planning trips
• Is Crowdsourcing a Fad or a Foundational Element?

My argument is that those two trends go in two opposite directions on ethics. CSR is based on the assumption that corporations play a leading role in ethics, that they are the motor of new ethical practices. A corporate has a social responsibility which might be linked or not to the priorities of its customers. It is the responsibility of the management to drive an ethical business, not of the customers.

On the other hand, crowdsourcing could be seen as the last step to empty corporations of their substance. A corporation should be focused on its customers, so much focused it could maybe not have any other goals, any vision than to satisfy the needs of the market. The ethics of a corporation would then strictly be the ethics of its customers, nothing more, nothing less.

How much are those two trends concealable? Who should be responsible for business ethics, the customers or the management?