Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Advances in Human Factors in Robots and Unmanned Systems (AHFE 2019)

Part of the book series: Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing ((AISC,volume 962))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. ADP-1. The Army. 2012. From https://www.army.mil/e2/c/downloads/303969.pdf

  2. Baumeister, R.F., Campbell, J., Krueger, J., and K. Vohs.: Exploding the self-esteem myth, Sci. Am., 292(1), 84–91 (2005 Jan). https://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v292/n1/full/scientificamerican0105-84.html

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. Centola, D., Macy, M.: Complex contagions and the weakness of long ties. Am. J. Sociol. 113(3), 702–734 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1086/521848

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Peled, D.A.: Model checking. MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cohen, L.: Time-frequency analysis: theory and applications. Prentice Hall Signal Processing Series (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Cohen, J.: Human nature sinks HIV prevention trial. Science 351, 1160 (2013). https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2013/03/human-nature-sinks-hiv-prevention-trial

  9. Conant, R.C.: Laws of information which govern systems. IEEE Trans. Sys. Man Cybern. 6, 240–255 (1976)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Cooke, N., Hilton, M. E.: Enhancing the effectiveness of team science. National Research Council, National Academies Press, Washington (DC) (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  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). https://www.ohsu.edu/xd/education/schools/school-of-medicine/departments/clinicaldepartments/radiation-medicine/upload/12-_cummings_talk.pdf

  12. Ellis, J.: American dialogue. The founders and us. Knopf (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Emerson, J.: Don’t give up on unconscious bias training—Make it better. Harv. Bus. Rev. (4/28/2017). https://hbr.org/2017/04/dont-give-up-on-unconscious-biastraining-make-it-better

  14. England, J.: Statistical physics of self-replication. J. Chem. Phys. 139(121923) (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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) https://www.wsj.com/articles/cbs-goes-on-attack-againstredstones-suing-controlling-shareholder-for-breaching-fiduciary-duty-1526308237

  16. Folley, A.: Louisiana law repealed when voters helped endeda Jim-Crow era law that has long influenced Louisiana’s legal system. NOLA.com reported (11/7/2018)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ginsburg, R.: American Electric Power Co., Inc., et al. v. Connecticut et al. 564 US 410 Supreme Court (2011). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/564/410

  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). https://doi.org/10.1080/10510978609368212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Janis, I.L.: Groupthink. Houghton, New York (1971)

    Google Scholar 

  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. 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. Lawless, W.F.: The entangled nature of interdependence. bistability, irreproducibility and uncertainty. J. Math. Psy. 78, 51–64 (2017a)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  23. Lawless, W.F.: The physics of teams: Interdependence, measurable entropy and computational emotion. Front. Phys. 5(30) (2017b)

    Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. 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. Lawless, W.F.: (under review) Interdependence, shared context and uncertainty for human-machine teams. Towards the mathematics of explainable AI, Frontiers of Science

    Google Scholar 

  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. 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. Lewin, K.: Field theory of social science. Selected theoretical papers, D. Cartwright (Ed.). Harper and Brothers (1951)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Millen, R.: “Cultivating strategic thinking: the Eisenhower model,” Parameters (2012, Summer), https://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/pubs/parameters/articles/ 2012summer/Millen.pdf

  32. Nosek, B.: Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), 943 (2015). http://science.sciencemag.org/content/349/6251/aac4716

  33. NTSB.: Preliminary report released for crash involving pedestrian, Uber Technologies, Inc., test vehicle. Technical report, National Transportation Safety Board, NTSB (24/5/2018) https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press- releases/Pages/NR20180524.aspx, 2018

  34. OSD.: Nuclear Posture Review, Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) (2018a) https://media.defense.gov/2018/Feb/02/2001872886/-1/-1/1/2018-NUCLEARPOSTURE-REVIEW-FINAL-REPORT.PDF

  35. OSD.: National Defense Strategy, Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) (2018b) https://dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2018-National-Defense-Strategy-Summary.pdf

  36. Pearl, J.: Reasoning with cause and effect. AI Magazine, 23(1), 95–111, 2002 http://ftp.cs.ucla.edu/pub/stat_ser/r265-ai-mag.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  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). https://www.wsj.com/articles/ai-cant-reason-why-1526657442

  38. Prigogine, I.: Time, structure and fluctuations, Nobel Lecture, pp. 263–285 (12/8/1977)

    Google Scholar 

  39. Rand, D., Nowak, M.: Human cooperation. Cognitive Sciences, 17(8), 413–425 (2013). https://static1.squarespace.com/static/51ed234ae4b0867e2385d879/t/54ac6169e4b00f7c5fc76aa2/1420583312697/human-cooperation.pdf

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Rees, G., Frackowiak, R., Frith, C.: Two modulatory effects of attention that mediate object categorization in human cortex. Science 275, 835–838 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Roethlisberger, F., Dickson, W.: Management and the worker. Cambridge University Press (1939)

    Google Scholar 

  42. Shannon, C.: A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst. Tech. J. 27, 379–423, 623–656 (1948)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  43. Simmel, G.: The persistence of social groups. AJS 3, 662–698 (1897)

    Google Scholar 

  44. Simon, H.: Bounded rationality and organizational learning. Tech. Rep. AIP 107, CMU, Pittsburgh, PA (23/9/1989)

    Google Scholar 

  45. Strong, USArmy: Strengthening teamwork for robust operations in novel groups (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  46. Taplin, H.: Can China’s red capital really innovate? Wall Str. J. (2018). https://www.wsj.com/articles/can-chinas-red-capital-really-innovate-1526299173

  47. Tetlock, P., Gardner, D.: Superforecasting: the art and science of prediction. Crown (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  48. Weinberg, S.: The trouble with quantum mechanics. The New York Review of Books http://www.nybooks.com (2017)

  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. 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). https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-the-worlds-biggest-companies-are-finetuning-the-robot-revolution-1526307839

  51. Wing J.M.: A specifier’s introduction to formal methods. Computer 23(9), 8, 10–22, 24 (1990)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. WP: White Paper. European governance (COM (2001) 428 final; Brussels, 25.7.2001). Brussels, Commission of the European Community (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  53. Zell, E., Krizan, Z.: Do people have insight into their abilities? A metasynthesis? Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 9(2), 111–125 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Paine College, 1235 15th Street, Augusta, GA, Georgia

    W. F. Lawless

Authors
  1. W. F. Lawless
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to W. F. Lawless .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Orlando, FL, USA

    Jessie Chen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Lawless, W.F. (2020). An Uncertainty Principle for Interdependence: Laying the Theoretical Groundwork for Human-Machine Teams. In: Chen, J. (eds) Advances in Human Factors in Robots and Unmanned Systems. AHFE 2019. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 962. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20467-9_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation