An Uncertainty Principle for Interdependence: Laying the Theoretical Groundwork for Human-Machine Teams

  • W. F. LawlessEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 962)


The deliberateness of rational decision-making is an attempt by social scientists to improve on intuition. Rational approaches using Shannon’s information theory have argued that teams and organizations should minimize interdependence (mutual information); social psychologists have long recommended the removal of the effects of interdependence to make their data iid (independent, non-orthogonal, memoryless); and the social science of interdependence is disappearing. But according to experimental evidence reported by the National Academy of Sciences, the best teams maximize interdependence. Thus, navigating social reality has so far permitted only an intuitive approach to social and psychological interdependence. Absent from these conflicting paradigms is the foundation for a theory of teams that combines rationality and interdependence based on first principles which we have begun to sketch philosophically and mathematically. Without a rational mathematics of interdependence, building human-machine teams in the future will remain intuitive, based on guesswork, and inefficient.


Interdependence Explainable AI Shared context Human-machine teams 


  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Baumeister, R.F., Campbell, J., Krueger, J., and K. Vohs.: Exploding the self-esteem myth, Sci. Am., 292(1), 84–91 (2005 Jan). Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blanton, H., Klick, J., Mitchell, G., Jaccard, J., Mellers, B., Tetlock, P.: Strong claims and weak evidence: Reassessing the predictive validity of the IAT. J. Appl. Psychol. 94(3), 567–582 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bohr, N.: Science and the unity of knowledge. In: Leary, L. (ed.) The unity of knowledge, pp. 44–62. Doubleday (1955)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Centola, D., Macy, M.: Complex contagions and the weakness of long ties. Am. J. Sociol. 113(3), 702–734 (2007). Scholar
  6. 6.
    Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Peled, D.A.: Model checking. MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cohen, L.: Time-frequency analysis: theory and applications. Prentice Hall Signal Processing Series (1995)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cohen, J.: Human nature sinks HIV prevention trial. Science 351, 1160 (2013).
  9. 9.
    Conant, R.C.: Laws of information which govern systems. IEEE Trans. Sys. Man Cybern. 6, 240–255 (1976)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cooke, N., Hilton, M. E.: Enhancing the effectiveness of team science. National Research Council, National Academies Press, Washington (DC) (2015)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cummings, J.: Team science successes and challenges. In: NSF Workshop Fundamentals of Team Science and the Science of Team Science, Bethesda MD (June 2, 2015).
  12. 12.
    Ellis, J.: American dialogue. The founders and us. Knopf (2018)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Emerson, J.: Don’t give up on unconscious bias training—Make it better. Harv. Bus. Rev. (4/28/2017).
  14. 14.
    England, J.: Statistical physics of self-replication. J. Chem. Phys. 139(121923) (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Flint, J., Hagey, K.: CBS ups stakes in feud with Redstones. The media company turns to ‘nuclear option’ to eliminate Redstones’ voting control and block a Viacom merger. Wall Street J (5/14/2018)
  16. 16.
    Folley, A.: Louisiana law repealed when voters helped endeda Jim-Crow era law that has long influenced Louisiana’s legal system. reported (11/7/2018)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ginsburg, R.: American Electric Power Co., Inc., et al. v. Connecticut et al. 564 US 410 Supreme Court (2011).
  18. 18.
    Gouran, D.S., Hirokawa, R.Y., Martz, A.E.: A critical analysis of factors related to decisional processes involved in the Challenger disaster, Comm. Stud. 37(3), 118–135 (1986, September). Scholar
  19. 19.
    Janis, I.L.: Groupthink. Houghton, New York (1971)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jones, E.: Major developments in five decades of social psychology. In: Gilbert, D. T., Fiske, S.T., Lindzey, G. (eds.) The Handbook of Social Psychology, vol 1. McGraw-Hill, 1998 (see p. 33)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., Bolger, N.: Data analysis in social psychology. In: Gilbert, D. T., Fiske, S.T., Lindzey, G. (eds.) The Handbook of Social Psychology (pp. 233–265). New York, NY, US: McGraw-Hill (1998)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lawless, W.F.: The entangled nature of interdependence. bistability, irreproducibility and uncertainty. J. Math. Psy. 78, 51–64 (2017a)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lawless, W.F.: The physics of teams: Interdependence, measurable entropy and computational emotion. Front. Phys. 5(30) (2017b)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lawless, W.F., Akiyoshi, M., Angjellari-Dajcic, Fiorentina, Whitton, J.: Public consent for the geologic disposal of highly radioactive wastes and spent nuclear fuel. Int. J. Environ. Stud. 71(1), 41–62 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lawless, W.F., Sofge, D.: The intersection of robust intelligence and trust in autonomous systems, Chapter 12. In: Mittu, R., Sofge, D., Wagner, A., Lawless, W.F., The intersection of robust intelligence and trust: Hybrid teams, firms and systems. Springer (2016)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lawless, W.F., Mittu, R., Sofge, D., Russell, S. (eds.): Autonomy and artificial intelligence: a threat or savior? Springer, New York (2017)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lawless, W.F.: (under review) Interdependence, shared context and uncertainty for human-machine teams. Towards the mathematics of explainable AI, Frontiers of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lawless, W.F., Mittu, R., Sofge, D., Moskowitz, I.S., Russell, S. (eds.): Artificial intelligence for the internet of everything. Elsevier (2019a, in press)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lawless, W.F., Mittu, R., Sofge, D.A., Hiatt, L.: Introduction to the Special Issue, “Artificial intelligence (AI), autonomy and human-machine teams: Interdependence, context and explainable AI,” AI Magazine (2019b, in press)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lewin, K.: Field theory of social science. Selected theoretical papers, D. Cartwright (Ed.). Harper and Brothers (1951)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Millen, R.: “Cultivating strategic thinking: the Eisenhower model,” Parameters (2012, Summer), 2012summer/Millen.pdf
  32. 32.
    Nosek, B.: Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), 943 (2015).
  33. 33.
    NTSB.: Preliminary report released for crash involving pedestrian, Uber Technologies, Inc., test vehicle. Technical report, National Transportation Safety Board, NTSB (24/5/2018) releases/Pages/NR20180524.aspx, 2018
  34. 34.
    OSD.: Nuclear Posture Review, Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) (2018a)
  35. 35.
    OSD.: National Defense Strategy, Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) (2018b)
  36. 36.
    Pearl, J.: Reasoning with cause and effect. AI Magazine, 23(1), 95–111, 2002 Scholar
  37. 37.
    Pearl, J., D. Mackenzie.: AI can’t reason why. The current data-crunching approach to machine learning misses an essential element of human intelligence. Wall Str. J. (2018).
  38. 38.
    Prigogine, I.: Time, structure and fluctuations, Nobel Lecture, pp. 263–285 (12/8/1977)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
  40. 40.
    Rees, G., Frackowiak, R., Frith, C.: Two modulatory effects of attention that mediate object categorization in human cortex. Science 275, 835–838 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Roethlisberger, F., Dickson, W.: Management and the worker. Cambridge University Press (1939)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Shannon, C.: A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst. Tech. J. 27, 379–423, 623–656 (1948)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Simmel, G.: The persistence of social groups. AJS 3, 662–698 (1897)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Simon, H.: Bounded rationality and organizational learning. Tech. Rep. AIP 107, CMU, Pittsburgh, PA (23/9/1989)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Strong, USArmy: Strengthening teamwork for robust operations in novel groups (2018)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Taplin, H.: Can China’s red capital really innovate? Wall Str. J. (2018).
  47. 47.
    Tetlock, P., Gardner, D.: Superforecasting: the art and science of prediction. Crown (2015)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Weinberg, S.: The trouble with quantum mechanics. The New York Review of Books (2017)
  49. 49.
    Weyers, B., Bowen, J., Dix, A., Palanque, P. (eds.): The handbook of formal methods in human-computer interaction. Gewerbestrasse: Springer International (2017)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Wilkes, W.: How the world’s biggest companies are fine-tuning the robot revolution. Automation is leading to job growth in certain industries where machines take on repetitive tasks, freeing humans for more creative duties. Wall Str. J. (14/5/2018).
  51. 51.
    Wing J.M.: A specifier’s introduction to formal methods. Computer 23(9), 8, 10–22, 24 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    WP: White Paper. European governance (COM (2001) 428 final; Brussels, 25.7.2001). Brussels, Commission of the European Community (2001)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Zell, E., Krizan, Z.: Do people have insight into their abilities? A metasynthesis? Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 9(2), 111–125 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Paine CollegeAugustaGeorgia

Personalised recommendations