the diversity/bandwidth tradeoff

in the book, resilience, in the paragraph immediately preceding the one i wrote about yesterday, the authors describe something called the diversity/bandwidth tradeoff:

“As we expand the diversity of social connections we have, the bandwidth we can commit to each of those connections becomes more limited, and the information that comes from them gets weaker and narrower. And that in turns makes weak ties suitable for certain kinds of work and strong ties suitable for others.”

i think about this all time. the two most common contexts for me are productivity and social connections, but it comes up in other places, too.

on the productivity front, it shows up as needing to make tough choices about priorities (the last part of the quote above about weak ties vs strong ties isn’t really relevant for the productivity front, but it is for the social). it means recognizing that you can’t do everything. and you can really only do a few things at the same time if you want to do any of them well.

on one hand, that reality has to do with amassing resources. building knowledge (and sometimes a network, too) relevant to what it is you’re trying to do requires focus. whether its raising a family or becoming an opera star, the more you can focus, the faster and more deeply you’ll learn.

on the other hand, it has to do with creativity. in order to be creative, our brains actually need to have some open space (as simon martin mentions over on the ceros blog in his recent post on the art and science of generating great ideas). when focusing on too many different things, your brain doesn’t have space to make connections because it’s too busy trying to hold information. and as david allen, one of my productivity gurus says, “the brain is a great place for having ideas, not holding them.” you can’t generate new ideas in your lanes of focus if your brain is too busy holding ones you’ve already had.

the diversity/bandwidth tradeoff shows up in a parallel way socially to the productivity breakdown.

for example, when i was in grad school, i really tried to do everything. this resulted in me running myself ragged. what i’ve been learning this year is that it’s super important (and very counter-cultural) to have a clearly delineated group of close friends and focus on those friendships intensely. yes, this means that being close to everyone is not possible, but it allows three things. (1) it allows us to build the type of deep friendship that we all crave (the “i would drop whatever i’m doing if you needed me” type of friendship). (2) it allows spontaneity in those friendships because you aren’t overcommitted. (3) when do you do hangout with someone outside of your inner circle, it means you can show up fully for that person because you’re not exhausted from giving too much to too many different people.

of course, there is always a balance. it’s not good to only be thinking about just one thing or have just one friend. but most people (myself included) try to do way too much and it undermines their success.

sidenote: on this friend front, i think there may be a lot more to this that belongs in another post… for example:

• maybe this theory is why having a small number of close friends and many distant ones is good.
• i wonder if people and communities would be better if we thought strategically about this from an early age? what if we taught our children that their lives would be the most fulfilling if their thought about their friendships like this? what if the design of our physical communities supported and encouraged friendships like this? hm!

the four characteristics of the best teams

this resilience book is pretty dope. the chapter that i’m in now is about resilience groups and teams. after lots of different cases and data, they make this claim about teams (page 187):

“The most powerful constellation seems to be to have small, diverse teams of strongly tied collaborators, who each have a large and diverse weak-tie network — the best of both worlds.”

they break it down in the chapter differently, but here are the parts of that that seem critical to me:

small

the team needs to be small enough to not have to coordinate too many pieces. in the last few years of my career, i’ve seen this play out as logisitical coordination RE calendars and locations to meet, but it can show up in other ways, too.

diverse

actual and cognitive diversity are really important. they give a team the ability to think deep and wide and make breakthroughs in ways that teams that are too similar can’t.

strongly-tied

the team members need to be strongly tied. this means that, even though they should have different cognitive abilities, they should be similar enough to work well together. there’s nothing worse than having a dysfunctional team. in fact, i often tell my friends that if their relationship with their boss isn’t a good one, the awesomeness of the work their doing isn’t worth staying. it’s a pattern i’ve seen over and over. but i digress…

with many weak-ties

each team member should have a large and diverse network (i.e. many weak ties). this allows the core team to have access to knowledge resources without needing to have them all in house.

the more i think about it, the more i think these four points are how to make the world a more beautiful, functional place, while also shifting some of the terror that is the large corporation. maybe this thinking could/should play out in how we structure our social lives and physical communities as well. hm!

cognitive diversity, actual diversity, and the benefits of both

pages 204-208 in resilience have two really fascinating cases that make two astounding points:

cognitive diversity on a team can compensate for and even create better outcomes than intelligence on a team, and actual diversity and cognitive diversity together can be mutually reinforcing and beneficial. so what does all that mean? i’ll explain.

cognitive diversity

scott page is a professor of complex systems, political science, and economics and the university of michigan. he defines cognitive diversity as such: the distribution of different kinds of thinkers within a group.

kevin dunbar, a psychologist at the university of toronto, studied cognitive diversity and its impacts on team performance. turns out that having a team with a high (but not too high) level of cognitive diversity can create higher levels of performance.

dunbar took two scientific research labs and studied them in their actual research environments. team x had a high level of overall intelligence but a relatively narrow range of scientists. team y had a much more diverse set of scientists (i’m not sure how the intelligence level compared). the labs have no connection to each other.

at one point, teams x and y ran into a similar problem. team y, the cognitively diverse team, solved the problem in two minutes at a single meeting. team x was still struggling with the problem two months later. i can only imagine how much time and progress team x wasted trying to solve a problem that team y solved in minutes.

dunbar’s theory is that having different ways to think about a problem allows more access to alternative thinking about potential solutions. when people in a group think similarly, for example, they tend to use similar and more complex metaphors to describe situations because they have shared understanding of the knowledge required to make sense of them. teams with different thinking and backgrounds tend to use more basic but wide ranging types of metaphors in order to spam knowledge gaps between members. this allows more diverse ways of thinking about the same problem which seems to lead to solution faster.

now all of this said, there are certainly tradeoffs to having more diverse teams over similar teams. as with everything, there’s a balance.

teams with low cognitive diversity have low startup costs because they share language and knowledge. the means they can probably move faster when things are going well.

teams with high cognitive diversity have high communications cost. they can’t easily explain their thinking to others without shared backgrounds so they spend extra time doing so. however, the benefit that that creates is ability to blast through problems quickly, as opposed to getting bottle-necked by a lack of ability to think outside the box.

actual diversity

in a similar way, “actual” diversity (gender, class, race, etc.) also has benefits. the example used in the book was about gender.

when men find lab surprising lab results, they tend to assume they know why and keep moving forward (in my opinion, this is an effect of socialization, not physiology). either way, this pattern has the effect of sending teams down wrong pathways. incorrect early assumptions lead to wasted time down the road and makes it difficult to backtrack to find mistakes.

women, however, tend to try to stop and explain surprising results by doing more rigorous testing. by looking for ways to recreate the results, they generate more firm data and thus a higher ability to explain results.

now, from the outside, this may look like women are slower or less aggressive researchers. however, in reality, women are just as aggressive about their research; they just go about the work in completely different ways.

holy shit, that took 30 minutes to write. :O

why i write

as i start thinking ahead to 2017 (it’s barely 60 days away), i’ve begun reflecting on how i’ve been spending my time in 2016 (because life’s too short to not learn as fast as possible. so what have i been doing and why?

one thing i’ve definitely been doing is writing. it’s been an important part of this year for me and so i’ve been thinking about it a lot.

the more i think about it the more reasons i find that i’m doing it, so here’s what i have so far.

working out loud

inspiration: harold jarche via curtis ogden. wrote about that earlier this year over here.

to share thoughts with others quickly and repeatably

as i’ve started my productivity coaching practice, i’ve learned that having specific thoughts packaged neatly makes for easy sharing of information to people i’m working with. i can process a thought once and then share it over and over.

to create ripples

a few days ago i finished the mary karr episode of on being. right before the end of the episode there’s krista reads a snippet from karr’s book called the art of memoir.

“none of us can ever knowthe value of our lives or how our separate and silent scribbling may add to the amenity of the world if only by how radically it changes us.”

she basically said that writing (1) changes her during the process of putting the thoughts down and (2) has impact in the world because sharing how you perceive and experience the world can make tiny changes in how other people think about the world and that can have serious implications on their thinking, which influences their actions.

for the memories

in the first episode of harry potter and the sacred text season 2 (one of my favorite new podcasts), my friend, casper, reflects on his last living grandparent dying. he mentioned that each time someone dies, all their memories are lost forever (well, i guess those that aren’t currently already living in someone else’s head). he then said that as he thinks about his experiences that only he knows about, if he writes them down, they’ll be around even after he isn’t. and in reference to a particular passage of harry potter that they’re discussing, he said that writing is a good way to make sure that things you experienced weren’t a dream.

anyway, i’m sure there are more reasons that will come up as i think through this more. maybe i’ll keep updating this post; maybe not.

spirituality: practice over belief

i just finished the mary karr episode of on being. honestly, it had the air of one of the episodes that i tend to skip because of the framing of the title: “astonished by the human comedy.” just didn’t seem appealing to me. i’m glad i listened anyways. i probably have four different thought posts inspired by the content, though they did all come in the last 15 minutes of the episode. just goes to show that you really can’t judge things by their outward appearances (or that you shouldn’t make assumptions… or something, heh).

anyway, here’s a paraphrase of one of the first section (and here’s a timestamped link to the podcast episode so you can listen for yourself) that really stuck with me: 

“the people who follow jesus, more so than people who call themselves christians or catholics or whatever seemed to always be the ones working in the soup kitchen and also seemed the least hateful and angry… that’s why i started trying to figure out the whole jesus thing.”

that totally resonated with me because i had a very similar trajectory. the only real different is that i started out in the church. i rejected the blind faith and dogma because it just didn’t seem effective or impactful.

and, just as i was having that thought… she dropped this:

“… that’s why it’s a spiritual practice and not just a spiritual belief. people talk about doctrine all the time (and even fight about it) but what i care about what you do on a given day. i don’t care so much what you believe in; what do you do?“

bam. totally same lane as me. i loved her leaning into the framing of spirituality as a practice. practice is action based (similar to love). given how i’ve seen christianity (and many other religions) be destructive, i wonder if this way of thinking about spirituality and spiritual differences would allow a much more healthy coexistence of multiple religions/spiritual practices… i know for me, i don’t particularly care what you believe, as long as it impacts your life and the world positively.

hm.