Information overload. Part II.

Information overload probably isn’t the problem we think it is.  Or is it?

The article below, entirely quoted, is from part of the online supplement to the November/December print issue of the Columbia Journalism Review.

Clay Shirky teaches at the Interactive Telecommunications program at New York University and is the author, most recently, of Here Comes Everybody, about how new means of communication are changing the social environment. CJR’s Russ Juskalian recently spoke with Shirky about knowledge, the Internet, and why we shouldn’t worry about information overload.

CS: Yeah, that’s certainly part of it. I mean, the thing that people say about young people is just that they understand the technology so well. Well, I teach in a graduate program, I see twenty-five-year-olds all the time. They actually don’t understand the technology particularly well. I think I understand quite a lot of it quite a bit better than they do, which is the reason why I’m teaching there and they’re students. The advantage they have over me is that they don’t have to unlearn anything. They don’t have to unlearn the idea that a card catalog is a helpful thing to have. That you need a librarian to find things. That you have to figure out where you’re looking before you what you’re looking for. None of those things are true anymore. And so one of the problems that old people like me suffer from is just we know too many solutions for problems that no longer exist. And it kind of freaks us out to realize that all the things we mastered don’t really add up to much value anymore.

It’s not so much that young people are smart and old people are scared. It’s that young people don’t have to unlearn all the stuff that old people do have to unlearn if we want to understand this world. And unlearning is just about the least fun activity in the world. So, you know, it’s easy to understand why people don’t want to sign up for it. But it’s also kind of pathetic that the people going around talking about information overload don’t stop to factor in the idea that if the twenty-year-olds aren’t complaining about information overload, it probably isn’t the problem we think it is.

My references:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/

http://www.cjr.org/overload/interview_with_clay_shirky_par.php?page=all

All original content © 2008 Patricia A. Petow. All rights reserved, including the right of reproduction in whole or in part in any form.

Information overload. Part I.

Book Review

An advance look at a repeat “torture study” in an academic setting has been posted today by The Bay Area News Group under the headline, “Shocking revelation: Santa Clara University professor mirrors famous torture study.” The study will be published in the January issue of the journal American Psychologist. See, http://www.mercurynews.com/peninsula/ci_11283475.

The willingness of participants to inflict shocks is one of the topics in Influence: Science and Practice, 5^th ed., by Robert B. Cialdini, a professor of psychology at Arizona State University. The original series of experiments was conducted by a professor named Stanley Milgram and published as “Obedience to authority,” in 1974.

I highly recommend your reading Influence. The book examines the principles of influence in chapters on reciprocation, commitment and consistency, social truths, liking, authority and scarcity. Cialdini substantiates his assertions with descriptions of controlled psychological research as well as interviews, quotes and systematic personal observations.

My short take on Influence is we need to get real with ourselves and be wary of everybody else.

Cialdini concludes with an analysis of why we don’t use “all of the relevant available information.” (Issues involving the war in Iraq are in my head as I read this section.) In his discussion of the need for shortcuts or “modern automaticity,” Cialdini observes that the modern era is called the information age, not the knowledge age. He argues that “[i]nformation does not translate directly into knowledge. It must first be processed—accessed, absorbed, comprehended, integrated, and retained.”

“Shortcuts Shall Be Sacred”

Cialdini says that we have created a “paralysis of analysis” by the intricacy and richness of modern life, the abundance of change, choice and challenge. The response, he says, is that “we will revert increasingly to a focus on a single, usually reliable feature of the situation.”

Cialdini states that compliance professionals who use the triggers of influence are likely to be successful. He warns that the use of triggers by practitioners can be exploitive when the trigger is not a natural feature of the situation but is fabricated and those fabrications must be opposed.

Cialdini’s exploration of reciprocation, commitment and consistency, social truths, liking, authority and scarcity provides the information that we need to process.

Would you increase the electric shocks because an authority figure told you to do so?

All original content © 2008 Patricia A. Petow. All rights reserved, including the right of reproduction in whole or in part in any form.

Executive Bailout Pay

Billions in government bailouts have been approved for Wall St. and/or financial institutions and/or relief for mortgage lenders and/or homeowners and additional billions may be approved for the US automotive industry.

Despite some discussion, no regulations have been passed to limit executive compensation.

There is a simply way to find a figure appropriate for executives.  Congress should mandate that compensation for all executives of companies taking government bailout money should match what Social Security has estimated will be the average monthly  benefits to be paid as of January, 2009.  That average monthly amount is $1,153 for Social Security retirement beneficiaries (or $1,064 for workers collecting Social Security Disability benefits).

Choosing this amount will first of all resolve the issue of what should be paid to executives.  Secondly, using the average monthly Social Security benefits amount would focus on the importance of the Social Security safety net to its recipients.

 

All original content © 2008 Patricia A. Petow.  All rights reserved, including the right of reproduction in whole or in part in any form.

Electoral College

 

 

www.nara.gov

 

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/index.html

 

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/G04/ElectorAllocation.phtml

 

 

All original content © 2008 Patricia A. Petow.  All rights reserved, including the right of reproduction in whole or in part in any form.

Hillary not Sarah

During the long primary season, I, and I am sure many others, thought about how the primaries could be better structured. 

 

As a preamble, it must be acknowledged that at this point in time, there are only two national political parties.   Secondly, the method of voting to nominate a presidential candidate, which allows one choice only (no proportional representative or second choice voting), limits the voter’s input. The two major U.S. parties are both voluntary membership organizations and pseudo-public entities.  Although the two parties make their own rules as to how they wish to nominate a presidential and a vice presidential candidate, they also are subject to state election law and use public resources in conducting elections.

 

It has to be noted also that although traditionally American voters have made judgments in voting for president about both the person and the issues, the long primary season has emphasized the personal and de-emphasized the differences between the parties and thus shortchanged the voters.  Additionally, the long primary season has demonstrated that many dollars that could be better spent have been wasted on foolish ads and television spots. 

 

First, I don’t think that New Hampshire and Iowa need to always be the first primary and the first caucus respectively.  Caucuses have limitations and should be abolished or be entirely non-binding and not paid for by the public. 

 

A series of four to six regional primaries should replace the current system of primaries and caucuses.  The regional primaries should be scheduled sequentially on a rotating basis from presidential year to presidential year with due consideration for the constraints of U.S. weather patterns.  The primaries should be spaced one month apart and scheduled to be completed one month before the political party conventions.

 

Secondly, so long as the United States has an Electoral College, the one winner of a state primary should be binding on the state’s delegates.

 

Thirdly, the candidate who is the runner-up in the primaries should be the party’s vice presidential candidate unless the convention votes otherwise by a significant number, such as two-thirds or three-quarters of the delegates.  By having the runner-up  presidential candidate be the default vice presidential candidate, the candidates will be constrained to conduct the primary contests in a more civil manner and in a manner not to give aid and comfort to the other political party and the selection of a vice presidential candidate will be one whom the voters think as highly qualified.

 

If these rules were in effect, the electorate in November would have much different choices.  But the suggestions here are not meant to discourage voting for the nominees of the respective parties.

 

 

All original content © 2008 Patricia A. Petow.  All rights reserved, including the right of reproduction in whole or in part in any form.

 

 

Bill in Congress to require speedy hearings & decisions

A bill has been introduced in Congress to require prompt hearings after a request for hearing is filed with the Social Security Administration.

Rep. Kathy Castor, a Democrat, announced that she is introducing a bill that would require that a hearing be held between 60 and 75 days from the date it is requested, and that a final decision be given no later than 15 days after the hearing.

 

See http://thedisabilitylawfirm.blogspot.com/2008/07/tampa-congresswoman-offers-bill-to.html

 

 

All original content © 2008 Patricia A. Petow.  All rights reserved, including the right of reproduction in whole or in part in any form.

 

HR 5110 Should be Passed by Congress

The legislation recently introduced in Congress by Congressman Higgins, posted below today, would require the Social Security Administration to provide details of hearing backlogs to Congress by Congressional District.   Members of Congress, who increasingly receive requests for help from disabled applicants, would have information to evaluate the level of performance by the Social Security Administration given its actual resources and would then be in a better position to craft legislation and allocate additional resources.

Acknowledging that it takes government employees to deliver the services, HR 5110 also requires the Social Security Administration to report on staffing levels by exact job titles and number of staff at each hearing office and field office.  The annual budget information as to number of employees also requires that the Social Security Administration provide employment statistics:  “[f]or each field office, for each preceding year after 1979, including the number of employees hired, retired, transferred in and out, and dismissed during such year.”

Although some might regard the detail required by HR 5110 as micro-managing the hugh Social Security Administration, even with the reporting required by this legislation, the Social Security Administration would still be able to transfer cases from one hearing office or state disability determinations service office to another as Social Security representatives know only too well.  For example, Social Security recently transferred a large number of hearing office cases from Ohio to the Boston hearing office.  One would think that whenever cases are transferred into an office, its own workload would suffer (the local office workload might even be transferred out!).

Congressman Higgins should amend his legislation to require reporting on case transfers from one hearing or disability determinations service office to another (in and out of Congressional Districts).

The administrators of the Social Security Administration when attention is called to their shortcomings are quick to fashion a response.  The best interest of the disabled applicant is not necessarily the ultimate consideration.  For example, when responding to scrutiny regarding the long delays at the hearing office level, the Social Security Administration counts dismissals (along with actual decisions) as “dispositions.”  At the same time, in my opinion as a former employee of the hearings office, the Social Security Administration should do a better job of establishing formal procedures to attempt to contact claimants who do not respond to a notice of hearing.

I strongly recommend that Congressman Higgins’ bill be passed with the amendment that I proposed here.  I will be writing my Congressman to support this legislation, and I urge you to write to yours as well.

 

All original content © 2008 Patricia A. Petow.  All rights reserved, including the right of reproduction in whole or in part in any form.

Congressional Bill to Attack Hearing Office Backlog

This is the text of legislation introducted by Congressman Brian Higgins of New York that, among other things, requires the Social Security Administration to detail reports on Hearing Office backlogs according to Congressional District.

 

110th CONGRESS –  2d Session

To amend title VII of the Social Security Act to require the President to transmit the annual budget of the Social Security Administration without revisions to Congress, and for other purposes.

 

January 23, 2008

Mr. HIGGINS (for himself, Ms. DELAURO, Mr. BACA, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. COURTNEY, Mr. MCNERNEY, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. ARCURI, Mr. MOORE of Kansas, and Mr. ELLISON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

---

To amend title VII of the Social Security Act to require the President to transmit the annual budget of the Social Security Administration without revisions to Congress, and for other purposes.

 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

 

SECTION 1. AMENDING SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION BUDGETARY MATTERS.

 

(a) Annual Budget- Section 704(b)(1)(A) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 904(b)(1)(A)) is amended to read as follows:

 

`(b)(1)(A) The Commissioner shall prepare and submit an annual budget estimate for the Administration directly to the President and Congress.’.

 

(b) Contents of Budget- Section 704(b)(1)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 904(b)(1)(B)) is amended to read as follows:

 

`(B) The Commissioner shall include in the annual budget prepared pursuant to subparagraph (A) the following:

 

•  
  `(i) An itemization of the amount of funds required by the Administration to combat fraud committed by applicants and beneficiaries.

 

•  
  `(ii) The total number of cases pending at each hearing office, listed by hearing office, and an aggregate total of all cases pending at all hearing offices.

 

•  
  `(iii) The total number of cases pending for over the preceding year at each hearing office, listed by both hearing office and presiding administrative judge, and an aggregate total of all cases pending for over such year at all hearing offices.

 

•  
  `(iv) The average duration of time to process each case at each hearing office, listed by hearing office.

 

•  
  `(v) The staffing levels at each hearing office and field office, including a listing of job titles, classifications, and the number of staff within each title and classification.

 

•  
  `(vi) Employment statistics for each field office, for each preceding year after 1979, including the number of employees hired, retired, transferred in and out, and dismissed during such year.’.

 

(c) Closure of Field Offices- Section 704(b)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 904(b)(1)) is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

 

`(C) The Commissioner may not close or otherwise limit public access to a field office of the Administration until 180 days after the date on which the Commissioner submits to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate a detailed report outlining and justifying the process for selecting field offices to be closed or otherwise have limited access. Such report shall include–

 

•  
  `(i) an analysis of the criteria used for selecting field offices for closure or limited access and how the Commissioner analyzes and considers factors relating to transportation and communication burdens faced by seniors and the disabled;

 

•  
  `(ii) a cost-benefit analysis for each field office closure that takes into account–

 

•  
  •  
    `(I) the anticipated savings as a result of the closure;

 

•  
  •  
    `(II) the anticipated burdens, including communication and transportation burdens, placed on elderly and disabled citizens; and

 

•  
  •  
    `(III) the anticipated costs associated with replacing the services lost by the closure.’.

 

(d) Comprehensive Work Force Plan- Section 704(b)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 904(b)(2)(A)) is amended by adding at the end the following: `Not later than 90 days before a revision of the comprehensive work force plan, the Commissioner shall submit the document setting forth the revision to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate.’.

 A BILL

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

H. R. 5110

 

All original content © 2008 Patricia A. Petow.  All rights reserved, including the right of reproduction in whole or in part in any form.

 

McCain might cut Social Security benefits.

Entitlements, Social Security and Medicare, were the subject of Roger Lowenstein’s “The Way We Live Now: Entitled to What?” in Sunday’s New York Times.

Lowenstein, using language of “a budgetary straitjacket or possibly a looming social crisis,” stated that the population of seniors will almost double, to 72 million, over the next generation.

As to the three candidates for president, he noted that only Obama proposed that the cap on the Social Security payroll tax be lifted and that all three endorsed government efforts to encourage savings for retirement.

Lowenstein reported that McCain favored “bringing entitlement spending down rather than bringing revenues up” and was open to cutting Social Security benefits.  McCain’s approach to health care, Lowenstein said, would include tax credits and paying taxes for the value of an employer health plan as though it were income.  The article did not discuss McCain’s position on health care for those not employed and those whose income is so little that a tax credit is not relevant.

Lowenstein is the author of “While America Aged,” published this week.

 All original content © 2008 Patricia A. Petow.  All rights reserved, including the right of reproduction in whole or in part in any form.

SSDI and SSI — what’s the difference?

As noted in my “in the news” post today, both Democratic presidential candidates, Senator Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, sounded a bit awkward in their references to the two distinct disability programs, Social Security Disability and Supplemental Security Income Disability in response to a particular questionnaire.  Actually, their campaign staffs probably completed the questionnaire.  (I am sure that the US Senate staffs are more expert on the two programs as they deal with constituents.  So it is to the credit of the campaigns that they are apparently not using their official staffs to respond to campaign questionnaires.)  Additional information from both candidates is also posted on the website of the disability organization that participated in the questioning.  See http://www.aapd-dc.org/News/election/070604sbo.htm.

 

However, confusion about the programs, in part, may be based on the confusing names of each of the programs and the over reliance on the abbreviations of the programs.

Simply put Social Security Disability is one part of the Social Security program funded by the payroll tax of workers, the FICA, the Federal Insurance Contributions Act, tax.  The other two parts of the Social Security program are retirement benefits and survivor benefits.

The Supplemental Security Income program, on the other hand, which also has two components, benefits for the aged and for the disabled, is funded entirely by general tax revenue.

The threshold requirements for Social Security Disability and for Supplemental Security Income Disability are different, although the inability to work because of a medical disability requirement is exactly the same for each program.

To be eligible for Social Security Disability, generally the worker must have worked recently and for a certain amount of time with respect to his disability.  Therefore, a worker, who may not have worked recently or for a sufficient period of time or may have not worked at all such as a stay-at-home parent, might not be eligible for Social Security Disability and might then apply for Supplemental Security Income Disability.

Another big difference between the programs is that under Supplemental Security Income Disability, the government has set income and asset limitations and has created accounting rules such as retrospective monthly accounting and deeming (of other household income) systems. 

The major difference between Social Security Disability and Supplemental Security Income Disability is that under the Social Security Disability program, a worker can be paid an amount based on his work record (not unlike his retirement benefit).  Under the Supplemental Security Income Disability program, all beneficiaries are limited to a maximum amount that is paid based on a “federal amount” and a state supplemental amount, if any. 

See http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/statessi.html.

 

 

All original content © 2008 Patricia A. Petow.  All rights reserved, including the right of reproduction in whole or in part in any form.