

David Brooks on Complexity - klochner
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/28/opinion/28brooks.html

======
diego_moita
That's typical of most journalists and pundits: this guy never designed or
managed a complex system but still believes he can give important opinions
about engineering and management.

Engineering has done a lot to manage complexity and minimize risks (e.g.:
NASA's software, GE's 6-sigma). Most accidents are really caused by
irresponsible behavior, incompetence, lax regulation or a prize big enough to
make you forget the risks. The problem is that this is just too simple to be
newsworthy.

~~~
jmtulloss
There has been a lot done, and Brooks doesn't refute that. What he's saying is
that human fallibility can trump all our high-tech precautions. It's our
responsibility as engineers to understand this and design systems that assume
human error and negligence.

------
whyenot
In ecology and the environmental sciences we often talk about ecosystem
managment, how to manage large complex systems that we know we don't fully
understand, for instance Chesapeake Bay, or the Florida Everglades. The best
approach people have come up with is to 1) do a tremendous amount of
monitoring and 2) when introducing change into the system, do it in small
increments and check after each introduction to make sure it is having the
desired effect. The disadvantage is that to do it correctly you have to move
very slowly and cautiously.

~~~
hga
You're left out the single most important thing:

Being willing, heck, even interested in the question of "Have you made a
mistake?" and then being willing and able to reverse course.

As far as I know we don't see a lot of this in ecosystem management. The best
example, at least in terms of the millions it kills every year, is the jihad
against DDT extending to preventing twice yearly spraying of the interiors of
dwellings to limit malaria infections.

~~~
whyenot
_As far as I know we don't see a lot of this in ecosystem management. The best
example, at least in terms of the millions it kills every year, is the jihad
against DDT extending to preventing twice yearly spraying of the interiors of
dwellings to limit malaria infections._

What a bizarre statement. First, that is more an issue of public health and
toxicology than an issue of ecosystem level management. Second, the people
involved _did_ admit they made a mistake, and the WHO has endorsed DDT
spraying in areas with high malaria incidence since 2006. Its use in such
areas has increased every year since. There is continued concern that
increased spraying may breed resistance and that overuse in the home may lead
to its own health problems, so the current strategy is to try other options
first where possible.

~~~
hga
The emphasis here is on "the jihad extending". As in while there are ecosystem
level management issues with its use, these have nothing to do with vector
control inside the home. Which was prevented anyway in the general hysteria,
which also extends to trying to stamp out all production of DDT; from what
I've read, in the free world one plant in India makes it and there are fierce
efforts to shut that one down.

It's very nice, I'm sure, that the WHO and company admitted their mistake ...
3 decades later and how many 10s of millions needlessly dead in what is easily
one of the 20th century's biggest genocides?

Color me unimpressed. This is not an example of the paradigm you introduced in
your top level posting, unless you also meant "very slowly and cautiously"
fixing one's mistakes.

ADDED: And good luck getting anyone in the First World to donate money for its
use. As I read this section in Wikipedia, that's just not happened outside of
one unit of the US government starting in 2006/7 ... and does anyone want to
make a bet that that's still happening?

~~~
whyenot
I think we are talking past each other, and that part of the problem may be
that you are unfamiliar with what ecosystem management actually is[1].

I agree with you about malaria and spraying DDT. I caught and endured through
malaria when I was doing field work in Tanzania. But, the WHO also agrees with
you about spraying, and I personally feel this is a much less controversial
issue than you make it out to be. Spraying continues to be funded by USAID,
and I have found no indication that the current administration plans to change
that.

 _It's very nice, I'm sure, that the WHO and company admitted their mistake
... 3 decades later and how many 10s of millions needlessly dead in what is
easily one of the 20th century's biggest genocides?_

It's not that simple and if you have read the Wikipedia articles on DDT, which
you say you have, you know it. If you want to engage in a rational, reasoned
discussion, I am happy to do so, but if you want to spout hyperbole like this,
go fly a kite because I am done.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecosystem_management>

------
chrismealy
Matt Zeitlin points out that Brooks is paraphrasing an old Gladwell article:
[http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2010/05/gladwell-...](http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2010/05/gladwell-
vs-brooks.php)

~~~
hga
Paraphrasing without direct attribution. Very very close to plagiarism; in
addition to the Gladwell quotes Brooks could have/should have said something
like "As Gladwell has noted:"

------
bm98
Firewalls are a good computing analogue to the blowout preventers and
crosswalks in Brooks' article. When behind a firewall, people tend to be less
careful about security.

The acclimation to risk that Brooks talks about is seen in computing all the
time too. The longer a security hole goes without being breached, or a
software bug goes without consequence, the more likely people are going to
underweigh the risk.

------
klochner
Paul Kedrosky picks him apart here:

[http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2010/05/david_brooks_go.ht...](http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2010/05/david_brooks_go.html)

~~~
mindcrime
That's hardly a "picking apart." He basically says "Yeah, your one example,
which was basically a metaphor anyway, well, it's actually true, but well,
it's not as neat as you think it is."

Ok, and?

~~~
klochner
Fair enough - I was being a little sensationalist in expressing "relevant
article", but . . .

Brooks uses it as an example, but I'm not seeing the metaphor. He uses the
crosswalk as an _example_ of how people put too much faith in safety systems.
The _example_ is flawed because crosswalks are not (well-designed) safety
systems given that drivers can't see them.

"The world is a crosswalk . . . ?"

