Human Terrain & Anthropology (merged thread)

[M.L.]

Most of this theory-testing only produces R-squares of .20 or .30 at best, which means a large percentage of known factors remain unknown. That's what makes social science a soft science, I suppose. We aren't dealing with close tolerances or things with 999.99% certainty like chemistry.

Tom,

If memory serves, R-square values are a numeric expression of the probability that a given model will predict future behavior. Perhaps the problem is social scientists are trying to predict behavior. This seems somewhat difficult to accomplish in a social system where the agents have a choice, emotions, subjective rationalities, cultural forces, etc...

By way of contrast, in the "hard" sciences atoms (above the quantum level), molecules, etc... obey predictable laws. Thus, it would seem models which predict the behavior of agents (that themselves must follow predictable laws) would result in very high R-square values.

I don't mean to assert that there isn't a significant amount of stupidity in the social sciences (there is in every discipline). Rather, I would suggest less that reliable predictive models in social systems says more about the system in question and the approach to understanding it than it does about the scientists.

Often, the answer you get depends on the question you ask. Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions? I would argue the failings in social science are related to our attempt to study it as if it were a hard science; that is to say reductionist, analytical, linear thinking.

For example, if you are doing any type of research you must state your independent and dependent variables. However, social systems are not composed of independent and dependent variables, and applying such a construct is doomed to fail. The construct asks the wrong question, i.e. "What are the cause and effect relationships?" There are few cause and effect relationships in social systems because people have choices.

Social systems are composed of interdependent variables. Therefore, we cannot study one or two in isolation, but we must study the system as a whole to understand the interdependency of the variables and the emergent properties of the system.

Additionally, classical sciences attempts to remove context from the equation in order to isolate the cause and effect relationships between variables. However, context is everything in a social system. To study a social system without context is to invite failure. Results of context-free experimentation will not be useful in the "real world" because context exerts a heavy influence on behavior.

In short, social systems can't be studied like physical or chemical systems, yet this is what we are doing. As long as we continue to do so, we are unlikely to have much success.

[marct]

Hi M.L.,

Well, I'll let Tom handle the "hard" (hah! Stats is hard?!?!) side but, from what I remember, R-squared is a CYA fudge factor applied to an apparent (presumed?) [pseudo-]causal relationship. You know the type "X causes Y with .27% rsq validity; of course, Y causes X with .23% rsq validity" .

If memory serves, R-square values are a numeric expression of the probability that a given model will predict future behavior. Perhaps the problem is social scientists are trying to predict behavior. This seems somewhat difficult to accomplish in a social system where the agents have a choice, emotions, subjective rationalities, cultural forces, etc...

It this belief that in order to be a "science" something must be quantified using the simplest form of mathematics (statistics). Sure, we're trying to predict behaviour, but the people who rely on simplistic models a la Quettelet are committing an ID10T error: Markov chains, probability "sprays", Chaos and Catastrophe theory are better languages for some of what we study for exactly the reasons you list. Then again, most of us got into the social sciences to escape from math....

By way of contrast, in the "hard" sciences atoms (above the quantum level), molecules, etc... obey predictable laws. Thus, it would seem models which predict the behavior of agents (that themselves must follow predictable laws) would result in very high R-square values.

Well, yeah. Then again, almost everyone seems to forget that "prediction" is based on probability, and it can't account for a "new" event (Taleb's Black Swans). I've always suspected that this is one of the reasons why people who get heavily involved in the philosophy of science and, especially, cosmology get heavily into some very "odd" head spaces that are right outside of the common understanding of causation.

I don't mean to assert that there isn't a significant amount of stupidity in the social sciences (there is in every discipline). Rather, I would suggest less that reliable predictive models in social systems says more about the system in question and the approach to understanding it than it does about the scientists.

Often, the answer you get depends on the question you ask. Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions? I would argue the failings in social science are related to our attempt to study it as if it were a hard science; that is to say reductionist, analytical, linear thinking.

Totally agree with that ! It's one of the reasons I use both music and dance to try to grok what I study. That, BTW, is one of the lesser advertised / discussed components of Anthropology ("groking" I mean). There's little written about it, barring a chapter by Rhoda Metreaux from the '50's, and we only seem to talk about it after the third drink.

So, what happens if you don't "ask questions" but, rather, set your mind in "neutral" and just "perceive"? That's what a good fieldworker does (or should do) when confronted with something which they have no good predictive model for. When I was doing my grad work, we used to have a joke (well several...) about the differences between Anthropologists and Sociologist:

An Anthropologist and a Sociologist walk into a bar and see a good looking women at the bar. The Sociologist walks up to the bar next to one of the women, orders a beer and, looking out the side of his eye, carefully slides a paper in front of the woman which reads "Would you like to XXXX? Yes ___ No ___"; gets slapped and slinks off to watch the game on TV. The Anthropologist shakes his head, goes over to the other side of the woman, orders a Scotch and mumbles "Men!". Five minutes later, he and the woman leave the bar.

For example, if you are doing any type of research you must state your independent and dependent variables. However, social systems are not composed of independent and dependent variables, and applying such a construct is doomed to fail. The construct asks the wrong question, i.e. "What are the cause and effect relationships?" There are few cause and effect relationships in social systems because people have choices.

Social systems are composed of interdependent variables. Therefore, we cannot study one or two in isolation, but we must study the system as a whole to understand the interdependency of the variables and the emergent properties of the system.

Well, now here's an interesting question: why do you assume variables exist ? I would argue that patterns and forms exist in people's minds and exert a sense of "rightness" on individuals, but "variables"? That, I suspect, is highly debatable. Now, I could stop playing silly semantics, but I think that this is, really, an important semantic distinction. All too often, "variables" are proxy variables - my favorite one has always been church attendance as a proxy for religious belief: it fails, in Canada at least, because church attendance or, rather, the spike in the late 1980's - early '90's, was related to a general pattern expectation that it was good / safe for the children. It also fails in a whole slew of other areas as well....

So, I've always held that what we should be looking at is a) a pattern of behaviour and b) the "explanation" or "meaning structure" ascribed to that behaviour by those who perform it is a much better, and more useful, unit of analysis and theory construction.

In short, social systems can't be studied like physical or chemical systems, yet this is what we are doing. As long as we continue to do so, we are unlikely to have much success.

Totally agree.

Cheers,

Marc

[M.L.]

Well, now here's an interesting question: why do you assume variables exist ? I would argue that patterns and forms exist in people's minds and exert a sense of "rightness" on individuals, but "variables"? That, I suspect, is highly debatable. Now, I could stop playing silly semantics, but I think that this is, really, an important semantic distinction. All too often, "variables" are proxy variables - my favorite one has always been church attendance as a proxy for religious belief: it fails, in Canada at least, because church attendance or, rather, the spike in the late 1980's - early '90's, was related to a general pattern expectation that it was good / safe for the children. It also fails in a whole slew of other areas as well....

You make a great point. This goes back to asking the right questions, the relationship of context to behavior, and the complex mental models inside thinking, feeling humans within a socioculutral system.

I'm reminded of the "Pepsi Challenge" in which (in classical scientific reductionist analytical style) subjects were given a blind taste test of Coke and Pepsi. The majority of subjects preferred the taste of Pepsi.

Of course, Coke continued to dominate the market. Execs at Pepsi puzzled over how they could be losing market share if their product tasted better. The answer, of course, is that in real life people don't drink soda without labels; in real life people drink from a bottle with Coke or Pepsi displayed prominently.

Subsequent studies discovered that when the subjects were given taste tests with product labels, i.e. they knew whether they were drinking Coke or Pepsi, they preferred Coke, not Pepsi. Furthermore (and this is the really fun part), researchers monitored the brain activity of these tests, and found that Coke actually produced increased activity in the pleasure centers of the brain when subjects could see the label, whereas Pepsi produced more when the labels were concealed.

People didn't just irrationally believe Coke tasted better. Seeing the label actually changed the activity level of the brain. To them, Coke really did taste better.

This has got to be incredibly frustrating to a scientist. However, if you accept that context, emotion, and subjective perceptions are all part of the sociocultural fabric, it may not allow you to predict behavior, but it will at least lead you to accept that there are vast unknowns out there, and that any attempt to understand or influence a sociocultural system should proceed from that basic premise.

[120mm]

People didn't just irrationally believe Coke tasted better. Seeing the label actually changed the activity level of the brain. To them, Coke really did taste better.

This has got to be incredibly frustrating to a scientist. However, if you accept that context, emotion, and subjective perceptions are all part of the sociocultural fabric, it may not allow you to predict behavior, but it will at least lead you to accept that there are vast unknowns out there, and that any attempt to understand or influence a sociocultural system should proceed from that basic premise.

This is brilliant, btw. However, I do not agree that these are "unknowns" or at least that they are "unknowable".

They are probably unknowable from a purely rational scientific POV, but they are certainly knowable or at least recognizable on a viscerally conscious level. The problem with traditional "science" is that it limits the range of intelligence one can apply to a problem.

Liking something better because you can see the label certainly makes sense on a gut level. Just like hamburgers taste better when eaten right side up. (at least to me...)

[M.L.]

This is brilliant, btw. However, I do not agree that these are "unknowns" or at least that they are "unknowable".

They are probably unknowable from a purely rational scientific POV, but they are certainly knowable or at least recognizable on a viscerally conscious level. The problem with traditional "science" is that it limits the range of intelligence one can apply to a problem.

Liking something better because you can see the label certainly makes sense on a gut level. Just like hamburgers taste better when eaten right side up. (at least to me...)

I agree, however, gut instincts seems to be a world apart from scientific method. Perhaps social science requires a melding of the two; a place for exploring what makes sense intuitively.

Perhaps "unknowns" is a poor choice of wording. "Complex variables" might be better; complex in that the value of the variable can change with changing contexts. In other words, the value of "most preferred soda" is not an absolute value, but changes as context changes.

[marct]

Hi ML.

BTW, I agree with 120mm - really nice example .

I agree, however, gut instincts seems to be a world apart from scientific method. Perhaps social science requires a melding of the two; a place for exploring what makes sense intuitively.

Umm, yeah, we used to call that pace "Anthropology" . Unfortunately, the discipline got hijacked in the 1980's, and the flip side of using intuition as a tool of scientific enquiry - "Know thyself" - got dumped from most curricula and the more important informal training.

Perhaps "unknowns" is a poor choice of wording. "Complex variables" might be better; complex in that the value of the variable can change with changing contexts. In other words, the value of "most preferred soda" is not an absolute value, but changes as context changes.

Well, names do have power (Coke? Pepsi?), and the art to naming something is to try and capture a perceived essence and have it associated with the name. "Complex variables" is better than "unknowns" in some ways, but it still implies some form of absolute value from the implication of causality and, as you noted, context changes "absolutes", which means that a) they aren't absolutes and b) the implied causal model is operating at the wrong level (i.e. it's trash at prediction).

I've been spending a fair bit of time over the past 15-20 years looking at how thinking in terms of patterns, rather than causal lines or networks, may prove to be a more fruitful approach: "life as improvisational jazz" rather than "the Billiard Ball universe" as it were. That doesn't mean that there aren't grammars or deep structures operating with a bounding effect on social action, it just means that linear logic can only be applied to a limited part of social action.

Cheers,

Marc

[Steve the Planner]

ML:

I'm somewhat confused about this hypothetical discussion on "soft sciences."

As an undergrad geographer/econ, I built urban parking rate studies as a proxy for demand variables, then spent time with CSX on route mapping, rights of way and box car movements.

In grad school (planning and policy), I was tracking coal supply/demand factors for budget/policy implications to major project investments, and identifying regional economic patterns and drivers.

So what was my career path? Running a parking management company through grad school. Afterwards, running a large business park development/construction company.

The majority of my fellow "soft" scientists followed the same path---site location, resource planning/analysis, transportation/shipping, weather forecasting, GIS, intel, consulting...

As a senior civilian adviser in Iraq, I worked on the same stuff I work on in civilian world, but more oriented to rebuilding the systems. We were in the field every other day---driving from Tikrit to Baghdad, or up to Bayji to inspect projects, looking at oil/fuel movements. After six months, I probably traveled to more different places across Iraq (civilian and military) than any military folks for the simple reason that their uniforms kept them out of many places/activities/conferences where a green suit was inappropriate.

I spent the next six months as an expert assigned from DoS to the UN, looking at all the disputed boundaries and working closely with the international expert teams, and a large network of civ/mil contacts, on borders, populations, trade patterns, pipelines, etc...

Personally, I believe the DoS PRT effort was really poorly structured and managed, but, within it, and especially through the EPRTs (linked to Battalions), there were some really bright, capable, committed and daily engaged civilians who carved out deep knowledge and contacts with locals---based on efforts to actually do things with them (drainage canals, seed, businesses, cultural programs).

There was never a time that I could learn anything useful about any civilian matter in any part of Iraq where a DoS EPRT person (or military assignees), did not know evereything relevant about it, including the challenges and pitfalls. Whether DoS or DoD these folks were experienced civilians (even if in a green suit for that tour) on the ground helping other experienced civilians in real life conditions.

What useful information could I have gained from an HTS academic passing through? Fact is, in 14 months, I never ran into one or heard of one contributing anything useful.

120 talks about tasting the burgers. There are so many folks like him who have actually tasted all these burgers with every kind of condiment applied, that it makes no sense to go looking for a theoretical analysis of the shape of the burger, the symbology of the burger, or the societal linkages of the burger. If I have a question about the burger, it can only be answered by a person with daily experience with burgers: How do I get one? What does it costs? How do I get more? Is the meat rancid?

I think there is a big tendency in this discussion toward a typology of social sciences that inaccurately implies that social science folks are all academic theoreticians. I suspect that most people with economics degrees are, in fact, gainfully employed in very practical day to day real life things that could never be defined as "soft."

The implementation failure for HTS, in my opinion, was to become lost in academia and "soft" theoretical analysis. They would have been better of at the HR/Recruiting stage to avoid academia completely and go after "hard" social scientists with deep reasoning skills in real world applications.

Re: Jed's comments. The answers can't be found by playing with the system. They are a combination of recruitment, deployment, and interaction with the real world and the real problems being faced.

[M.L.]

"Complex variables" is better than "unknowns" in some ways, but it still implies some form of absolute value from the implication of causality and, as you noted, context changes "absolutes", which means that a) they aren't absolutes and b) the implied causal model is operating at the wrong level (i.e. it's trash at prediction).

Marc,

I'd be the last person to claim that either absolute values or causal relationships exist in great abundance in social systems. Both are extremely rare, yet our craving for deterministic models (the perfect billiard table) leads us to imagine absolutes and causal relationships where none exist.

(Perhaps it is instructive to remember that Newtonian physics do not describe the universe as it really is, but we stick with Sir Isaac because: 1. He was pretty close. 2. Quantum Theory and Relativity Theory are too "spooky" for everyday life. Do we prefer comfortable lies to uncomfortable truths?)

My use of the term "complex" implies a variable which is dynamic, interactive, and is inextricably linked to its environment, as in a complex system.

Given such a system (and all social systems can be described as complex), the best thing we can shoot for is continuous iterative approximations of the system structure, function, process, and emergent properties.

[Shek]

Tom,

If memory serves, R-square values are a numeric expression of the probability that a given model will predict future behavior. Perhaps the problem is social scientists are trying to predict behavior. This seems somewhat difficult to accomplish in a social system where the agents have a choice, emotions, subjective rationalities, cultural forces, etc...

M.L.

R^2 measures the amount of variance in the observational data described by the model. Thus, it describes a correlative relationship in past data.

If your model captures a causal relationship, then your R^2 will give you a sense of how well you might predict future outcomes. However, many folks commit statistical malpractice because they 1) don't understand what makes a model a good model and 2) confuse correlation with causation, and so they only interpret the model through the R^2.

As you talk to, in the end, human behavior is subject irrationality and involves a complex interdependence, and so R^2 values tend to be low in the social sciences (this may not be problematic for your model depending on what you are trying to do, but that's a tangent not needed for the thread).

[M.L.]

Thanks. Been a while since I did any research that required me to work with R-sqd.

One small thing - the term "irrationality" is something of a pet peeve of mine. It implies an objective viewpoint of "what is good for me." However, people act according to a subjective perception of rationality. Emotion and culture also influence decision making.

When other people act differently than we think they should, we (Americans and American military types especially) tend to dismiss the behavior as irrationality, or worse, stupidity.

The truth is that everyone has good reasons for acting the way they do according to their individual perceptions. Its our job to figure out why they do what they do.

[Shek]

Thanks. Been a while since I did any research that required me to work with R-sqd.

One small thing - the term "irrationality" is something of a pet peeve of mine. It implies an objective viewpoint of "what is good for me." However, people act according to a subjective perception of rationality. Emotion and culture also influence decision making.

When other people act differently than we think they should, we (Americans and American military types especially) tend to dismiss the behavior as irrationality, or worse, stupidity.

The truth is that everyone has good reasons for acting the way they do according to their individual perceptions. Its our job to figure out why they do what they do.

M.L.,

I was not referring to an ethnocentric view of rationalism, but instead was talking to how we use heuristics that are fraught with systemic biases that result in irrational choices (e.g., framing choices as lives saved vs. deaths will usually result in different choices that are mathematically (objectively) inconsistent).

You point about ethnocentric viewpoints is on the mark, and I love the example of the Iraqi Perspectives Project to point out that Saddam, who was seemingly irrational, was actually acting in a highly rational manner.

[Sparapet]

A lot of this discussion seems to boil down to education and intelligence of the officer corps and our OGA brethren. What I find odd in the whole discussion is the same thing that grates in the whole COIN discussion; we seem to believe that we are the first human power and generation to attempt occupation and reorganization of political systems, thus we are discovering something new and amazing. The initiative in Ninewa with TF Spartan.....something to be admired in 2010? Why not in 2003? Did we discover something new about how human populations and governance work?
I think the core issue here is education of the intelligent. In this lecture from the early 1930's on education in America ( http://mises.org/daily/2765 ) the lecturer explores the question of education vs training in a way that is awfully modern and hits on the difference.
Considering our culture's technologist bent and admiration of the mechanically efficient we have created procurement and preparation system for our (especially junior) officers that meets some basic technical knowledge requirements. Beyond that no knowledge and skills are encouraged, demanded, or reinforced through pre-commissioning and through careers until mid-field grade schooling. We don't have an educational standard of any sort. So those of us who are successful, who can in fact asses accurately and think critically, become a matter of chance. IMHO there is nothing to admire here. The HTTs are not a "weapon system that fits the target" but instead a plug to fix a deficit of intellectual capital within the corps. Same with PRTs and other do-dads. Think of occupation for what it is: governance. In governance you have to govern, which means bringing with you the leadership that has some working knowledge of what it takes to govern. They don't need to be agricultural experts but they need the education and intelligence to recognize when they need those experts and how to use them. Since we (military officers) are always the first, longest tenured, most empowered presidents/governors/mayors in an occupation we need to be the educated class within the government that values big words and difficult ideas. SFC Hooah will always be the expert door-breaker and food distributor. CPT Schmedlab needs to know when/why to break the door or set up a distribution point.

[Steve the Planner]

ML:

Herbert Simon: Bounded rationality---limited by what we know, what we can understand, etc...

I think it gets overly complicated, though, when we start mixing concepts of human settlements and governance--two different things.

Folks have been voting with their feet since the dawn of time, or scrambling to survive. That, and causations, are the basic drivers for population re-settlement. If everything was grand, we would all just procreate to scarcity.

But conflict zones are, by definition, never grand places to be, highly unstable, and treacherous to safe and prosperous existence..

I share the same insight from Iraq that dozens of soldiers noted before me---people are just trying to get by, and the challenges, to an extent, are complicated by US, and whatever "inspiration" was passing for wisdom inside the Beltway at a given time.

The difference between 120 and myself is that, hopefully, by being outside the command structure, you can influence it by, first, seeing things outside the internal lense, and, second, bringing forward the properly framed questions to drive more productive alternatives.

It never ceased to amaze me that, by catching up to folks ate ends of tours, they had folders of good ideas they would have liked to have implemented, but that weren't in their lanes.

Like any big bureaucracy, the challenge is to move the bureaucracy whether from above, below or within. It just ain't easy---don;t care whether it is Ford Motor Company or the Pentagon. Scale, organization, staffing, logistics create and define much of what will happen based on decisions made six or nine months in advance.

Not really a problem of sending folks out into the field to better their fishing if the bait and tackle are wrong, or there are no fish in the assigned river.

[Umar Al-Mokhtār]

Sociocultural Human Intelligence Teams.

They could work with the French military's Service Historique de l'Armée de Terre and Commandos de Recherche et d'Action en Profondeur.

[M.L.]

Sociocultural Human Intelligence Teams.

They could work with the French military's Service Historique de l'Armée de Terre and Commandos de Recherche et d'Action en Profondeur.

Creative with the acronyms. You'd be a great addition to the Pentagon...