Friday, December 13, 2024

arm chips smartphone intel (RISC, power efficiency)

 https://copilot.microsoft.com/chats/LZQqarsbxRgzF2jqfcB31


tell me about arms chips and the smartphone market

ARM chips are a crucial part of the smartphone market. ARM Holdings designs the architecture for CPUs, GPUs, and other system components, which are then licensed to companies like Qualcomm, Apple, and Samsung to build their processors. This means that ARM's designs are at the heart of almost every smartphone, powering everything from basic tasks to advanced AI and gaming.

ARM's technology is known for balancing high performance with energy efficiency, which is essential for mobile devices. This efficiency allows smartphones to have longer battery life and handle demanding applications like augmented reality (AR), virtual reality (VR), and AAA games.

In fact, about 99% of premium smartphones use ARM-based processors. ARM's dominance in the mobile market is due to its ability to provide a common standard that ensures compatibility across different devices, making it easier for developers to create apps that work on a wide range of smartphones.

Does this help clarify things, or is there something more specific you'd like to know about ARM chips and smartphones?



why can intel not make arm-based processors

Intel doesn't make ARM-based processors because it has its own architecture called x86, which is different from ARM's RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computing) architecture. Intel's processors are designed around the x86 architecture, which uses a CISC (Complex Instruction Set Computing) design philosophy. This means Intel's processors and ARM processors are fundamentally different in how they handle instructions and operations.

Additionally, Intel has historically focused on high-performance computing for PCs and servers, while ARM has been dominant in the mobile and embedded systems market due to its power efficiency. Intel's business model and technological investments have been centered around its own architecture and market segments.

However, Intel has recently transitioned to a foundry model, allowing it to manufacture chips designed by other companies, including ARM-based designs. This means Intel could potentially produce ARM-based processors for other companies, but it doesn't design or develop them itself.

Does that help clarify things?




does intel have product with RISC architecture and power efficiency

Yes, Intel has ventured into the RISC architecture space with its support for **RISC-V**. RISC-V is an open standard instruction set architecture (ISA) that is gaining popularity due to its flexibility and royalty-free licensing. Intel has integrated RISC-V support into its **oneAPI Construction Kit**, which allows developers to create and optimize code for RISC-V processors.

RISC-V is designed to be power-efficient and scalable, making it suitable for a wide range of applications from embedded systems to high-performance computing. Intel's involvement with RISC-V demonstrates its commitment to providing power-efficient solutions and supporting open standards in the processor market.

Does this answer your question, or is there something more specific you'd like to know about Intel's RISC architecture efforts?




is intel in finance trouble, if yes or no, tell me why, explain it for me

Yes, Intel is currently facing financial challenges. Here are some key reasons:

1. **Revenue Decline**: Intel has experienced several quarters of declining revenue. For example, in Q3 2024, Intel reported a revenue of $13.3 billion, which was down 6% compared to the same quarter last year.

2. **Losses and Impairments**: Intel reported significant losses in Q3 2024, with a GAAP loss per share of $3.88 and a non-GAAP loss per share of $0.46. These losses were partly due to $15.9 billion in impairment charges and $2.8 billion in restructuring charges.

3. **Market Competition**: Intel has been surpassed by rivals like Nvidia and AMD in the semiconductor industry. This competition has impacted Intel's market share and investor confidence.

4. **Cost Reduction Efforts**: Intel is implementing a cost reduction plan aiming to cut $10 billion in expenses by 2025. This includes reducing headcount, operating expenses, and capital expenditures.

5. **Investor Skepticism**: Despite Intel's efforts to turn around its business, investors remain skeptical about the company's ability to regain its former dominance. Intel's stock has been the worst-performing tech stock in the S&P 500 this year, down 37%.

Intel's CEO, Pat Gelsinger, is working on a turnaround plan to regain technological leadership and improve profitability. However, the company's financial troubles are a result of years of underinvestment and increased competition.

Does this help clarify Intel's financial situation?




who are intel competition

Intel faces competition from several major companies in the semiconductor and technology industries. Some of its key competitors include:

1. **Advanced Micro Devices (AMD)**: Known for its processors and graphics cards, AMD is a direct competitor to Intel in the CPU and GPU markets.
2. **Nvidia**: Specializes in graphics processing units (GPUs) and AI computing solutions, competing with Intel in high-performance computing and gaming.
3. **Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC)**: The world's largest semiconductor foundry, TSMC manufactures chips for many companies, including Intel's rivals.
4. **Qualcomm**: A leader in mobile phone processors and wireless technologies, Qualcomm competes with Intel in the mobile and IoT sectors.
5. **Samsung**: A major player in consumer electronics and semiconductors, Samsung competes with Intel in both manufacturing and product offerings.
6. **ARM Holdings**: Designs energy-efficient processors used in many smartphones and tablets, competing with Intel in the mobile and embedded systems market.
7. **Broadcom**: Provides a range of semiconductor and infrastructure software solutions, competing with Intel in various technology sectors.
8. **Texas Instruments (TI)**: Known for its analog and embedded processors, TI competes with Intel in the embedded systems market.
9. **Micron Technology**: Specializes in memory and storage solutions, competing with Intel in the memory market.
10. **Marvell Technology Group**: Offers semiconductors and infrastructure solutions, competing with Intel in various technology sectors.

These companies offer a range of products and services that compete with Intel's offerings in different segments of the technology market.

Does this help give you a clearer picture of Intel's competitive landscape?




tell me more about intel competitive landscape

Intel operates in a highly competitive semiconductor industry, facing challenges and opportunities from various fronts. Here's a deeper look into Intel's competitive landscape:

### **Key Competitors**
1. **Advanced Micro Devices (AMD)**: AMD is Intel's primary competitor in the CPU market, offering competitive processors that often challenge Intel's market share: Porter’s Five Forces Industry and Competition Analysis](https://www.hivelr.com/2023/11/intel-intc-porters-five-forces-industry-and-competition-analysis/).
2. **Nvidia**: Known for its GPUs and AI solutions, Nvidia competes with Intel in high-performance computing and gaming: Porter’s Five Forces Industry and Competition Analysis](https://www.hivelr.com/2023/11/intel-intc-porters-five-forces-industry-and-competition-analysis/).
3. **Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC)**: As the world's largest semiconductor foundry, TSMC manufactures chips for many of Intel's competitors: Porter’s Five Forces Industry and Competition Analysis](https://www.hivelr.com/2023/11/intel-intc-porters-five-forces-industry-and-competition-analysis/).
4. **Qualcomm**: A leader in mobile phone processors and wireless technologies, Qualcomm competes with Intel in the mobile and IoT sectors: Porter’s Five Forces Industry and Competition Analysis](https://www.hivelr.com/2023/11/intel-intc-porters-five-forces-industry-and-competition-analysis/).
5. **Samsung**: Competes with Intel in both manufacturing and product offerings, including semiconductors and consumer electronics: Porter’s Five Forces Industry and Competition Analysis](https://www.hivelr.com/2023/11/intel-intc-porters-five-forces-industry-and-competition-analysis/).
6. **ARM Holdings**: Designs energy-efficient processors used in many smartphones and tablets, competing with Intel in the mobile and embedded systems market: Porter’s Five Forces Industry and Competition Analysis](https://www.hivelr.com/2023/11/intel-intc-porters-five-forces-industry-and-competition-analysis/).
7. **Broadcom**: Provides a range of semiconductor and infrastructure software solutions, competing with Intel in various technology sectors: Porter’s Five Forces Industry and Competition Analysis](https://www.hivelr.com/2023/11/intel-intc-porters-five-forces-industry-and-competition-analysis/).
8. **Texas Instruments (TI)**: Known for its analog and embedded processors, TI competes with Intel in the embedded systems market: Porter’s Five Forces Industry and Competition Analysis](https://www.hivelr.com/2023/11/intel-intc-porters-five-forces-industry-and-competition-analysis/).
9. **Micron Technology**: Specializes in memory and storage solutions, competing with Intel in the memory market: Porter’s Five Forces Industry and Competition Analysis](https://www.hivelr.com/2023/11/intel-intc-porters-five-forces-industry-and-competition-analysis/).
10. **Marvell Technology Group**: Offers semiconductors and infrastructure solutions, competing with Intel in various technology sectors: Porter’s Five Forces Industry and Competition Analysis](https://www.hivelr.com/2023/11/intel-intc-porters-five-forces-industry-and-competition-analysis/).

### **Strategic Priorities and Competitive Strategies**
Intel focuses on several strategic priorities to maintain its competitive edge:
- **Innovation**: Continuous investment in research and development (R&D) to drive technological advancements and develop new products.
- **Diverse Product Portfolio**: Offering a wide range of processors, chipsets, and other semiconductor products to cater to various market segments.
- **Strategic Partnerships**: Collaborating with other technology companies and industry players to leverage expertise and resources.
- **Market Positioning**: Building a strong brand reputation for innovation, reliability, and performance.

### **Challenges and Opportunities**
Intel faces several challenges in the competitive landscape:
- **Technological Transitions**: Adapting to rapid technological changes, including the shift to smaller manufacturing processes: Porter’s Five Forces Industry and Competition Analysis](https://www.hivelr.com/2023/11/intel-intc-porters-five-forces-industry-and-competition-analysis/).
- **Supply Chain Constraints**: Managing supply chain issues that affect the availability of key components: Porter’s Five Forces Industry and Competition Analysis](https://www.hivelr.com/2023/11/intel-intc-porters-five-forces-industry-and-competition-analysis/).
- **Market Competition**: Competing with both established and emerging players in the semiconductor industry.

Despite these challenges, Intel also has opportunities to grow and innovate, such as expanding its manufacturing capabilities and exploring new markets.

Does this give you a clearer picture of Intel's competitive landscape?




why was intel successful before, and not so successful now, what happened?

Intel's success in the past can be attributed to several factors:

1. **Technological Leadership**: Intel was a pioneer in microprocessor technology, introducing the first commercially successful microprocessor, the Intel 4004, in 1971. This established Intel as a leader in the semiconductor industry.

2. **Innovation and R&D**: Intel invested heavily in research and development, leading to continuous advancements in processor technology. This allowed Intel to stay ahead of competitors and maintain a strong market position.

3. **Strong Brand and Market Presence**: Intel built a strong brand and established a significant market presence, becoming synonymous with computer processors. This brand recognition helped drive sales and customer loyalty.

4. **Strategic Acquisitions**: Intel made strategic acquisitions, such as the purchase of McAfee in 2010, to expand its product portfolio and enter new markets.

5. **Efficient Operations**: Intel's operations management strategy focused on optimizing productivity and cost efficiency, supporting its product development and global distribution.

However, in recent years, Intel has faced several challenges that have impacted its success:

1. **Manufacturing Delays**: Intel's ambitious plan to achieve "five nodes in four years" has faced delays and setbacks, causing the company to fall behind competitors like TSMC in manufacturing technology.

2. **Increased Competition**: Intel faces intense competition from companies like AMD, Nvidia, and Qualcomm, which have gained market share in various segments, including CPUs, GPUs, and mobile processors.

3. **Market Shifts**: The decline of the PC market and the rise of mobile and cloud computing have shifted market dynamics, impacting Intel's traditional revenue streams.

4. **Cultural Stagnation**: Internal cultural issues, including bureaucratic bottlenecks and risk-averse decision-making, have slowed innovation and hindered Intel's ability to adapt to market changes.

5. **Financial Performance**: Intel has reported declining revenues and significant losses, leading to a decrease in investor confidence and stock performance.

These factors have contributed to Intel's current financial challenges and its struggle to regain its former dominance in the semiconductor industry.

Does this help explain the shift in Intel's success over the years?




Sure! Let's compare Intel and TSMC's semiconductor nodes development:

### **Intel's Semiconductor Nodes Development**
1. **Intel 7 (10nm)**: Intel's 10nm process, known as Intel 7, offers improved performance and efficiency compared to previous nodes.
2. **Intel 4 (7nm)**: Intel's 7nm process, Intel 4, introduced Extreme Ultraviolet (EUV) lithography, enhancing performance and power efficiency.
3. **Intel 3**: A further evolution of Intel 4, Intel 3 aims to improve performance per watt by 18%.
4. **Intel 20A**: Featuring RibbonFET (Gate-all-around transistor) and PowerVia (backside power delivery), Intel 20A is expected to offer significant performance improvements.
5. **Intel 18A**: The most advanced node, Intel 18A is set to begin manufacturing in the latter half of 2024, with up to 10% performance per watt improvement.
6. **Intel 10A (1nm)**: Planned for late 2027, Intel 10A aims to achieve a double-digit power/performance improvement on the roadmap for 2027 - Tom's Hardware](https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/intel-puts-1nm-process-10a-on-the-roadmap-for-2027-aiming-for-fully-ai-automated-factories-with-cobots).

### **TSMC's Semiconductor Nodes Development**
1. **N2 (2nm)**: TSMC plans to mass-produce its 2nm process node starting in late 2025, featuring Gate-all-around (GAA) transistors and backside power delivery networks.
2. **N2P**: An evolution of N2, N2P is expected to further enhance performance and efficiency.
3. **A16 (1.6nm)**: TSMC aims to have its 1.6nm node ready for production by late 2026, offering even greater performance and power efficiency.
4. **Future Nodes**: TSMC continues to invest in R&D for nodes beyond 14 Angstrom (1.4nm), focusing on 3D transistors, new memories, and low-R interconnect.

### **Key Differences**
- **Timeline**: TSMC is ahead in terms of timeline, with plans to mass-produce 2nm nodes by late 2025, while Intel's 2nm equivalent (Intel 20A) is expected later.
- **Technologies**: Both companies are adopting GAA transistors and backside power delivery networks, but TSMC is also incorporating Super Power Rail (SPR) technology for enhanced performance.
- **Focus Areas**: Intel is focusing on high-performance computing and mobile applications, while TSMC is targeting data center-grade AI-aimed processors and other advanced applications.

Intel and TSMC are both pushing the boundaries of semiconductor technology, but TSMC currently has a more aggressive roadmap and is leading in some key areas.

Does this comparison help clarify the differences between Intel and TSMC's semiconductor nodes development?

Thursday, December 12, 2024

Intel arms nvidia broadcom (semiconductor company) (microsoft copilot)

 

How to replace remove install a leaky shutoff valve for a toilet

 How to replace/ remove/ install a leaky shutoff valve for a toilet

How to Remove and Replace a Leaky Shut Off Valve for a Toilet
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWr52sLhQn8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWr52sLhQn8

WildCatDIY channel 
Sep 29, 2023
How to remove and replace a leaky compression shut-off valve (or stop valve) on a copper supply line for a toilet. 
The most challenging part of this project is removing the compression sleeve or ring but there's a tool that makes this task easier! 

How to Remove, Install, Replace or Update a Toilet Yourself:    • How to Install or Replace a Toilet - ...  

Products and tools used (affiliate links) 
*As an Amazon Associate I earn a commission from qualifying purchases at no additional cost to you. If you shop through my affiliate links, thank you!  

Adjustable wrenches (wrench set): https://amzn.to/46cJF0z  
Bucket (and small towel): https://www.homedepot.com/p/HDX-1-Qua... 
Replacement compression shut-off valve (aka stop) for ½" copper pipe (standard): https://amzn.to/45VereE 
  From The Home Depot: https://www.homedepot.com/p/BrassCraf... 
New tube flange or cover plate (AKA shallow escutcheon): https://www.homedepot.com/p/Oatey-1-2... 
Compression sleeve puller tool (likely needed): https://amzn.to/46ttBaC   
   From Lowe's: https://www.lowes.com/pd/Superior-Too... 
Pipe cutter (if necessary) 
Thread sealant (optional) 
Plumber's cloth with abrasive grit: https://www.homedepot.com/p/Oatey-1-1... 
A new braided supply line (varying lengths), if needed: https://www.homedepot.com/p/BrassCraf... 

Other ways you can help support the channel:  
SUBSCRIBE to WildCatDIY:    / @wildcat-diy    
 
☕Buy Me A Catffeinated Coffee  
https://www.buymeacoffee.com/wildcatdiy

Music provided by Epidemic Sound. 
Epidemic Sound referral link: https://share.epidemicsound.com/augvds 
Audio tracks used in this video are below. 
Twenty Five by Dylan Sitts: https://www.epidemicsound.com/track/y... 
Detergent by Dylan Sitts: https://www.epidemicsound.com/track/R... 
Souped Up by Jobii: https://www.epidemicsound.com/track/2...

Disclaimer: 
Videos produced by WildCatDIY are provided for informational, educational and entertainment purposes only. WildCatDIY assumes no responsibility or liability for any loss, damage or injury incurred as a result of any content communicated in this video. Use this information at your own risk. Review instructions carefully before beginning any project and if you have any doubts or questions about how to complete a project, consult with local experts. Use safe practices when performing any Do-It-Yourself (DIY) repairs and when working with tools seen or implied in this video. Always read and follow all safety precautions provided by any tool or equipment manufacturer. Due to factors beyond the control of WildCatDIY, no information contained within this video creates any expressed or implied warranty or guarantee of any particular result. Any injury, property damage, or loss that may result from improper use of tools, equipment or from the information contained in this video is the sole responsibility of the viewer or user and not WildCatDIY.



How To Remove/Install a LEAKY/NEW SHUT-OFF Valve (Compression, Soldered or Push fit) | GOT2LEARN
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjD2UtzlX8w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjD2UtzlX8w

Got2Learn channel

https://www.youtube.com/@Got2Learn
https://www.youtube.com/@Got2Learn

Sep 14, 2021  ✪ Members first on August 10, 2021
If you have a leaky shut off valve, whether it's COMPRESSION, SOLDERED or PUSH FIT, here's how to remove and install a new one the CORRECT way!

Join my plumbing forum for FREE!
https://got2learn.freeforums.net/

Stuff I used in this video from Amazon:
Compression sleeve puller: https://amzn.to/3xD050e
1/2" drill brush tool: https://amzn.to/3jIV5SR
Bicycle wrench kit: https://amzn.to/3CzRu2f
Sharkbite depth gauge: https://amzn.to/2VAHqFK
Soldering heat shield: https://amzn.to/3F8SJWA
Pencil reamer: https://amzn.to/2tBuhKW
All-in-one deburring tool: https://amzn.to/3B9dLUv

Sharkbite video:    • Beginners Guide To SHARKBITE Fittings...  

INTRO - 0:00
WHY REPLACE ONE? - 0:23
TYPES OF VALVES - 1:12
COMPRESSION VALVE - 2:24
SOLDERED/SWEATED - 4:25
PUSH FIT - 6:22

DISCLAIMER: Got2Learn is NOT responsible for any damage done to a property of which the plumbing wasn't done by a professional, I do not recommend doing your own plumbing if you are unsure about what you are doing, always hire a LICENSED contractor when doing any type of plumbing so you can be covered by insurances if something does happen, these videos are for entertainment purposes only!

Tuesday, December 10, 2024

RISC-V (Linus Torvalds says RISC-V will make the same mistakes)


 Linus Torvalds Says RISC-V Will Make the Same Mistakes As ARM and x86 (tomshardware.com) 73

Posted by BeauHD on Friday July 12, 2024 @04:20PM from the stumbles-expected dept.
Jowi Morales reports via Tom's Hardware:

There's a vast difference between hardware and software developers, which opens up pitfalls for those trying to coordinate the two teams. Arm and x86 researchers encountered it years ago -- and Linus Torvalds, the creator of Linux, fears RISC-V development may fall into the same chasm again. "Even when you do hardware design in a more open manner, hardware people are different enough from software people [that] there's a fairly big gulf between the Verilog and even the kernel, much less higher up the stack where you are working in what [is] so far away from the hardware that you really have no idea how the hardware works," he said (video here). "So, it's really hard to kind of work across this very wide gulf of things and I suspect the hardware designers, some of them have some overlap, but they will learn by doing mistakes -- all the same mistakes that have been done before." [...]

"They'll have all the same issues we have on the Arm side and that x86 had before them," he says. "It will take a few generations for them to say, 'Oh, we didn't think about that,' because they have new people involved." But even if RISC-V development is still expected to make many mistakes, he also said it will be much easier to develop the hardware now. Linus says, "It took a few decades to really get to the point where Arm and x86 are competing on fairly equal ground because there was all this software that was fairly PC-centric and that has passed. That will make it easier for new architectures like RISC-V to then come in." 


source:
       https://slashdot.org/index2.pl?fhfilter=intel
 
 
 
https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/linus-torvalds-says-risc-v-will-make-the-same-mistakes-as-arm-and-x86

Linus Torvalds says RISC-V will make the same mistakes as Arm and x86
News
By Jowi Morales
published July 12, 2024

“Most of them will fail complete without ever anybody hearing about them. But even the successful ones take a stumble or two,” says Torvalds.

There's a vast difference between hardware and software developers, which opens up pitfalls for those trying to coordinate the two teams. Arm and x86 researchers encountered it years ago -- and Linus Torvalds, the creator of Linux, fears RISC-V development may fall into the same chasm again.

“Even when you do hardware design in a more open manner, hardware people are different enough from software people [that] there’s a fairly big gulf between the Verilog and even the kernel, much less higher up the stack where you are working in what [is] so far away from the hardware that you really have no idea how the hardware works,” he said (video embedded below).

“So, it’s really hard to kind of work across this very wide gulf of things and I suspect the hardware designers, some of them have some overlap, but they will learn by doing mistakes — all the same mistakes that have been done before.”

embedded youtube video

RISC-V is an open-standard ISA for processors that is slowly gaining traction, especially in China, where some tech companies are using it to bypass America’s sanctions on the country. Companies like DeepComputing and Framework have started developing, building, and selling consumer laptops powered by these new processors.

But even though RISC-V is slowly being built up, it’s still not at the performance level that it could compete against current generation x86 and Arm processors. It would still take several years or decades of development to play AAA games on a RISC-V chip. But even though Arm, which also uses a reduced instruction set computer (RISC) architecture, has already undergone intensive development, Linus fears RISC-V will still make the same mistakes.

“They’ll have all the same issues we have on the Arm side and that x86 had before them,” he says. “It will take a few generations for them to say, ‘Oh, we didn’t think about that,’ because they have new people involved.”

But even if RISC-V development is still expected to make many mistakes, he also said it will be much easier to develop the hardware now. Linus says, “It took a few decades to really get to the point where Arm and x86 are competing on fairly equal ground because there was al this software that was fairly PC-centric and that has passed. That will make it easier for new architectures like RISC-V to then come in.”

Jowi Morales
Contributing Writer

Jowi Morales is a tech enthusiast with years of experience working in the industry. He’s been writing with several tech publications since 2021, where he’s been interested in tech hardware and consumer electronics.

https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/linus-torvalds-says-risc-v-will-make-the-same-mistakes-as-arm-and-x86

Lumen technologies

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumen_Technologies

https://slashdot.org/index2.pl?fhfilter=Lumen+Technologies

source:
       salt typhoon telecom hack (or something like that)

Monday, December 9, 2024

Organizations (March and Simon, 1958)

 Organizations (March and Simon, 1958)

James G. March and Herbert A. Simon, Organizations. 


James Gardner March (January 15, 1928 – September 27, 2018) 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_G._March

Herbert Alexander Simon (June 15, 1916 – February 9, 2001)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_A._Simon

[[ downloaded pdf? yes ]]
https://us.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/27411_7.pdf

[[ URL working as of 12/09/2024 4:46 PM, last checked ]]
https://web.archive.org/web/20151017015937/http://www.bus.lsu.edu/bedeian/articles/MostInfluentialBooks-OD2001.pdf

[[ too long, super long, can not understand, ... ]]
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335967888_60_Years_of_March_and_Simon%27s_Organizations_An_Empirical_Examination_of_its_Impact_and_Influence_on_Subsequent_Research


https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/joms.12289?msockid=1b54d1392a3f614c04b8c4682b736002
 
 
 
   ____________________________________
 
 https://copilot.microsoft.com/chats/VWNUncumHo8TobpfMps2a

summary for me the book, Organizations (March and Simon, 1958)

"Organizations" by James G. March and Herbert A. Simon, published in 1958, is a seminal work in the field of organizational theory. It focuses on understanding the behavior of individuals within organizations and how these behaviors affect organizational performance and decision-making processes.

**Key Concepts:**

  1. **Bounded Rationality**: This concept explains that individuals within organizations make decisions based on limited information and cognitive constraints, which means they cannot achieve perfect rationality. Instead, they settle for "satisficing" solutions—those that are good enough given the circumstances.
     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bounded_rationality

  2. **Decision-Making**: The authors examine how decisions are made in organizations, emphasizing the importance of formal structures, rules, and routines in guiding behavior and reducing uncertainty.

  3. **Organizations as Systems**: The book views organizations as complex systems composed of interrelated parts that work together to achieve common goals. It highlights the importance of coordination and communication in ensuring that these parts function effectively.

  4. **Influence and Power**: March and Simon explore the dynamics of influence and power within organizations, including how individuals and groups use their positions and resources to shape decisions and outcomes.

  5. **Satisficing vs. Optimizing**: The authors differentiate between satisficing (settling for a solution that meets minimum requirements) and optimizing (finding the best possible solution). They argue that in real-world organizations, satisficing is more common due to the constraints of bounded rationality.
     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisficing

The book has had a profound impact on organizational theory and management practice, providing a framework for understanding how organizations function and how they can be improved. Its insights into decision-making, organizational behavior, and the limits of rationality remain relevant to this day.
    ____________________________________
 
https://copilot.microsoft.com/chats/VWNUncumHo8TobpfMps2a

summarize for me the book, behavior theory of the firm (cyert and march) 

"The Behavioral Theory of the Firm" by Richard Cyert and James G. March, published in 1963, is a groundbreaking work that introduces a new perspective on how firms make decisions. It challenges the traditional economic view of firms as profit-maximizing entities and instead focuses on the actual behaviors and processes that influence decision-making within organizations.

**Key Concepts:**

1. **Bounded Rationality**: Building on the concept from March and Simon's earlier work, this book emphasizes that decision-makers within firms operate under conditions of bounded rationality, meaning they are limited by the information available to them and their cognitive capabilities.

2. **Organizational Goals and Objectives**: The authors argue that firms do not have a single, unified objective of profit maximization. Instead, they pursue multiple, sometimes conflicting, goals that reflect the interests and aspirations of various stakeholders within the organization.

3. **Satisficing Behavior**: Rather than seeking optimal solutions, firms engage in satisficing—seeking solutions that are good enough to meet the minimum acceptable criteria. This approach reflects the practical limitations and constraints faced by decision-makers.

4. **Decision-Making Processes**: Cyert and March focus on the processes and routines that firms use to make decisions, such as standard operating procedures, rules, and search processes. These mechanisms help organizations cope with complexity and uncertainty.

5. **Organizational Learning**: The book explores how firms learn from their experiences and adapt their behaviors over time. This concept of organizational learning highlights the importance of feedback, experimentation, and adaptation in the decision-making process.

6. **Coalitions and Conflicts**: The authors examine the internal dynamics of firms, emphasizing that organizations are composed of various coalitions of individuals and groups with different interests. These coalitions engage in negotiation and bargaining to influence decisions.

This book has had a significant impact on the field of organizational theory and has influenced subsequent research on decision-making, organizational behavior, and management practices. It provides a rich and nuanced understanding of the complexities and realities of how firms operate.
     ____________________________________

"The Behavioral Theory of the Firm" by Richard Cyert and James G. March, published in 1963, provides an alternative view to traditional economic theories of how firms operate. It focuses on the actual behaviors and decision-making processes within organizations, emphasizing the limitations and constraints faced by decision-makers.

**Key Concepts:**

1. **Bounded Rationality**: Decision-makers operate with limited information and cognitive capacities, leading to decisions that are "good enough" rather than optimal.

2. **Multiple Goals**: Firms do not pursue a single objective of profit maximization; instead, they have various goals reflecting the interests of different stakeholders.

3. **Satisficing**: Rather than seeking the best possible solution, firms look for solutions that meet minimum acceptable criteria.

4. **Decision-Making Processes**: Organizations rely on established routines and procedures to make decisions, helping to manage complexity and uncertainty.

5. **Organizational Learning**: Firms learn from their experiences and adapt over time through feedback and experimentation.

6. **Coalitions and Conflicts**: Organizations consist of various groups with different interests, leading to negotiation and bargaining within the firm.

This work has significantly influenced the field of organizational theory, offering insights into how real-world firms navigate decision-making processes amidst various internal and external constraints.
     ____________________________________
 
"The Behavioral Theory of the Firm" by Richard Cyert and James G. March, published in 1963, provides an alternative view to traditional economic theories of how firms operate. It focuses on the actual behaviors and decision-making processes within organizations, emphasizing the limitations and constraints faced by decision-makers.

**Key Concepts:**

1. **Bounded Rationality**: Decision-makers operate with limited information and cognitive capacities, leading to decisions that are "good enough" rather than optimal.

2. **Multiple Goals**: Firms do not pursue a single objective of profit maximization; instead, they have various goals reflecting the interests of different stakeholders.

3. **Satisficing**: Rather than seeking the best possible solution, firms look for solutions that meet minimum acceptable criteria.

4. **Decision-Making Processes**: Organizations rely on established routines and procedures to make decisions, helping to manage complexity and uncertainty.

5. **Organizational Learning**: Firms learn from their experiences and adapt over time through feedback and experimentation.

6. **Coalitions and Conflicts**: Organizations consist of various groups with different interests, leading to negotiation and bargaining within the firm.

This work has significantly influenced the field of organizational theory, offering insights into how real-world firms navigate decision-making processes amidst various internal and external constraints.
     ____________________________________

https://copilot.microsoft.com/chats/VWNUncumHo8TobpfMps2a

 tell me about the book, behavior theory of the firm (cyert and march), in essay format

"The Behavioral Theory of the Firm" by Richard Cyert and James G. March, published in 1963, represents a pivotal departure from traditional economic theories of firm behavior. Traditional models often portray firms as profit-maximizing entities that operate with perfect rationality. However, Cyert and March challenged this notion by presenting a more realistic depiction of how organizations actually function, emphasizing the complexities and constraints faced by decision-makers.

One of the foundational concepts in the book is bounded rationality. Cyert and March argue that decision-makers within firms do not possess unlimited information or cognitive capabilities. Instead, they operate under significant constraints, such as limited information, time pressures, and cognitive limitations. As a result, rather than seeking optimal solutions, decision-makers aim for "satisficing" solutions—those that are good enough to meet minimum acceptable criteria. This concept of bounded rationality underscores the practical limitations faced by individuals within organizations and provides a more accurate representation of real-world decision-making processes.

Another key concept is the notion of multiple goals within firms. Contrary to the traditional economic view that firms primarily aim to maximize profits, Cyert and March suggest that organizations pursue a variety of objectives. These goals often reflect the interests and aspirations of different stakeholders, including employees, managers, shareholders, and customers. The presence of multiple, sometimes conflicting, goals necessitates negotiation and compromise, which further complicates the decision-making process.

The book also delves into the decision-making processes within firms, highlighting the importance of established routines, standard operating procedures, and organizational rules. These mechanisms help firms manage complexity and reduce uncertainty by providing structured frameworks for decision-making. By relying on these routines and procedures, organizations can operate more efficiently and effectively, even in the face of uncertainty and change.

Organizational learning is another crucial aspect explored by Cyert and March. They emphasize that firms learn from their experiences and adapt their behaviors over time. This learning process involves feedback, experimentation, and adaptation, allowing organizations to refine their decision-making processes and improve their performance. The concept of organizational learning highlights the dynamic nature of firms and their capacity for growth and improvement.

Additionally, the book examines the internal dynamics of firms, focusing on the role of coalitions and conflicts. Organizations are composed of various groups and individuals with different interests and objectives. These groups often engage in negotiation and bargaining to influence decisions and outcomes. Understanding these internal dynamics is essential for comprehending how decisions are made and how power and influence are distributed within firms.

Overall, "The Behavioral Theory of the Firm" offers a rich and nuanced understanding of organizational behavior and decision-making. It provides valuable insights into the complexities and realities of how firms operate, challenging traditional economic assumptions and presenting a more realistic portrayal of organizational life. The book's contributions to the fields of organizational theory and management have had a lasting impact, shaping subsequent research and practice.
     ____________________________________

 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


Saturday, December 7, 2024

hedgehog and the fox (Isaiah Berlin)

 Isaiah Berlin

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_Berlin



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_Berlin




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hedgehog_and_the_Fox

The Hedgehog and the Fox is an essay by philosopher Isaiah Berlin that was published as a book in 1953. It was one of his most popular essays with the general public. However, Berlin said, "I meant it as a kind of enjoyable intellectual game, but it was taken seriously. Every classification throws light on something".[1] It has been compared to "an intellectual's cocktail-party game".[2] 

Summary

The title is a reference to a fragment attributed to the Ancient Greek poet Archilochus: πόλλ' οἶδ' ἀλώπηξ, ἀλλ' ἐχῖνος ἓν μέγα ("a fox knows many things, but a hedgehog knows one big thing"). In Erasmus's Adagia from 1500, the expression is recorded as Multa novit vulpes, verum echinus unum magnum. (The fable of The Fox and the Cat embodies the same idea.)[citation needed] 

Berlin expands upon this idea to divide writers and thinkers into two categories: hedgehogs, who view the world through the lens of a single defining idea (examples given include Plato, Lucretius, Blaise Pascal, Marcel Proust and Fernand Braudel), and foxes, who draw on a wide variety of experiences and for whom the world cannot be boiled down to a single idea (examples given include Aristotle, Desiderius Erasmus, Johann Wolfgang Goethe).[3]

Turning to Leo Tolstoy, Berlin contends that at first glance, Tolstoy escapes definition into one of the two groups. He postulates that while Tolstoy's talents are those of a fox, his beliefs are that one ought to be a hedgehog and so Tolstoy's own voluminous assessments of his own work are misleading. Berlin goes on to use this idea of Tolstoy as a basis for an analysis of the theory of history that Tolstoy presents in his novel War and Peace.

In the latter half of the essay, Berlin compares Tolstoy with the early 19th-century thinker Joseph de Maistre. As Berlin explains, while Tolstoy and de Maistre held violently contrasting views on more superficial matters, they also held profoundly similar views about the fundamental nature of existence and the limits of a rational scientific approach to it.

The essay ends with Berlin reiterating his view of Tolstoy—by nature a fox but a hedgehog by conviction— by concluding that this duality caused Tolstoy great pain at the end of his life. 


InfluenceIn business and forecasting

James C. Collins refers to the story in his 2001 book Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap... and Others Don't , where he clearly shows his preference towards hedgehog mentality.

Philip E. Tetlock, a political psychology professor at the University of Pennsylvania, drew heavily on this distinction in his exploration of the accuracy of experts and forecasters in various fields (especially politics) in his 2005 book Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know?[4][5] Tetlock summarized substantial research claiming that most experts and well-paid pundits think like hedgehogs with one big idea; on average they make poor forecasts. Meanwhile, people who draw information from a large variety of often-conflicted sources, like foxes, make better forecasts. However, both are often beaten by formal models like autoregressive distributed lag models.[6]

In his 2012 The New York Times bestselling book The Signal and the Noise, forecaster Nate Silver urges readers to be "more foxy" after summarising Berlin's distinction. He cites the work of Philip E. Tetlock on the accuracy of political forecasts in the United States during the Cold War while he was a professor of political science at the University of California, Berkeley. Silver's news website, fivethirtyeight.com, when it was launched in March 2014, also adopted the fox as its logo "as an allusion to" Archilochus' original work.[7]

In 2018, the author John Lewis Gaddis refers to Berlin's essay as well as Tetlock's work in his 2018 book On Grand Strategy.[8]
In other disciplines

Some authors such as Michael Walzer have used the same pattern of description for Berlin himself, as a person who knows many things, compared to the purported narrowness of many other contemporary political philosophers. Berlin's former student, Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor, was dubbed a hedgehog by Berlin and admitted to it after receiving the 2007 Templeton Prize.[9]

Legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin's 2011 book, Justice for Hedgehogs, argues the case for a single, overarching, and coherent framework of moral truth.

Music historian Berthold Hoeckner applies and extends Berlin's distinction in his 2007 essay "Wagner and the Origin of Evil". One of Hoeckner's key insights is that the historiography of Wagner's antisemitism, much like that of the Holocaust, has two main branches: a hedgehog-like functionalist branch that sees the composer's polemic jabs at Jewish culture as mere assimilationist rhetoric, and a fox-like intentionalist branch that sees them instead as violent expressions of genuinely eliminationist Judenhass.[10]

In his book Wittgenstein's Place in Twentieth-Century Analytic Philosophy, Oxford philosopher Peter Hacker uses this metaphor to contrast Berlin's Tolstoy (a fox who wants to be a hedgehog) with philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, who was "by nature a hedgehog, but after 1929 transformed himself, by great intellectual and imaginative endeavour, into a paradigmatic fox".[11]

Claudio Véliz uses Berlin's construction to contrast Anglo-American and Spanish patterns of settlement and governance in his 1994 book The New World of the Gothic Fox: Culture and Economy in English and Spanish America.[citation needed]

Peter Kivy refers to the essay when describing philosophy of art in the current day as the age of the fox (best represented by Noël Carroll), contrasting it with the previous era of the hedgehog (best represented by Arthur Danto).[12]

Harvard political economist Dani Rodrik applies the distinction to "hedgehog" mainstream orthodox economists who apply the "Liberal Paradigm" to everything everywhere always and "fox" heterodox (political) economists who have different answers to different times, places, and situations in his 2015 book Economics Rules: The Rights and Wrongs of the Dismal Science.[13]

Leading Judge, Lord Hoffmann, observed that "Copyright law protects foxes better than hedgehogs" in his Judgment in the case Designers Guild Ltd v Russell Williams (Textiles) Ltd in the UK House of Lords.[14]

Linguist Mark Aronoff divides linguists into these two groups, essentially those that emphasize linguistic theory versus those focused on empirical accuracy and generalizations. He identifies as a fox and states, "I find it hard to understand why hedgehogs make the moves that they make. It has always been especially puzzling to me why they react with such vehemence to what strikes me, a fox, as entirely reasonable or even unremarkable."[15] 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hedgehog_and_the_Fox




https://assets.press.princeton.edu/chapters/s9981.pdf

The Hedgehog and the Fox
A queer combination of the brain of an English chemist
with the soul of an Indian Buddhist.
E. M. de Vogüé 1
I
There is a line among the fragments of the Greek poet
Archilochus which says: ‘The fox knows many things, but the
hedgehog knows one big thing.’2 Scholars have differed about the
correct interpretation of these dark words, which may mean no
more than that the fox, for all his cunning, is defeated by the
1 ‘On dirait l’esprit d’un chimiste anglais dans l’âme d’un bouddhiste hindou; se
charge qui pourra d’expliquer cet étrange accouplment’: Le Roman russe (Paris, 1886),
282.2 ‘po*ll’ oi#d’ a$lw* phx, a$ll’ e$ci&nov e= n me*ga.’ Archilochus fragment 201 in M. L. West
(ed.), Iambi et elegi graeci ante Alexandrum cantati, 2nd ed., vol. 1 (Oxford, 1989). [The
fragment was preserved in a collection of proverbs by the Greek Sophist Zenobius (5. 68),
who says that it is found in both Archilochus and Homer – West, op. cit., vol. 2 (Oxford,
1992), ‘Homerus’ fragment 5. Since it is iambic rather than dactylic in metre, the attribu-
tion to Homer is likely to mean that it appeared in the (now thought pseudo-Homeric)
comic epic poem Margites, probably written later than Archilochus’ poem. See e.g.
C. M. Bowra, ‘The Fox and the Hedgehog’, Classical Quarterly 34 (1940), 26–9 (see 26),
an article reprinted with revisions in Bowra’s On Greek Margins (Oxford, 1970), 59–66
(see 59), and evidently unknown to Berlin. In any event, the sentiment might well be
a proverb deployed by both authors, though given Archilochus’ frequent use of animal
encounters (on which see also 114–15 below), it is attractive to think it was used first, and
given this metrical form, by him.]
2 • Isaiah Berlin
hedgehog’s one defence. But, taken figuratively, the words can
be made to yield a sense in which they mark one of the deepest
differences which divide writers and thinkers, and, it may be,
human beings in general. For there exists a great chasm between
those, on one side, who relate everything to a single central vi-
sion, one system, less or more coherent or articulate, in terms
of which they understand, think and feel – a single, universal,
organising principle in terms of which alone all that they are and
say has significance – and, on the other side, those who pursue
many ends, often unrelated and even contradictory, connected,
if at all, only in some de facto way, for some psychological or
physiological cause, related to no moral or aesthetic principle.
These last lead lives, perform acts and entertain ideas that are
centrifugal rather than centripetal; their thought is scattered or
diffused, moving on many levels, seizing upon the essence of a
vast variety of experiences and objects for what they are in them-
selves, without, consciously or unconsciously, seeking to fit them
into, or exclude them from, any one unchanging, all-embracing,
sometimes self-contradictory and incomplete, at times fanatical,
unitary inner vision. The first kind of intellectual and artistic
personality belongs to the hedgehogs, the second to the foxes; and
without insisting on a rigid classification, we may, without too
much fear of contradiction, say that, in this sense, Dante belongs
to the first category, Shakespeare to the second; Plato, Lucretius,
Pascal, Hegel, Dostoevsky, Nietzsche, Ibsen, Proust are, in varying
degrees, hedgehogs; Herodotus, Aristotle, Montaigne, Erasmus,
Molière, Goethe, Pushkin, Balzac, Joyce are foxes.
Of course, like all over-simple classifications of this type, the
dichotomy becomes, if pressed, artificial, scholastic and ultimately
The Hedgehog and the Fox • 3
absurd. But if it is not an aid to serious criticism, neither should it
be rejected as being merely superficial or frivolous: like all distinc-
tions which embody any degree of truth, it offers a point of view
from which to look and compare, a starting-point for genuine
investigation. Thus we have no doubt about the violence of the
contrast between Pushkin and Dostoevsky; and Dostoevsky’s
celebrated speech about Pushkin has, for all its eloquence and
depth of feeling, seldom been considered by any perceptive
reader to cast light on the genius of Pushkin, but rather on that
of Dostoevsky himself, precisely because it perversely represents
Pushkin – an arch-fox, the greatest in the nineteenth century –
as being similar to Dostoevsky, who is nothing if not a hedgehog;
and thereby transforms, indeed distorts, Pushkin into a dedicated
prophet, a bearer of a single, universal message which was indeed
the centre of Dostoevsky’s own universe, but exceedingly remote
from the many varied provinces of Pushkin’s protean genius.
Indeed, it would not be absurd to say that Russian literature is
spanned by these gigantic figures – at one pole Pushkin, at the
other Dostoevsky; and that the characteristics of other Russian
writers can, by those who find it useful or enjoyable to ask that
kind of question, to some degree be determined in relation to
these great opposites. To ask of Gogol, Turgenev, Chekhov, Blok
how they stand in relation to Pushkin and to Dostoevsky leads –
or, at any rate, has led – to fruitful and illuminating criticism. But
when we come to Count Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy, and ask this of
him – ask whether he belongs to the first category or the second,
whether he is a monist or a pluralist, whether his vision is of one
or of many, whether he is of a single substance or compounded of
heterogeneous elements – there is no clear or immediate answer.
4 • Isaiah Berlin
The question does not, somehow, seem wholly appropriate; it
seems to breed more darkness than it dispels. Yet it is not lack of
information that makes us pause: Tolstoy has told us more about
himself and his views and attitudes than any other Russian, more,
almost, than any other European, writer. Nor can his art be called
obscure in any normal sense: his universe has no dark corners,
his stories are luminous with the light of day; he has explained
them and himself, and argued about them and the methods by
which they are constructed, more articulately and with greater
force and sanity and lucidity than any other writer. Is he a fox or
a hedgehog? What are we to say? Why is the answer so curiously
difficult to find? Does he resemble Shakespeare or Pushkin more
than Dante or Dostoevsky? Or is he wholly unlike either, and is
the question therefore unanswerable because it is absurd? What
is the mysterious obstacle with which our enquiry seems faced?
I do not propose in this essay to formulate a reply to this
question, since this would involve nothing less than a critical
examination of the art and thought of Tolstoy as a whole. I shall
confine myself to suggesting that the difficulty may be, at least in
part, due to the fact that Tolstoy was himself not unaware of the
problem, and did his best to falsify the answer. The hypothesis I
wish to offer is that Tolstoy was by nature a fox, but believed in
being a hedgehog; that his gifts and achievement are one thing,
and his beliefs, and consequently his interpretation of his own
achievement, another; and that consequently his ideals have led
him, and those whom his genius for persuasion has taken in, into
a systematic misinterpretation of what he and others were doing
or should be doing. No one can complain that he has left his
readers in any doubt as to what he thought about this topic: his
The Hedgehog and the Fox • 5
views on this subject permeate all his discursive writings – diaries,
recorded obiter dicta, autobiographical essays and stories, social
and religious tracts, literary criticism, letters to private and public
correspondents. But the conflict between what he was and what
he believed emerges nowhere so clearly as in his view of history,
to which some of his most brilliant and most paradoxical pages
are devoted. This essay is an attempt to deal with his historical
doctrines, and to consider both his motives for holding the views
he holds and some of their probable sources. In short, it is an
attempt to take Tolstoy’s attitude to history as seriously as he
himself meant his readers to take it, although for a somewhat
different reason – for the light it casts on a single man of genius
rather than on the fate of all mankind.
II
Tolstoy’s philosophy of history has, on the whole, not obtained
the attention which it deserves, whether as an intrinsically inter-
esting view or as an occurrence in the history of ideas, or even as
an element in the development of Tolstoy himself.1 Those who
have treated Tolstoy primarily as a novelist have at times looked
upon the historical and philosophical passages scattered through
War and Peace as so much perverse interruption of the narrative,
as a regrettable liability to irrelevant digression characteristic
1 For the purposes of this essay I propose to confine myself almost entirely to
the explicit philosophy of history contained in War and Peace, and to ignore, for ex-
ample, Sevastopol Stories, The Cossacks, the fragments of the unpublished novel on the
Decembrists, and Tolstoy’s own scattered reflections on this subject except in so far as
they bear on views expressed in War and Peace.

https://assets.press.princeton.edu/chapters/s9981.pdf


Isaiah Berlin (hedgehog and fox)

 Isaiah Berlin

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_Berlin



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_Berlin




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hedgehog_and_the_Fox

The Hedgehog and the Fox is an essay by philosopher Isaiah Berlin that was published as a book in 1953. It was one of his most popular essays with the general public. However, Berlin said, "I meant it as a kind of enjoyable intellectual game, but it was taken seriously. Every classification throws light on something".[1] It has been compared to "an intellectual's cocktail-party game".[2] 

Summary

The title is a reference to a fragment attributed to the Ancient Greek poet Archilochus: πόλλ' οἶδ' ἀλώπηξ, ἀλλ' ἐχῖνος ἓν μέγα ("a fox knows many things, but a hedgehog knows one big thing"). In Erasmus's Adagia from 1500, the expression is recorded as Multa novit vulpes, verum echinus unum magnum. (The fable of The Fox and the Cat embodies the same idea.)[citation needed] 

Berlin expands upon this idea to divide writers and thinkers into two categories: hedgehogs, who view the world through the lens of a single defining idea (examples given include Plato, Lucretius, Blaise Pascal, Marcel Proust and Fernand Braudel), and foxes, who draw on a wide variety of experiences and for whom the world cannot be boiled down to a single idea (examples given include Aristotle, Desiderius Erasmus, Johann Wolfgang Goethe).[3]

Turning to Leo Tolstoy, Berlin contends that at first glance, Tolstoy escapes definition into one of the two groups. He postulates that while Tolstoy's talents are those of a fox, his beliefs are that one ought to be a hedgehog and so Tolstoy's own voluminous assessments of his own work are misleading. Berlin goes on to use this idea of Tolstoy as a basis for an analysis of the theory of history that Tolstoy presents in his novel War and Peace.

In the latter half of the essay, Berlin compares Tolstoy with the early 19th-century thinker Joseph de Maistre. As Berlin explains, while Tolstoy and de Maistre held violently contrasting views on more superficial matters, they also held profoundly similar views about the fundamental nature of existence and the limits of a rational scientific approach to it.

The essay ends with Berlin reiterating his view of Tolstoy—by nature a fox but a hedgehog by conviction— by concluding that this duality caused Tolstoy great pain at the end of his life. 


InfluenceIn business and forecasting

James C. Collins refers to the story in his 2001 book Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap... and Others Don't , where he clearly shows his preference towards hedgehog mentality.

Philip E. Tetlock, a political psychology professor at the University of Pennsylvania, drew heavily on this distinction in his exploration of the accuracy of experts and forecasters in various fields (especially politics) in his 2005 book Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know?[4][5] Tetlock summarized substantial research claiming that most experts and well-paid pundits think like hedgehogs with one big idea; on average they make poor forecasts. Meanwhile, people who draw information from a large variety of often-conflicted sources, like foxes, make better forecasts. However, both are often beaten by formal models like autoregressive distributed lag models.[6]

In his 2012 The New York Times bestselling book The Signal and the Noise, forecaster Nate Silver urges readers to be "more foxy" after summarising Berlin's distinction. He cites the work of Philip E. Tetlock on the accuracy of political forecasts in the United States during the Cold War while he was a professor of political science at the University of California, Berkeley. Silver's news website, fivethirtyeight.com, when it was launched in March 2014, also adopted the fox as its logo "as an allusion to" Archilochus' original work.[7]

In 2018, the author John Lewis Gaddis refers to Berlin's essay as well as Tetlock's work in his 2018 book On Grand Strategy.[8]
In other disciplines

Some authors such as Michael Walzer have used the same pattern of description for Berlin himself, as a person who knows many things, compared to the purported narrowness of many other contemporary political philosophers. Berlin's former student, Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor, was dubbed a hedgehog by Berlin and admitted to it after receiving the 2007 Templeton Prize.[9]

Legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin's 2011 book, Justice for Hedgehogs, argues the case for a single, overarching, and coherent framework of moral truth.

Music historian Berthold Hoeckner applies and extends Berlin's distinction in his 2007 essay "Wagner and the Origin of Evil". One of Hoeckner's key insights is that the historiography of Wagner's antisemitism, much like that of the Holocaust, has two main branches: a hedgehog-like functionalist branch that sees the composer's polemic jabs at Jewish culture as mere assimilationist rhetoric, and a fox-like intentionalist branch that sees them instead as violent expressions of genuinely eliminationist Judenhass.[10]

In his book Wittgenstein's Place in Twentieth-Century Analytic Philosophy, Oxford philosopher Peter Hacker uses this metaphor to contrast Berlin's Tolstoy (a fox who wants to be a hedgehog) with philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, who was "by nature a hedgehog, but after 1929 transformed himself, by great intellectual and imaginative endeavour, into a paradigmatic fox".[11]

Claudio Véliz uses Berlin's construction to contrast Anglo-American and Spanish patterns of settlement and governance in his 1994 book The New World of the Gothic Fox: Culture and Economy in English and Spanish America.[citation needed]

Peter Kivy refers to the essay when describing philosophy of art in the current day as the age of the fox (best represented by Noël Carroll), contrasting it with the previous era of the hedgehog (best represented by Arthur Danto).[12]

Harvard political economist Dani Rodrik applies the distinction to "hedgehog" mainstream orthodox economists who apply the "Liberal Paradigm" to everything everywhere always and "fox" heterodox (political) economists who have different answers to different times, places, and situations in his 2015 book Economics Rules: The Rights and Wrongs of the Dismal Science.[13]

Leading Judge, Lord Hoffmann, observed that "Copyright law protects foxes better than hedgehogs" in his Judgment in the case Designers Guild Ltd v Russell Williams (Textiles) Ltd in the UK House of Lords.[14]

Linguist Mark Aronoff divides linguists into these two groups, essentially those that emphasize linguistic theory versus those focused on empirical accuracy and generalizations. He identifies as a fox and states, "I find it hard to understand why hedgehogs make the moves that they make. It has always been especially puzzling to me why they react with such vehemence to what strikes me, a fox, as entirely reasonable or even unremarkable."[15] 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hedgehog_and_the_Fox



https://assets.press.princeton.edu/chapters/s9981.pdf

The Hedgehog and the Fox
A queer combination of the brain of an English chemist
with the soul of an Indian Buddhist.
E. M. de Vogüé 1
I
There is a line among the fragments of the Greek poet
Archilochus which says: ‘The fox knows many things, but the
hedgehog knows one big thing.’2 Scholars have differed about the
correct interpretation of these dark words, which may mean no
more than that the fox, for all his cunning, is defeated by the
1 ‘On dirait l’esprit d’un chimiste anglais dans l’âme d’un bouddhiste hindou; se
charge qui pourra d’expliquer cet étrange accouplment’: Le Roman russe (Paris, 1886),
282.2 ‘po*ll’ oi#d’ a$lw* phx, a$ll’ e$ci&nov e= n me*ga.’ Archilochus fragment 201 in M. L. West
(ed.), Iambi et elegi graeci ante Alexandrum cantati, 2nd ed., vol. 1 (Oxford, 1989). [The
fragment was preserved in a collection of proverbs by the Greek Sophist Zenobius (5. 68),
who says that it is found in both Archilochus and Homer – West, op. cit., vol. 2 (Oxford,
1992), ‘Homerus’ fragment 5. Since it is iambic rather than dactylic in metre, the attribu-
tion to Homer is likely to mean that it appeared in the (now thought pseudo-Homeric)
comic epic poem Margites, probably written later than Archilochus’ poem. See e.g.
C. M. Bowra, ‘The Fox and the Hedgehog’, Classical Quarterly 34 (1940), 26–9 (see 26),
an article reprinted with revisions in Bowra’s On Greek Margins (Oxford, 1970), 59–66
(see 59), and evidently unknown to Berlin. In any event, the sentiment might well be
a proverb deployed by both authors, though given Archilochus’ frequent use of animal
encounters (on which see also 114–15 below), it is attractive to think it was used first, and
given this metrical form, by him.]
2 • Isaiah Berlin
hedgehog’s one defence. But, taken figuratively, the words can
be made to yield a sense in which they mark one of the deepest
differences which divide writers and thinkers, and, it may be,
human beings in general. For there exists a great chasm between
those, on one side, who relate everything to a single central vi-
sion, one system, less or more coherent or articulate, in terms
of which they understand, think and feel – a single, universal,
organising principle in terms of which alone all that they are and
say has significance – and, on the other side, those who pursue
many ends, often unrelated and even contradictory, connected,
if at all, only in some de facto way, for some psychological or
physiological cause, related to no moral or aesthetic principle.
These last lead lives, perform acts and entertain ideas that are
centrifugal rather than centripetal; their thought is scattered or
diffused, moving on many levels, seizing upon the essence of a
vast variety of experiences and objects for what they are in them-
selves, without, consciously or unconsciously, seeking to fit them
into, or exclude them from, any one unchanging, all-embracing,
sometimes self-contradictory and incomplete, at times fanatical,
unitary inner vision. The first kind of intellectual and artistic
personality belongs to the hedgehogs, the second to the foxes; and
without insisting on a rigid classification, we may, without too
much fear of contradiction, say that, in this sense, Dante belongs
to the first category, Shakespeare to the second; Plato, Lucretius,
Pascal, Hegel, Dostoevsky, Nietzsche, Ibsen, Proust are, in varying
degrees, hedgehogs; Herodotus, Aristotle, Montaigne, Erasmus,
Molière, Goethe, Pushkin, Balzac, Joyce are foxes.
Of course, like all over-simple classifications of this type, the
dichotomy becomes, if pressed, artificial, scholastic and ultimately
The Hedgehog and the Fox • 3
absurd. But if it is not an aid to serious criticism, neither should it
be rejected as being merely superficial or frivolous: like all distinc-
tions which embody any degree of truth, it offers a point of view
from which to look and compare, a starting-point for genuine
investigation. Thus we have no doubt about the violence of the
contrast between Pushkin and Dostoevsky; and Dostoevsky’s
celebrated speech about Pushkin has, for all its eloquence and
depth of feeling, seldom been considered by any perceptive
reader to cast light on the genius of Pushkin, but rather on that
of Dostoevsky himself, precisely because it perversely represents
Pushkin – an arch-fox, the greatest in the nineteenth century –
as being similar to Dostoevsky, who is nothing if not a hedgehog;
and thereby transforms, indeed distorts, Pushkin into a dedicated
prophet, a bearer of a single, universal message which was indeed
the centre of Dostoevsky’s own universe, but exceedingly remote
from the many varied provinces of Pushkin’s protean genius.
Indeed, it would not be absurd to say that Russian literature is
spanned by these gigantic figures – at one pole Pushkin, at the
other Dostoevsky; and that the characteristics of other Russian
writers can, by those who find it useful or enjoyable to ask that
kind of question, to some degree be determined in relation to
these great opposites. To ask of Gogol, Turgenev, Chekhov, Blok
how they stand in relation to Pushkin and to Dostoevsky leads –
or, at any rate, has led – to fruitful and illuminating criticism. But
when we come to Count Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy, and ask this of
him – ask whether he belongs to the first category or the second,
whether he is a monist or a pluralist, whether his vision is of one
or of many, whether he is of a single substance or compounded of
heterogeneous elements – there is no clear or immediate answer.
4 • Isaiah Berlin
The question does not, somehow, seem wholly appropriate; it
seems to breed more darkness than it dispels. Yet it is not lack of
information that makes us pause: Tolstoy has told us more about
himself and his views and attitudes than any other Russian, more,
almost, than any other European, writer. Nor can his art be called
obscure in any normal sense: his universe has no dark corners,
his stories are luminous with the light of day; he has explained
them and himself, and argued about them and the methods by
which they are constructed, more articulately and with greater
force and sanity and lucidity than any other writer. Is he a fox or
a hedgehog? What are we to say? Why is the answer so curiously
difficult to find? Does he resemble Shakespeare or Pushkin more
than Dante or Dostoevsky? Or is he wholly unlike either, and is
the question therefore unanswerable because it is absurd? What
is the mysterious obstacle with which our enquiry seems faced?
I do not propose in this essay to formulate a reply to this
question, since this would involve nothing less than a critical
examination of the art and thought of Tolstoy as a whole. I shall
confine myself to suggesting that the difficulty may be, at least in
part, due to the fact that Tolstoy was himself not unaware of the
problem, and did his best to falsify the answer. The hypothesis I
wish to offer is that Tolstoy was by nature a fox, but believed in
being a hedgehog; that his gifts and achievement are one thing,
and his beliefs, and consequently his interpretation of his own
achievement, another; and that consequently his ideals have led
him, and those whom his genius for persuasion has taken in, into
a systematic misinterpretation of what he and others were doing
or should be doing. No one can complain that he has left his
readers in any doubt as to what he thought about this topic: his
The Hedgehog and the Fox • 5
views on this subject permeate all his discursive writings – diaries,
recorded obiter dicta, autobiographical essays and stories, social
and religious tracts, literary criticism, letters to private and public
correspondents. But the conflict between what he was and what
he believed emerges nowhere so clearly as in his view of history,
to which some of his most brilliant and most paradoxical pages
are devoted. This essay is an attempt to deal with his historical
doctrines, and to consider both his motives for holding the views
he holds and some of their probable sources. In short, it is an
attempt to take Tolstoy’s attitude to history as seriously as he
himself meant his readers to take it, although for a somewhat
different reason – for the light it casts on a single man of genius
rather than on the fate of all mankind.
II
Tolstoy’s philosophy of history has, on the whole, not obtained
the attention which it deserves, whether as an intrinsically inter-
esting view or as an occurrence in the history of ideas, or even as
an element in the development of Tolstoy himself.1 Those who
have treated Tolstoy primarily as a novelist have at times looked
upon the historical and philosophical passages scattered through
War and Peace as so much perverse interruption of the narrative,
as a regrettable liability to irrelevant digression characteristic
1 For the purposes of this essay I propose to confine myself almost entirely to
the explicit philosophy of history contained in War and Peace, and to ignore, for ex-
ample, Sevastopol Stories, The Cossacks, the fragments of the unpublished novel on the
Decembrists, and Tolstoy’s own scattered reflections on this subject except in so far as
they bear on views expressed in War and Peace.

https://assets.press.princeton.edu/chapters/s9981.pdf


Thursday, December 5, 2024

china debates the future security environment (Michael Pillsbury, [2000])

 china debates the future security environment 
CHINA DEBATES the FUTURE SECURITY ENVIRONMENT

Pillsbury, Michael (2000). China Debates the Future Security Environment. University Press of the Pacific. ISBN 978-1-4102-1856-8. Archived from the original on 2009-06-25.

 • 

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2000/part01.htm

Don't debate. . . Once debate begins, things become complicated.

Deng Xiaoping

CHINA DEBATES the FUTURE SECURITY ENVIRONMENT

MICHAEL PILLSBURY

January 2000

National Defense University Press
Washington, DC

Contents

PREFACE
PROLOGUE 

1. THE MULTIPOLARITY DEBATE 

    The Current Assessment, 1986-99
    Multipolarity Proclaimed in 1986
    Revisionist Multipolarity

        Challenging the Orthodox View
        The Orthodox Counterattack

    Techniques for Showing Dissent
    Differences Within the Orthodox Camp
    Post-Kosovo Debate 
    Shanghai's Elaborate Studies
    Fifty-Year Structures
    Future Wars

        Rivalries, Struggles, and Local Wars
        Sources of Wars
        Deng Xiaoping Thought

    China's Role in Multipolarity
    Findings

        The Basic Framework
        Debates
        Regional Wars 

2. AMERICA'S DECLINING ROLE 

    Failure to Implement the RMA
    Future Military Weaknesses
    Weakness in Logistics
    North Korea Can Defeat America 
    Weaknesses in the Gulf War
    U.S. Aircraft Carrier Vulnerabilities
    Overall U.S. Decline
    Loss of Allies
    Self-Prophecy of Decline
    Lord of the Earth
    Findings 

3. JAPAN AND INDIA: DANGEROUS DEMOCRACIES 

    The Inevitable Rise of Japan and India
    Japan

        Future Rivalries
        Contrasting Views
        Future Militarism 
        Impact of Militarism
        He Xin: A Dissenting View
        Military Development

    India 

        A Future Asian Great Power? 
        Instability in South Asia
        Historical Rivalries 
        The Enduring Relevance of History

    Findings 

4. A WEAK RUSSIA'S FUTURE 

    Rely on China
    Debates on Russia
    Development and Recovery
    Dangers in the Future Security Environment
    Russia's Response 
    Influence of the Kosovo Crisis 
    Sino-Russian Relations 
    Military Development 
    "Secret" RMA Efforts 
    Implications of the Soviet Collapse 
    American Subversion? 
    Moscow's Own Fault 
    Findings 

5. GEOPOLITICAL POWER CALCULATIONS 

    The Orthodox Versus the Reform
    Origins 
    Ancient Chinese Strategists as Antecedents 
    Modern Beginnings 

    Qualitative Factors 

        High-Technology Warfare 
        Economic Rivalries 
        Strategy and Structure 
        Grand Strategy

    Quantitative Factors

        The CASS Index Framework 
        The AMS Index System 
        Foreign Methods 
        The CASS Weighted Index Plan
        The AMS Dynamic Equation 
        Calculating the Rise and Decline of Nations

    Forecasts: Winners and Losers in 2020 

        CASS 
        AMS 
        CNP Versus GDP Forecasts 
        Other Predictions

    Findings 

6. FORECASTING FUTURE WARS

    Where Will Local Wars Occur? 
    What Kind of Wars Could Affect China? 
    Institutional Affiliations of the Three Schools 
    Force Structure and the Three Schools 

        People's War School 
        Local War School 
        The RMA Advocates

    Three Mutually Exclusive Scenarios 
    The RMA in China

        RMA Forecasts 
        The RMA and the United States 
        Asymmetric War 
        Advocates 
        Proposals and Programs 
        National Conferences

    Asymmetric Warfare

        Strategy 
        Sea Power 
        Air Power 
        Nanotechnology Weapons 
        "Magic Weapons"

    Combat Concepts 
    Defense Investment Decisions

        Resource Allocation 
        Investments Recommended by RMA Advocates 
        Investments Recommended by Power Projections Advocates 
        Investments Recommended by People's War Advocates 

    Findings 

7. CONCLUSIONS  

    Multiple Debates  

        The Rate of Multipolarization  
        The Pace of U.S. Decline  
        The Future Powers  
        The Roles of Japan and Russia  
        Future Wars 

    A Clear Picture  
    Warring States  
    America's Decline  
    Future National Power
    Threats from Japan and India  
    Partnership with Russia  
    Forecasting Future Wars  
    Sensitive Debates 

ACRONYMS 
CHINESE LANGUAGE BIBLIOGRAPHY 
APPENDIX 1: THE DEFINITION OF STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT 
APPENDIX 2: ASSESSMENT INSTITUTIONS 
INDEX OF CHINESE AUTHORS 
ABOUT THE AUTHOR

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2000/part01.htm
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2000/part01.htm

Contents

PREFACE
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2000/part02.htm

PROLOGUE 
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2000/part03.htm

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2000/part03.htm


1. THE MULTIPOLARITY DEBATE 

    The Current Assessment, 1986-99
    Multipolarity Proclaimed in 1986
    Revisionist Multipolarity

        Challenging the Orthodox View
        The Orthodox Counterattack

    Techniques for Showing Dissent
    Differences Within the Orthodox Camp
    Post-Kosovo Debate 
    Shanghai's Elaborate Studies
    Fifty-Year Structures
    Future Wars

        Rivalries, Struggles, and Local Wars
        Sources of Wars
        Deng Xiaoping Thought

    China's Role in Multipolarity
    Findings

        The Basic Framework
        Debates
        Regional Wars 

2. AMERICA'S DECLINING ROLE 

    Failure to Implement the RMA
    Future Military Weaknesses
    Weakness in Logistics
    North Korea Can Defeat America 
    Weaknesses in the Gulf War
    U.S. Aircraft Carrier Vulnerabilities
    Overall U.S. Decline
    Loss of Allies
    Self-Prophecy of Decline
    Lord of the Earth
    Findings 

3. JAPAN AND INDIA: DANGEROUS DEMOCRACIES 

    The Inevitable Rise of Japan and India
    Japan

        Future Rivalries
        Contrasting Views
        Future Militarism 
        Impact of Militarism
        He Xin: A Dissenting View
        Military Development

    India 

        A Future Asian Great Power? 
        Instability in South Asia
        Historical Rivalries 
        The Enduring Relevance of History

    Findings 

4. A WEAK RUSSIA'S FUTURE 

    Rely on China
    Debates on Russia
    Development and Recovery
    Dangers in the Future Security Environment
    Russia's Response 
    Influence of the Kosovo Crisis 
    Sino-Russian Relations 
    Military Development 
    "Secret" RMA Efforts 
    Implications of the Soviet Collapse 
    American Subversion? 
    Moscow's Own Fault 
    Findings 

5. GEOPOLITICAL POWER CALCULATIONS 

    The Orthodox Versus the Reform
    Origins 
    Ancient Chinese Strategists as Antecedents 
    Modern Beginnings 

    Qualitative Factors 

        High-Technology Warfare 
        Economic Rivalries 
        Strategy and Structure 
        Grand Strategy

    Quantitative Factors

        The CASS Index Framework 
        The AMS Index System 
        Foreign Methods 
        The CASS Weighted Index Plan
        The AMS Dynamic Equation 
        Calculating the Rise and Decline of Nations

    Forecasts: Winners and Losers in 2020 

        CASS 
        AMS 
        CNP Versus GDP Forecasts 
        Other Predictions

    Findings 

6. FORECASTING FUTURE WARS

    Where Will Local Wars Occur? 
    What Kind of Wars Could Affect China? 
    Institutional Affiliations of the Three Schools 
    Force Structure and the Three Schools 

        People's War School 
        Local War School 
        The RMA Advocates

    Three Mutually Exclusive Scenarios 
    The RMA in China

        RMA Forecasts 
        The RMA and the United States 
        Asymmetric War 
        Advocates 
        Proposals and Programs 
        National Conferences

    Asymmetric Warfare

        Strategy 
        Sea Power 
        Air Power 
        Nanotechnology Weapons 
        "Magic Weapons"

    Combat Concepts 
    Defense Investment Decisions

        Resource Allocation 
        Investments Recommended by RMA Advocates 
        Investments Recommended by Power Projections Advocates 
        Investments Recommended by People's War Advocates 

    Findings 

7. CONCLUSIONS  

    Multiple Debates  

        The Rate of Multipolarization  
        The Pace of U.S. Decline  
        The Future Powers  
        The Roles of Japan and Russia  
        Future Wars 

    A Clear Picture  
    Warring States  
    America's Decline  
    Future National Power
    Threats from Japan and India  
    Partnership with Russia  
    Forecasting Future Wars  
    Sensitive Debates 

ACRONYMS 
CHINESE LANGUAGE BIBLIOGRAPHY 
APPENDIX 1: THE DEFINITION OF STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT 
APPENDIX 2: ASSESSMENT INSTITUTIONS 
INDEX OF CHINESE AUTHORS 
ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Libya, Ukraine, North Korea, and Iran situation

  https://copilot.microsoft.com/chats/4G4N26B9TUqUDSnMhqMVG Great approach! Comparing North Korea to Libya and Ukraine shows how different g...