Velocity NY 2013: Richard Cook, "Resilience In Complex Adaptive Systems"

It's just a variation of the Normalization of Deviance. See this[1] short talk by Richard Cook for a very good explanation of the mechanism that causes the transition from "robust" to "superfluous". [1] ▶ this video

in “New technology has enabled cyber-crime on an industrial scale” · View on HN

Good comment about this very thing here: [link] > It's just a variation of the Normalization of Deviance. See this[1] short talk by Richard Cook for a very good explanation of the mechanism that causes the transition from "robust" to "superfluous". [1] ▶ this video

in “Try This One Weird Trick Russian Hackers Hate” · View on HN

The good news, yes. The bad news: it depends a lot of what you mean, it may not be the answer you search and i do not have a "perfect" reference, because it is considered mostly obvious in these fields... But before i get there, a few things. > (that we are building castles on quick sands with our leaky abstractions that try to fit into constantly changing reality) Nearly all the references i point to will tell you that this leakiness and this constant changing reality is exactly what makes them work in the real world. Now onto references. A lot of them can be found at [link] I particularly advise to start at [link] ▶ this video For more in depth, i particularly like [link] And this is basically a whole meta study of all the research and ideas that came to this field since WW2. Beware it is long [link] For an example of how things go wrong when things are correct but interact well together, i advise these two papers on space systems. (I link to Adrian blog on them because they may be easier to read, but there is a link to the papers in there) [link] [link] If these things make you curious for more, there is a lot. Or if you want to talk about/have help navigating what is in the [link] link, feel free to reach to me on twitter or by email. I will be happy to talk more.

in “Everything is broken, and it’s okay” · View on HN

Aka "Normalization of Deviance"[1]. Fix the minor problems now , or they become the new normal, eventually accumulating until a huge deviance from "normal" behavior isn't even noticed. The stories[2] about airline pilots completely ignoring checklists and unusual alarms while trying to take off with the gust lock still engaged are a shocking example of strong this effect can be. For a very good explanation of how this happens, see Richard Cook's short talk "Resilience in Complex Adaptive Systems"[3]. [1] [link] [2] [link] [3] ▶ this video

in “Facebook to change user terms, limiting effect of EU privacy law” · View on HN

> both individual and group ethics have to fail However, they don't have to fail at the same time or in a single step. This type of problem can creep in slowly over years as the "normalization of deviance"[1]. Richard Cook presented[2] a very useful model for how this type of problem creeps into complex system. The pressure from economic and workload concerns never goes away, so unless there is a proactive, explicit counter force, way to push back against that force, the system will inevitably be pushed toward failure. Therefor it's important to stop problems early when they are small. The magnitude of the counter force increases rapidly as behavior becomes increasingly deviant. [1] [link] [2] ▶ this video

in “When the Judge Distrusts Your Lawyers” · View on HN

Idealism isn't about living as a monk, it's about not compromising on the things that are often seen as "trivial" or "inconsequential". Most people don't jump from acting ethically to accepting work on that is obviously problematic. What actually happens is a long series of small, trivial compromises and other deviations that eventually become normalized [1]. Humans make mistakes; it isn't possible to live the "ideal monk" life. The real question is how small problems are handled? Compromising when the problem isn't a "big enough" ethical problem inevitably[2] pushes that boundary back in a cycle of normalized small, easily avoided deviances. Instead, if a hard line is taken against small problems when they are still small , a lot of larger problems can be avoided. [1] [link] [2] ▶ this video

in “How a Pentagon Contract Became an Identity Crisis for Google” · View on HN

> it's a short and murky step ... to outright fraud. Staying vigilant against the normalization of deviance[1] is difficult even in ideal situations. Choosing to normalize deviance as a business strategy is practically guaranteed to rapidly accelerate deviations from acceptable behavior. In any system - including every business - resilience and safety means fixing small problems before they grow into bigger, more damaging problems[2]. > rationalizations for unethical behavior Often, it doesn't even need to be rationalized. When deviant behavior is slowly normalized in small steps, the human mind tends to only see the "small, insignificant problems", and often skips[3] over big changes that should be "obvious". [1] [link] [2] ▶ this video [3] [link]

in “Theranos, CEO Holmes, and Former President Balwani Charged with Fraud” · View on HN

> evil Hollywood et al popularize the misconception that evil is fantastic and done with intent . Most of the time evil is banal [1]. The larger problems happen when the unremarkable, small deviances from acceptable behavior becomes normalized [2][3]. [1] [link] [2] [link] [3] ▶ this video

in “Zuckerberg Takes Steps to Calm Facebook Employees” · View on HN

I should have used more specific language; I'm not trying to argue that short selling is "bad". The benefits - such as dampening a crashing market - are large enough to accommodate some risk. I'm primarily addressing the claim that, "There's absolutely nothing wrong with short selling". Ignoring small, acceptable risks is normalizing deviance[1]. [1] ▶ this video

in “Bitcoin Exchange Had Too Many Bitcoins” · View on HN