Brian Arthur’s magic formula for excellence


Apr 20, 2018

How to achieve scientific excellence

 

W. Brian Arthur from the SFI about increasing returns and the magic formula to get really great science. 

 

 

Last week the great Brian Arthur shortly stopped at the Hub on his way back home from Singapore to further work on a new idea he has been developing together with Stefan and Rudi.

 

Brian, now 71, is one of the most influential early thinkers of the Santa Fe Institute (SFI), a place that without exaggeration could be called the cradle of complexity science.

 

Brian became famous with his theory of increasing returns. An idea that has been developed in Vienna, by the way, where Brian was part of a theoretical group at the IIASA (one of our member institutions) in the early days of his career: from 1978 to 1982.

 

“I was very lucky,” he recalls. “I was allowed to work on what I wanted, so I worked on increasing returns.”

 

The paper he wrote at that time introduced the concept of positive feedbacks into economy.

 

 

 

The concept or “increasing returns”

 

“Increasing returns are the tendency for that which is ahead to get further ahead, for that which loses advantage to lose further advantage. They are mechanisms of positive feedback that operate—within markets, businesses, and industries—to reinforce that which gains success or aggravate that which suffers loss.

 

Increasing returns generate not equilibrium but instability: If a product or a company or a technology—one of many competing in a market—gets ahead by chance or clever strategy, increasing returns can magnify this advantage, and the product or company or technology can go on to lock in the market.”

 

(W Brian Arthur, Harvard Business Review 1996)

 

This was a slap in the face of orthodox theories which saw–and some still see–economy in a state of equilibrium. “Kind of like a spiders web,” Brian explains me in our short conversation last Friday, “each part of the economy holding the others in an equalization of forces.”

 

The answer to heresy in science is that it does not get published. Brian’s article was turned down for six years. Today it counts more than 10.000 citations.

 

At the latest it was the development and triumphant advance of Silicon Valley’s tech firms that proved the concept true. “In fact, that’s now the way how Silicon Valley runs,” Brian says.

 

 

 

The youngest man on a Stanford chair

 

William Brian Arthur is Irish. He was born and raised in Belfast and first studied in England. But soon he moved to the US. After the PhD and his five years in Vienna he returned to California where he became the youngest chair holder in Stanford with 37 years.

 

Five years later he changed again – to Santa Fe, to an institute that had been set up around 1983 but had been quite quiet so far.

 

 

 

Q: From one of the most prestigious universities in the world to an unknown little place in the desert. Why did you do that? 

 

 

A: In 1987 Kenneth Arrow, an economics Nobel Prize winner and mentor of mine, said to me at Stanford: We’re holding a small conference in September in a place in the Rockies, in Santa Fe, would you go?

 

When a Nobel Prize winner asks you such a question, you say yes of course. So I went to Santa Fe.

 

We were about ten scientists and ten economists at that conference, all chosen by Nobel Prize winners. We talked about the economy as an evolving complex system.

 

 

Veni, vidi, vici

 

Brian came – and stayed: The unorthodox ideas discussed at the meeting and the “wild” and free atmosphere of thinking at “the Institute”, as he calls the Santa Fe Institute (SFI), thrilled him right away.

 

In 1988 Brian dared to leave Stanford and started to set up the first research program at Santa Fe. Subject was the economy treated as a complex system.

 

 

 

Q: What was so special about SF?

 

 

A: The idea of complexity was quite new at that time. But people began to see certain patterns in all sorts of fields, whether it was chemistry or the economy or parts of physics, that interacting elements would together create these patterns…

 

To investigate this in universities with their particular disciplines, with their fixed theories, fixed orthodoxies–where it is all fixed how to do things–turned out to be difficult.

 

Take the economy for example. Until then people thought it was in an equilibrium. And there we came and proved, no, economics is no equilibrium! The Stanford department would immediately say: You can’t do that! Don’t do that! Or they would consider you to be very eccentric…

 

So a bunch of senior fellows at Los Alamos in the 1980s thought it would be a good idea if there was an independent institute to research these common questions that came to be called complexity.

 

 

At Santa Fe you could talk about any science and any basic assumptions you wanted without anybody saying you couldn’t or shouldn’t do that.

 

Our group as the first there set a lot of this wild style of research. There were lots of discussions, lots of open questions, without particular disciplines… In the beginning there were no students, there was no teaching. It was all very free.

 

This wild style became more or less the pattern that has been followed ever since. I think the Hub is following this model too.

 

 

The magic formula for excellence

 

 

Q: Was this just a lucky concurrence: the right people and atmosphere at the right time? Or is there a pattern behind it that possibly could be repeated?

 

 

A: I am sure: If you want to do interdisciplinary science – which complexity is: It is a different way of looking at things! – you need an atmosphere where people aren’t reinforced into all the assumptions of the different disciplines.

 

This freedom is crucial to excellent science altogether. It worked out not only for Santa Fe. Take the Rand Corporation for instance, that invented a lot of things including the architecture of the internet, or the Bell Labs in the Fifties that invented the transistor. The Cavendish Lab in Cambridge is another one, with the DNA or nuclear astronomy…

 

The magic formula seems to be this:

 

First get some first rate people. It must be absolutely top-notch people, maybe ten or twenty of them.

Make sure they interact a lot.

Allow them to do what they want – be confident that they will do something important.

And then when you protect them and see that they are well funded, you are off and running.

 

Probably in seven cases out of ten that will not produce much. But quite a few times you will get something spectacular – game changing things like quantum theory or the internet.

 

Don’t choose programs, choose people

 

 

Q: This does not seem to be the way officials are funding science…

 

 

A: Yes, in many places you have officials telling people what they need to research. Or where people insist on performance and indices… especially in Europe, I have the impression, you have a tradition of funding science by insisting on all these things like indices and performance and publications or citation numbers. But that’s not a very good formula.

 

Excellence is not measurable by performance indicators. In fact that’s the opposite of doing science.

 

I notice at places where everybody emphasize all this they are not on the forefront. Maybe it works for standard science; and to get out the really bad science. But it doesn’t work if you want to push boundaries.

 

Many officials don’t understand that.

 

In Singapore the authorities once asked me: How did you decide on the research projects in Santa Fe? I said, I didn’t decide on the research projects. They repeated their question. I said again, I did not decide on the research projects. I only decided on people. I got absolutely first rate people, we discussed vaguely the direction we wanted things to be in, and they decided on their research projects.

 

That answer did not compute with them. They are the civil service, they are extraordinarily bright, they’ve got a lot of money. So they think they should decide what needs to be researched.

 

I should have told them – I regret I didn’t: This is fine if you want to find solutions for certain things, like getting the traffic running or fixing the health care system. Surely with taxpayer’s money you have to figure such things out. But you will never get great science with that. All you get is mediocracy.

 

Of course now they asked, how do we decide which people should be funded? And I said: You don’t! Just allow top people to bring in top people. Give them funding and the task of being daring.

 

Any other way of managing top science doesn’t seem to work.

 

I think the Hub could be such a place – all the ingredients are here. Just make sure to attract some more absolutely first rate people. If they are well funded the Hub will put itself on the map very quickly.

 

 

 

 

(The interview was recorded by Verena Ahne)


Press

End Times by Peter Turchin review – can we predict the collapse of societies?


The Guardian, May 28, 2023

Event

CSH Talk by Thomas Choi "Supply Networks: Dyads, Triads, Tetrads, and Beyond"


Jun 06, 2023 | 15:0016:00

Complexity Science Hub Vienna

Press

Wie Medikamente durch die Welt reisen


NEWS, May 31, 2023

Press

Obesity increases the chances of developing mental disorders for all age groups


News Medical, May 30, 2023

News

May 31, 2023

Forensic analysis shows signs of election fraud in Turkey

Publication

A. Nerpel, et al.

SARS-ANI: a global open access dataset of reported SARS-CoV-2 events in animals

Scientific Data 9 (438) (2022)

People

May 30, 2023

Meet Sachin Rawat

Publication

V.D.P. Servedio, M. R. Ferreira, N. Reisz, R. Costas, S. Thurner

Scale-free growth in regional scientific capacity building explains long-term scientific dominance

Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 167 (2023) 113020

Publication

C. Deischinger, E. Dervic, S. Nopp, M. Kaleta, P. Klimek, A. Kautzky-Willer

Diabetes mellitus is associated with a higher relative risk for venous thromboembolism in females than in males

Diabetes Res Clin Pract. (2022) 36471550

Event

CSH Talk by François Lafond "Firm-level production networks: what do we (really) know?"


Jun 07, 2023 | 15:0016:00

Complexity Science Hub Vienna

Research News

May 30, 2023

Obesity increases risk of mental disorders throughout life

News

May 31, 2023

Forensic analysis shows signs of election fraud in Turkey

People

May 30, 2023

Meet Sachin Rawat

Research News

May 30, 2023

Obesity increases risk of mental disorders throughout life

News

May 25, 2023

Quotas alone will not solve the problem

Spotlight

May 17, 2023

Complexity Research for Digital Humanism

People

May 12, 2023

Peter Turchin introduces his new book

Research News

May 2, 2023

Scientists create high-resolution poverty maps using big data

News

Apr 26, 2023

BEYOND COLLECTIVE STUPIDITY

Spotlight

Apr 21, 2023

How does a region become a center for innovation?

Spotlight

Apr 14, 2023

Are cars our kings?

Press

End Times by Peter Turchin review – can we predict the collapse of societies?


The Guardian, May 28, 2023

Press

Obesity increases the chances of developing mental disorders for all age groups


News Medical, May 30, 2023

Press

Wie Medikamente durch die Welt reisen


NEWS, May 31, 2023

Press

Kritik an EU-Chatkontrolle


Ö1 | Digital.leben, May 11, 2023

Press

Treibjagd im Darknet: Neue Technologien für Cyber-Ermittler


Salzburger Nachrichten, May 16, 2023

Press

„Die Älteren halten zu Erdogan, die jüngere Generation hat andere Sorgen“


Cicero, May 9, 2023

Press

Stablecoin Destabilization - why should we care?


Forbes, Apr 27, 2023

Press

„Wir sind nicht so einfach zu manipulieren“ [feat. Hannah Metzler]


Kurier, Apr 29, 2023

Press

Die manchmal fatale Lust, alles selbst zu recherchieren [feat. Mirta Galesic & Henrik Olsson]


Die Presse, Apr 14, 2023

Press

La scienza ha creato una nuova classificazione delle aperture degli scacchi [ital | feat. Vito Servedio & Giordano De Marzo]


WIRED, Apr 10, 2023

Publication

R. Prieto-Curiel, J. E. Patino, B. Anderson

Scaling of the morphology of African cities

PNAS 120 (9) (2023) e2214254120

Publication

A. Di Natale, D. Garcia

LEXpander: applying colexification networks to automated lexicon expansion

Behaviour Research Methods (2023)

Publication

V.D.P. Servedio, M. R. Ferreira, N. Reisz, R. Costas, S. Thurner

Scale-free growth in regional scientific capacity building explains long-term scientific dominance

Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 167 (2023) 113020

Publication

C. Deischinger, E. Dervic, S. Nopp, M. Kaleta, P. Klimek, A. Kautzky-Willer

Diabetes mellitus is associated with a higher relative risk for venous thromboembolism in females than in males

Diabetes Res Clin Pract. (2022) 36471550

Publication

A. Nerpel, et al.

SARS-ANI: a global open access dataset of reported SARS-CoV-2 events in animals

Scientific Data 9 (438) (2022)

Publication

E. D. Lee, X. Chen, B. C. Daniels

Discovering sparse control strategies in neural activity

PLoS Computational Biology (May 27) (2022)

Publication

H. Kong, S. Martin-Gutierrez, F. Karimi

Influence of the first-mover advantage on the gender disparities in physics citations

Communications Physics 5 (243) (2022)

Publication

T.M. Pham, J. Korbel, R. Hanel, S. Thurner

Empirical social triad statistics can be explained with dyadic homophylic interactions

PNAS 119 (2022) e2121103119

Publication

G. De Marzo, V.D.P. Servedio

Quantifying the complexity and similarity of chess openings using online chess community data

Scientific Reports 13 (2023) 5327

Publication

D. R. Lo Sardo, S. Thurner, et al.

Systematic population-wide ecological analysis of regional variability in disease prevalence

Heliyon 9(4) (2023) e15377

Publication

J. Wachs

Digital traces of brain drain: developers during the Russian invasion of Ukraine

EPJ Data Science 12 (2023) 14

Publication

D. Diodato, R. Hausmann, F. Neffke

The impact of return migration on employment and wages in Mexican cities

Journal of Urban Economics 135 (2023) 103557

Event

CSH Talk by Thomas Choi "Supply Networks: Dyads, Triads, Tetrads, and Beyond"


Jun 06, 2023 | 15:0016:00

Complexity Science Hub Vienna

Event

CSH Workshop: "Firm-level supply network data for policy making"


Jun 05, 2023 | 8:00Jun 06, 2023 | 17:00

Complexity Science Hub Vienna

Event

CSH Talk by François Lafond "Firm-level production networks: what do we (really) know?"


Jun 07, 2023 | 15:0016:00

Complexity Science Hub Vienna