How algorithms secretly shape the way we behave

Although this is tech related I am posting it in science because its more about how technology influences human behavior. As someone who has written algorithms for a living I thought this was a good lay piece on how math and computer science works behind the scenes to shape behavior and thought.

-----------

Algorithms, the key ingredients of all significant computer programs, have probably influenced your Christmas shopping and may one day determine how you vote.

Keynes's observation (in his General Theory) that "practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist" needs updating. Replace "economist" with "algorithm". And delete "defunct", because the algorithms that now shape much of our behaviour are anything but defunct. They have probably already influenced your Christmas shopping, for example. They have certainly determined how your pension fund is doing, and whether your application for a mortgage has been successful. And one day they may effectively determine how you vote.

On the face of it, algorithms – "step-by-step procedures for calculations" – seem unlikely candidates for the role of tyrant. Their power comes from the fact that they are the key ingredients of all significant computer programs and the logic embedded in them determines what those programs do. In that sense algorithms are the secret sauce of a computerised world.

And they are secret. Every so often, the veil is lifted when there's a scandal. Last August, for example, a "rogue algorithm" in the computers of a New York stockbroking firm, Knight Capital, embarked on 45 minutes of automated trading that eventually lost its owners $440m before it was stopped.

But, mostly, algorithms do their work quietly in the background. I've just logged on to Amazon to check out a new book on the subject – Automate This: How Algorithms Came to Rule Our World by Christopher Steiner. At the foot of the page Amazon tells me that two other books are "frequently bought together" with Steiner's volume: Nate Silver's The Signal and the Noise and Nassim Nicholas Taleb's Antifragile. This conjunction of interests is the product of an algorithm: no human effort was involved in deciding that someone who is interested in Steiner's book might also be interested in the writings of Silver and Taleb.

But book recommendations are relatively small beer – though I suspect they will have influenced a lot of online shopping at this time of year, as people desperately seek ideas for presents. The most powerful [ I'd argue its one of the most powerful, but not THE] algorithm in the world is PageRank – the one that Google uses to determine the rankings of results from web searches – for the simple reason that, if your site doesn't appear in the first page of results, then effectively it doesn't exist. Not surprisingly, there is a perpetual arms race (euphemistically called search engine optimisation) between Google and people attempting to game PageRank. Periodically, Google tweaks the algorithm and unleashes a wave of nasty surprises across the web as people find that their hitherto modestly successful online niche businesses have suddenly – and unaccountably – disappeared.

PageRank thus gives Google awesome power. And, ever since Lord Acton's time, we know what power does to people – and institutions. So the power of PageRank poses serious regulatory issues for governments. On the one hand, the algorithm is a closely guarded commercial secret – for obvious reasons: if it weren't, then the search engine optimisers would have a field day and all search results would be suspect. On the other hand, because it's secret, we can't be sure that Google isn't skewing results to favour its own commercial interests, as some people allege.

Besides, there's more to power than commercial clout. Many years ago, the sociologist Steven Lukes pointed out that power comes in three varieties: the ability to stop people doing what they want to do; the ability to compel them to do things that they don't want to do: and the ability to shape the way they think. This last is the power that mass media have, which is why the Leveson inquiry was so important.

But, in a way, algorithms also have that power. Take, for example, the one that drives Google News. This was recently subjected to an illuminating analysis by Nick Diakopoulos from the Nieman Journalism Lab. Google claims that its selection of noteworthy news stories is "generated entirely by computer algorithms without human editors. No humans were harmed or even used in the creation of this page."

The implication is that the selection process is somehow more "objective" than a human-mediated one. Diakopoulos takes this cosy assumption apart by examining the way the algorithm works. There's nothing sinister about it, but it highlights the importance of understanding how software works. The choice that faces citizens in a networked world is thus: program or be programmed.

How algorithms secretly shape the way we behave | Technology | The Observer

--------

I agree with the author that algorithms and their ability "to shape the way they[we] think" is extremely powerful. The most sinister algorithms imho are the ones that filter your Google/browser searches. This may seem inane on the surface, but just think about the power to limit information and what that means in terms of shaping the scope of information presented to people. You can't know what you aren't presented with.

When you search a string, you are served up results that are a mathematical prediction of what you want to see. Google is actually hailed for this because it allows the search to be "accurate" i.e. they are really good at specializing content. And their ability to perfect their algorithm is how Google won the search wars. It appears great to the user because they don't have to wade through content that is not useful to them, but their worldview is being crafted by math. What you don't get to see is just as, if not more, important. IMHO this is borderline an ethics issue, but right now it operates as a business decision that is good for the user because it simplifies search.

Facebook also does this to your content feed. You don't see all of your friends' status messages. Algorithms are hard at work deciding which status messages you see and which you don't. Same when online shopping, algorithms are directing you to certain items, certain e-tailers. Your news is also pre-filtered by algorithms as noted in the example in the article. Basically the ability to control people by programmers is fairly easy and most are none the wiser to the ever growing influence on the web.

__________________

__________________

Ownership of data and information needs to become a lot more explicit, so does the dissemination of said information especially as the internet becomes a primary source for discovery of information. There's also very little disclosure that goes into filtering search results nor do users have much, if any, control of their results--and very few alternatives.

Its something akin to walking into a doctor's office and not being presented with all of the options to take care of your ailment. The doctor thinking they know you and deciding to offer you 2 out of 5 available options and you are none the wiser. Now the doctor may have offered you the optimal treatment, or not, but without disclosure your scope of the issue and your available choices have been severely limited without your knowledge. Additionally, as a lay person you don't have the expertise of a doctor to know all of the treatments that exist, and there is level of trust that you have obviously placed with the doctor. The doctor could sell you this as a smart fast diagnostic service--which is what search engines do. But where is the disclosure or the option to hear all of your options if you so choose? And there is only one doctor in town who gives the full gamut of options, but since you don't know you're being limited you don't know to try out other doctors. << That is where it gets into ethics for me.

This example also assumes that the doctor is trying to give you the best service. Let's not even talk about how things can go awry when other factors come into play that might influence which options the doctors present to you.

One more layer to add..the doctor is using YOUR information to make the diagnosis. Does that bring some level of obligation for full disclosure ?

__________________

__________________

__________________

Great points Sparkle.

I can see how the doctor example is flawed but it was the most relatable one I could come up with it at the time.

My main issue is the disclosure and thus the ability of choice.

You are definitely right the information is still there, and that's been Goog's and every other search engines' argument. You[We] don't have to use their search engine. Their business model shouldn't be a barrier to information though, and most lay people aren't aware of alternatives (as if they are any better) or that their information is being shaped. This is really a false choice, imho. How nebulous this is now really depends on what you're looking for. I think there is a lot of potential for it become a lot more problematic. Especially as the web transitions from static content to more user generated data. Ownership rights of data/information will no doubt murky this conversation further. How Goog and other engines serve you back your own information is going to be a hotbed of discussion.

Admittedly the combing of results is helpful about 95% of the time--now. I still think people need to understand how their worldview is being shaped though and illusion of free-will on the net is something of a half truth.


Hmmmmm. I am not sure about that. Google has been accused before of favoring their own products and services in their results. That is definitely unethical. I'd call that akin to insider trading almost.

Remember how Google decided to drop Twitter from its real time search? (people really need to be aware that search is biased and a product from a company and is subject to change and show the results they want you to have at any time--and is highly political).

Here is an article about how Google has been pushing Google+ content over more relevant search content.

Real-Life Examples Of How Google's "Search Plus" Pushes Google+ Over Relevancy

This is all a huge deal.

__________________

__________________

You're right and the government is like 10 steps behind on technology issues in general.

__________________