The hundredth column: an attempt to catch one's breath, look around, and understand what and why I am doing. Column for Computerra #100

Dmytro Shabanov First, second and third replicators according to Susan Blackmore, the origin of life and the general scheme of phase transitions in evolution The hundredth column: an attempt to catch my breath, look around and understand what and why I am doing Frog poison, a failed business venture and doubts about the innovative prospects of university science Column for Kompyutera #99 Column for Kompyutera #100 Column for Kompyutera #101 I write columns for KompyuteraOnline, which has once again turned into just Kompyutera, now two years without the little piece. Starting this activity, I identified (and marked for readers) the topics about which I have something to say. How to continue such work without burning out, without repeating what has already been said and without drifting toward “yellowing”? I’m not sure, but I suspect this problem is worth pondering. In the previous column I wrote about memetics. As a columnist, a teacher and a blogger I do roughly the same thing. From the current flow of memes through me I select some. How? In short, through certain internal filters. I accumulate them, transform them and release them further—sometimes unchanged, more often as a kind of salad, and sometimes even constructing something new. How can I make this activity adequate, satisfying both me and the readers? The column format implies a dialogic form and requires a corresponding interlocutor, feedback. What feedback can I get? Readers’ comments under the columns; their quantity and meaningfulness. Number of recommendations on social networks. View counts and other web statistics. Feedback from people in the reference group (first of all—from my wife). My own assessment when I try to step back and read the column with fresh eyes. And, you know, there are many problems with feedback. “Objective” criteria such as view counts are important from the point of view of a business plan for an advertising campaign, but they cannot help in finding the people who need what I can offer, people with a compatible worldview and value system. Ultimately, these criteria will steer the generation of the most widely spread memes, losing attention to their essence, value and adaptability. Just a couple of days ago I had to face another manifestation of the degradation of a once decent paper publishing house. It used to publish good books; now it not only doesn’t want to, but also cannot, given the qualifications of its staff. A publishing house is an enterprise that exists to make profit—a fairly “objective” indicator. Its key characteristics are the number of titles produced and the profit from each title. Once its director honestly explained to me that the profitability of a prepared book depends weakly on the quality of its content. It depends heavily on the catchiness of the title and the appeal of the cover, and almost not at all on the text quality. But profit does depend strongly on the number of books produced. He explained this back when we could still speak plainly. Now that is impossible. He no longer needs good authors (who write quality text but demand fair remuneration and high production standards); he needs cheap copy‑writers who provide a flow. He does not benefit from editors‑proofreaders‑illustrators‑layout artists who work slowly and expensively: inexperienced, semi‑literate, low‑maintenance workers justify themselves by getting the job done any way, but quickly and cheaply. I wrote that profit from a book depends little on its quality; this is a simplification, because there is some dependence: the cheaper and less demanding, the better! And what is quality, how to measure it? Isn’t it easier to forget about it and focus only on profitability, which allows a reliable assessment? Yet why, amid the degradation of book publishing, do solid works such as the two‑volume Markov appear and become in demand? Do you know what I have just described? The conflict between the adaptive value of memes for their carriers and the selection of memes (meme‑complexes) for their dissemination efficiency. [IMG_1] This is a (very primitive) illustration—I don’t know how to draw the interaction of organisms and memes—of what I wrote about last time: the interaction of memes and their carriers can be viewed both from the side of the memes and from the side of their carriers. When we evaluate views, copies of the information we are interested in, we are actually looking at meme transmission. I do not claim that this perspective is wrong, but I consider it one‑sided. When we say that some information changed us, we look at the situation from our own position. The relationship between the value of memes for their owners and the memes’ capacity for spread is quite complex. Unfortunately, what seems valuable often is not the most “contagious,” and vice versa. Let me explain with my own columns. I have no data from the KT site, but I have data from my own site. The last three columns can be listed by naming the people they were about: Chervonska, Gesner, Blackmore. I do not consider any of them bad, but from the point of view of increasing the share of original content and valuable understanding for me, they line up (for me!) in a clear order corresponding to their sequence. All three, with the agreed delay from the KT editorial board, were posted on my site, and for all three we can see the interest they generated. Here are the Google statistics on view counts. [IMG_2] Do you see the peak on February 24? That is the column about Chervonska; it turned out to be the most successful page on my site in over two years of its operation. Below the graph is a table compiled from different parts of the statistics for this and the next two columns, now ordered not by increasing “subjective” value but by decreasing “objective” attractiveness. On March 2 the column about Gesner appeared, and on March 7—about Blackmore… Thus, for comparable objects reader interest gives an assessment opposite to my own opinion! Approaching the hundredth column, I made a list of all my columns and this prompted me to re‑evaluate them (for myself!). What to do if what is dear to me (at least as the column about Kondrashin) is not in demand? One solution is snobbish. Somewhere (I can’t recall, and the omniscient Google does not help) I saw a quote attributed to the Marquis de Sade: “I write for those who can understand me.” That is, of course, fine, but it is not excluded that the drive for elitism hides the principle “green grapes.” We need to sort out the nature of “subjective” criteria. Both you and I construct our own worldviews. Reality is diverse and quite unpredictable; we want to fit its perception into a description that makes the experience less traumatic. For example, in my worldview the key words are “rationality,” “natural‑scientific,” “evolutionary,” “adaptive.” And alongside are people with other worldviews. Recently an environmental activist, as he thought, nailed me to the wall with a lethal argument. In the decisive clash over the fate of the land between “ecologists” and “enemies of nature” I do not take the correct side, but treacherously try to adopt a third position and analyze the arguments of irreconcilable opponents. To him this diagnosis seems fatal, erasing all my judgments; to me it is surprising: how else, if I see myself as a person endowed with freedom and reason? And this is not a random difference in evaluating a secondary argument. My opponent finds it easier to stay in a black‑and‑white worldview, I find it easier to step aside and try to assess the justification of each side’s position. Why do I have this worldview, he has that one, and you have yet another? Probably partly innate. Moreover, it is a result of choice. Our nature is such that once a choice is made, our “psycho‑immune system” gives us the feeling that the choice is correct (listen to what Dan Gilbert, a Harvard psychologist, says about this on TED). [IMG_3] Many people proud of their intellect, who repeatedly make “right” choices that prove their knowledge of life, their ability to set strategic tasks and achieve goals, are in fact not such. They made some decisions, made some choices. Then defensive mechanisms of their psyche convinced them that they repeatedly chose the best option. They ended up somewhere, and then a retrospective memory‑correction mechanism convinced them that they ended up where they wanted. Does this surprise you? Nothing to do; our psyche is not a tool for discovering reality, but one of the mechanisms of adaptation to the environment. Thus each of us selects and amplifies those memes that fit our ways of interacting with reality, our worldview, and defends against others, ignoring or contesting them. Social networks provide a good opportunity to track the winds blowing in the memetic sea. For example, I got caught in Facebook’s web. I have no time or energy to pursue this seriously, but by analyzing the speed of content spread one can learn a lot about ourselves. And it turns out that unreliable, nonsensical or outright false information spreads best. Its source is usually impossible to find, its value doubtful, but its spreadability is undeniable (Golubytskyi wrote about something similar recently). …I am subscribed to the feed of two bright Ukrainian patriots who write together. They are wonderful publicists and sometimes offer a perspective interesting to me. But they believe so strongly in the national idea! I read from them that in 1951 at Kharkiv University students were shot for wanting to take exams in Ukrainian. At that time the rector was N. I. Bulyankin, a biochemist whom I know defended people caught in the repressive system, by any means. I wrote to these publicists that I do not believe the truth of the information they relayed. They replied that they are not interested in checking whether the news matches reality. Even if the specific truth was different, overall the message corresponds to historical truth. It is fortunate that Bulyankin’s daughter, who still works at the faculty, does not know that her father does not correspond to historical truth… The particular story I told is not that important. What matters is that a specific lie, aligned with a high truth as someone understands it, suddenly becomes respectable and in demand. This is one of many examples where a noble goal justifies the spread of disinformation. What difference does it make whether your message is truthful or not, if it promotes national consciousness… nature conservation… protection of poor animals… the fight against shale‑gas extraction… the cessation of vaccinations… turning people to church… the rise of a party… GMO bans… the spread of organic food… patriotic education of youth… When I see such disinformation I feel a sharp urge to counter it. The destruction of rational thinking foundations leads to societal degradation, depriving each of us of a safe informational environment. By destroying critical perception of information flows we lose more than we gain from solving any private problem. On the other hand, the overwhelming majority of potential consumers of such destructive memes will never encounter my refutations. Sometimes I feel I write them only for those who have already, without me, understood the real state of affairs. I can say that two years of writing columns for Kompyutera have significantly changed my worldview. I hope to continue this work. I will try to consciously stay on topics that seem key to me. I greatly count on thoughtful feedback from readers. Trust that a meaningful comment that addresses the arguments does not get lost even in a stream of idle chatter. And the topics that seem important to me remain the same. Evolutionary biology as a path to understanding the causes that shaped the properties of living systems, including us. Multilevel selection as an explanation of many unexpected evolutionary phenomena. The need for careful study of our own nature, aligning our way of life and decision‑making with it. Opposition (as non‑scandalous as possible) to viral campaigns that destroy rational worldview (from evolutionary biology to vaccination practice). Searching for effective ways to convey natural‑scientific perception of reality. Attempts to find pathways for transforming our lifestyle that will support sustainable existence of humanity in the medium‑ and long‑term. What will come of this—we shall see. ← Dmytro Shabanov → First, second and third replicators according to Susan Blackmore, origin of life and general scheme of phase transitions in evolution Hundredth column: an attempt to catch one's breath, look around and understand what and why I am doing Toad venom, unsuccessful experience of going into business and doubt regarding innovative prospects of university science Column for Computerra #99 Column for Computerra #100 Column for Computerra #101