Quentin Hardy's recent post in the Bits blog of the New York Times touched on the gap between representation and reality that is a core element of practically every human enterprise. His post is titled "Why Big Data is Not Truth," and I recommend it for anyone who feels like joining the phony argument over whether "big data" represents reality better than traditional data.

In a nutshell, this "us" vs. "them" approach is like trying to poke a fight between oil painters and water colorists. Neither oil painting nor water colors are "truth;" both are forms of representation. And here's the important part: Representation is exactly that -- a representation or interpretation of someone's perceived reality. Pitting "big data" against traditional data is like asking you if Rembrandt is more "real" than Gainsborough. Both of them are artists and both painted representations of the world they perceived around them.

The problem with false arguments like the one posed by Hardy is that they obscure the value of data -- traditional data and big data -- and the impact of data on our culture. I'm now working my way through "Raw Data" is an Oxymoron, an anthology of short essays about data. I recommend it for anyone who is seriously interested in thinking about the many ways in which data has influenced (and continues influencing) our lives. I especially recommend "facts and FACTS: Abolitionists' Database Innovations" by Ellen Gruber Garvey. As its title suggests, the essay focuses on what proves to be an absolutely fascinating period of U.S. history in which the anti-slavery movement harvested data from real advertisements in Southern newspapers to paint a vivid and believable picture of the routine horrors inflicted by the slave system on real human beings.

That 19th century use of data mining built support for the anti-slavery movement, both in the U.S. and in England. The data played a key role in making the case for abolishing slavery -- even though it required the bloodiest war in U.S. history to make abolition a fact.

Data itself has no quality. It's what you do with it that counts.

Well, I'm not exactly sure that Nick Taleb would agree that his new book, Antifragile, is about data or decision making, but I'm seeing everything these days through those lenses, and Taleb's book certainly fits into the big data analytics worldview -- at least from my perspective. The other book I'm reading is The Signal and The Noise: Why So Many Predictions Fail -- But Some Don't by Nate Silver. Both books are really about fate, fortune and understanding the future. And both were recommended to me by a client, which is a nice side benefit of working with smart people who care about the underlying laws of the universe.

Heading off to Strata Conference + Hadoop World in NYC this week. Should be valuable, and interesting. I've been writing about "big data" for a while now, but an upcoming gig puts me deeper into the weeds of real-time big data analytics. I'm looking forward to learning more, meeting a bunch of really smart people, and then turning all of my experiences into a series of seamless narratives. Of course, I also hope the snacks are good ...

As a parent, I approached Elizabeth Kolbert's excellent article in the New Yorker about spoiled children with a reasonable degree of trepidation. I mean, who wants to read more about the awful failure of our generation to produce kids who are as perfect as we were?

Like all of Ms. Kolbert's articles, this one was lucid, entertaining, and frightening. About halfway though, however, I had the distinct feeling that I was trapped in an echo chamber, or perhaps a hall of mirrors. Older generations always find fault with the habits of younger generations, and the Baby Boomers are no different in this respect. What's odd is how we've blamed ourselves for the alleged flaws and shortcomings exibited by our children as they face one of the most difficult periods of social transformation since the Industrial Revolution.

People are going to look back at the early 21st century and wonder how anyone kept their head screwed on straight. I have complete faith in the ability of my children and their pals to negotiate the twists and turns of whatever lies ahead. And I have no doubt that the future will be difficult and dangerous because that's the nature of the future. The past is always less dangerous because it's dead and buried. 

I counsel my children to enjoy the present, seize the day, and cherish the moment. I also advise them to follow the timeless motto of the Boy Scouts: "Be prepared."  

I recommend reading John Stepper's excellent new post, "Your best use of social media may not require a single post." Although John's post is about regulated industries such as banking, it touches on an area that many social media professionals find ... touchy.

Here's the rub: Ask most social media pros how they judge the success of a post and they'll tell you by the number of comments that it generates. Many people consider comments to be a valid proxy for engagement and interest.

Personally, I don’t believe that comments are a valid proxy for engagement or interest. The content you post has intrinsic value whether lots of people or few people — or no people — reply. Not every piece of information you post has to inspire a dialogue to get the job done.

Seems to me like a variant on the old, “If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it fall, does it make a sound?” Yes, of course it makes a sound, and yes, when you post content on a social collaboration platform, that content has value — even if it does not result in a social conversation that can be tracked and quantified.

So it looks like HP is going into the public cloud business. Can't hurt, I suppose. There's still plenty of room for competition, so it makes sense for HP to join the party. Ed Oswald has a good post about it in betanews. I don't think the news will rock the industry, but it's another data point in the slow march toward broader acceptance of the public cloud as a legitimate part of the IT infrastructure universe.

Definitely worth watching ... I remember listening on the radio as Friendship 7 orbited the Earth. We didn't care that the Soviets had already send cosmonauts into orbit -- we were delighted by our achievement, and we knew that more successes would follow. Unlike the Soviets, who cloaked their space program in secrecy, ours was wide open and transparent. We all knew that Glenn was experiencing problems with his heat shield, and we prayed that nothing would go wrong. It was an exciting, exuberating time -- and we loved every minute of it! Back then, we believed that all of us had "the right stuff!"

Writers love using analogies. Like shortcuts or quantum wormholes, analogies can get you very rapidly from Point A to Point B in a manuscript. In conversations, however, they are much less effective. Instead of helping you communicate, they tend to add layers of abstraction onto a process that is already abstract.  Nobody likes feeling confused, and abstractions tend to have that effect when they're used in a conversation.

My point? Leave analogies to the writers. We're trained to use them safely. When you're having a chat, speak in concrete terms. The people you're chatting with will appreciate it!  

My dad once told me that writers write. As a professional writer, I would add that writers also read. Whenever I begin a new writing project, the first step always involves reading -- and lots of it. At the moment, I'm writing a book on leadership and performance improvement for a new client. It's aimed at a general audience, so I'm reading a bunch of titles that would normally be off my radar. For instance, I'm reading "The Purpose Driven Life" by Rick Warren because it's divided into many short chapters and people seem to like that kind of approach. I'm also reading "Strengths Finder 2.0" by Tom Rath, which is a popular self-help book. And I've picked up a copy of "Secrets of the Millionaire Mind" by T. Harv Eker, to see how he integrates the book's message with his training business.

For ideas and inspiration, I'm reading "The Power of Myth" by Joseph Campbell, "The Rational Optimist" by Matt Ridley, "Nonzero" by Robert Wright, "Drive" by Daniel Pink and "Predictably Irrational" by Dan Arielly. These are exceptional books, and I recommend them highly.

For me, one of the best parts about starting a new writing project is that it gives me an excuse to go out and buy a new bunch of books. I need to see that stack of books sitting on my desk ... that's how I know I've got to start writing again! 

Jolie O'Dell recently posted in Facebook that she sometimes has a difficult time understanding people on the phone. Her post sparked a lively conversation, and it reminded me of the strange way that our brains work. For example, when I was a child, the numbers one through twenty and most letters of the alphabet (and even some words) had distinct personalities, genders and colors in my mind whenever I saw them ... now I just see numbers, letters and words ... it's OK, but sometimes I miss my childhood ability to create vivid hallucinations around graphic images ... and around music ... on the other hand, I'm happy it doesn't happen while I'm driving or trying to finish a manuscript on deadline ...