We Solve With a Given Tool's Vision
For my Data Science MSc, I was tasked with doing an optimization presentation where I was free to do it about whatever I wanted, preferably about one of the projects that utilized optimization. I had decided on working on reducing the number of features in a PLS model.
The way I usually think is, in my opinion, a combination of businessman and engineer. I usually try to come up with solutions using cheap tools and by using those in a brute force manner as they are cheap. As long as they can get the job done, I don't mind how many I spend. With this MSc, I was trying to develop another way of thinking where I would use limited expensive tools for solutions. For this scenario, I again tried to come up with such a solution where I thought about it for about a week but I couldn't. Then it got me thinking, if I can't think the way I want to, is modelling and data harder because most of the tools I have are based on iteration of cheap calculation itself? Also, my cheap access to a variety of algorithms might play a role in that. So;
Does our approach get shaped by our capability in data and modelling perspective?
I'm familiar with selective perspective, we all know it. When I needed to buy a pair of shoes, I would find myself paying more attention to what others are wearing, but I never find myself looking at shoes more than a month. This temporary attention to specific details shows how our mind adapts to immediate needs. However, this led me to realize that selective perspective operates at a much deeper, more persistent level - our thinking is fundamentally formed by what we are most capable of accomplishing. This fact roots back to our primitive background where we have a tendency to save energy for our survival and thinking is a resource-intensive act. It is called cognitive miser.
I was familiar with this concept but what dawned on me and caused me to write what you are reading right now is that computers being good at repeated tasks causes thinking more in that perspective. Especially those who learned programming in the earlier ages (that's my opinion).
This is not the best way to come up with novel ideas, especially when conducting science. This limitation of our thinking patterns has historical precedent. While I was searching on how our computational capability would affect our way of thinking, I found that a similar subject was discussed in the early 20th century in the debate between Hilbert/Bernays and Nelson. Nelson's perspective on mathematical intuition directly relates to how our tools shape our understanding. He suggests:
"Those who dispute the epistemic character of the mathematical axioms deny in this way the existence of pure intuition as epistemic source for mathematical judgments. . . . We cannot get by in metamathematics without intuition, as indeed is explicitly granted by Bernays in the discussion. But what kind of intuition is at issue here? The signs considered in metamathematics are extended entities, in fact, spatially extended entities given in spatial order." Hilbert and Bernays on Metamathematics p174
This doesn't fully cover what I'm discussing here but it goes to show that even in the past it was known that we are affected by our past knowledge, and I think in the new era of math (named as The Mechanization of Mathematics) this fact is often overlooked.
---
Through my search, I have also come across another person who mentioned reliance on computers half a century ago: Joseph Weizenbaum. His most popular work is ELIZA. His work involved banking systems and artificial intelligence. He was known for his prominent criticism of artificial intelligence and the role of computers in society. My view here isn't as strong as his. I will come to that later. The most relevant work of his to our discussion would be a chapter of his book called "Computer Power and Human Reason". I think Chapter 10 as a whole is very relevant to this topic and our current facts just support it better. For the sake of brevity, I will quote two sections:
"Science promised man power. But, as so often happens when people are seduced by promises of power, the price exacted in advance and all along the path, and the price actually paid, is servitude and impotence. Power is nothing if it is not the power to choose."
"I want them to have heard me affirm that the computer is a powerful new metaphor for helping us to understand many aspects of the world, but that it enslaves the mind that has no other metaphors and few other resources to call on. The world is many things, and no single framework is large enough to contain them all, neither that of man's science nor that of his poetry, neither that of calculating reason nor that of pure intuition."..."This development is tragic, in that it robs science of even the possibility of being guided by any authentically human standards, while it in no way restricts science's potential to deliver ever-increasing power to men."
He clearly explains how power created by computation can be misleading and narrowing our vision and thinking. His insights resonate strongly with my experience trying to develop new approaches to optimization - the very tools that give us power might be unconsciously limiting our ability to think beyond them.
His opinion of AI and computer involvement is too strong in my opinion. We should acknowledge and leverage our tools and their capabilities. What is crucial is knowing that these tools are narrowing our view and affecting the approaches we take. I haven't found how to overcome these challenges.
There are some resources addressing cognitive miser trying to overcome or manage it, yet I don't think their proposals address such fundamental shaping of our problem-solving approaches by our computational capabilities. This goes beyond simple cognitive bias - it's about how our very tools for thinking might be constraining our ability to think differently.
In the end, this is another case of humans developing required skills faster than evolving, and this problem is quite fundamental that affects us in our core. Therefore, I think I will chase answers to it throughout my life and hope to have a better method for overcoming it.