Signal v. Noise

In my previous discourse, much of the culpability for the failure of systems was attributed to ignorance.  As a phenomenon, ignorance is not new. It is however, becoming increasingly pervasive with each passing generation. Whilst it may appear that successive generations are increasingly intelligent, this is a common misconception. Generation Y may be more technologically adept than Generation X, it may have more street-smarts, it may learn and grow up faster, but it is still more ignorant.

Among the causes underpinning escalating ignorance is a broad-based deterioration in the Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR). This analysis will render the SNR concept in a socio-psychological context and seek to illustrate how it operates in contemporary society.

The Signal to Noise Ratio

Good and evil, love and hate, hope and despair, charming and tedious. Life is full of illustrious dichotomies. One such dichotomy; signal and noise, is all too often overlooked. In so many facets of living, stimulus is absolutely divisible on the criterion of value. There are only two states in this regard: valuable/signal and worthless/noise.

Borrowed from the sphere of engineering, the Signal to Noise Ratio defines the strength of sought audio against other background sound and interference. Couched in simpler terms, the useful versus the useless. Engineering defines the SNR as the power quotient of signal against noise:

Imagine you’re standing at a crowded bar, your phone rings, and you pick it up. The voice on the other end is the signal; the chatter going on in the background is the noise. In this scenario, it is possible to quantify the SNR by comparing the volume of the voice on the phone to that of the background drone; which is to say the SNR (in an audio context) is objective because a hard number can be placed on it. If the background noise is twice as loud as the phone voice, the SNR is 0.5.

A Humanistic Definition

Through my years in observational psychology, when I am not out and about harvesting souls, I spend a great deal of time reflecting upon and distilling what I’ve learned. The most profound discovery has always been particularly evasive: until recently, at the tip of my tongue. It struck me one day whilst trawling through some amusing classifieds: signal versus noise. Quite simply, life is a constant struggle to separate the two. Fulfilment is a beacon far out on the horizon, and life, the journey seeking it. It is a treacherous undertaking. The signal guides us to our objective, the noise leads us astray.

The aforementioned SNR apparatus is relevant on a plane much broader than spectrums of radio/audio waves. It also lends itself to the appraisal of signal and noise across humanistic domains: interaction, environmental stimulus, life, and the world in general. 

To apply the framework, we first need to distinguish between signal and noise. The nature of signal is to provide something intelligible that is of practical use: the meaning is inherent in the word. Signal. Signify. Significant. A signal is the precursor to action. Noise, by contrast, has zero value; it is effectively hollow stimulus that serves only to obstruct cognitive channels, create confusion, and distract us from what’s important. It is the magnet held to the compass.

Though we may not be cognisant of the fact, throughout the course of each day, we are constantly being bombarded with stimulus: words, images, sounds, people. Some of this stimulus we decide to take in, the rest we disregard. What we take in influences our thoughts, feelings and actions. It logically follows that our task is to optimise what we absorb such that signal is maximised, and noise minimised.

~

Practical Anecdotes of SNR

Each day I receive some 100 emails. Being generous, 10% of these are what could be termed ’signal.’ Within each of those emails, the signal or message is within 10% of the words. Therefore, 99% of the information I am exposed to is utterly useless drivel designed to pad a quota of page numbers.

Intriguingly, people tend to get annoyed when they open their email clients and are greeted with such ’spam,’ the dozens of unsolicited messages offering everything from cheap pharmaceuticals to promised riches from a dethroned African Monarch if you aid his return as sovereign.

Evidently, the colloquial ’spam’ is merely an electronic incarnation of noise. Yet whilst electronic spam generates much disdain and frustration; real spam – the noise we are bombarded with daily, does not seem to even register. We are routinely pelted with large hunks of processed meat. This spamming, or projection of noise, is an occupational hazard of living in a modern society. Telemarketing calls, junk mail, television commercials, billboards – and that’s just the media.

Though Rupert Murdoch is a justifiable whipping boy for noise pollution, People in a general sense are the source of a much more insidious form of spamming. Insidious precisely because it has a human face and occurs unconsciously. What I am referring to is the noise innate in human interaction. By and large, communication between people is comprised largely of noise. Whether it is from ulterior motive, falseness, or ingratiation, noise is a distinct element of human communication and seldom are our interactions innocent of subtext and pretence.

Be it building business rapport or courting a potential partner, the signal is most always encased in a thick layer of nonsensical debris which serves no purpose whatever. Alfred and Wallace are looking at a business transaction that will benefit them both. In an ideal world, they would meet, discuss the terms with cold reason, and close the transaction if they agree. Neither should have to pretend to care for the other in any way, nor should either man have to adapt his character to be agreeable to the other. Banter about sport over consecutive long boozy lunches has no bearing on the economics of the transaction.

Whilst the importance of developing relationships cannot be denied, it should not come at the cost of propagating exorbitant amounts of noise. Pleasantries for the purpose of engagement waste words. Endless streams of arbitrary chitchat have no significance. Pretending to care is insulting. Some weeks ago, I (and my family, as it were) were wished a ‘Merry Christmas’ by numerous people.

Such a greeting often leads to perceiving that the person offering the salutation is nice, friendly and cares. The well wishers didn’t seem to recognise that assuming the degree of personal familiarity such a salutation entails is insolent. To wish well upon a person’s relations, it usually helps to at least have met them. Strong enough shields deflect the salutation as the noise of someone acting on autopilot, uttering the statement without the sincerity of truly meaning it. Alternatively, they are attempting to develop rapport by pretending to care.

That is the essence of interpersonal noise. The next time you have a conversation at work or on the street, pay attention to what is said and estimate how much of it actually held real meaning versus how much could is essentially noise. I despise most conversation, not so much because I am on the receiving end of noise, because I can filter, but because I am obliged to return in kind.

~

The proliferation of noise cannot be analysed agnostic of causality. It has as much to do with diminished processing/filtering capacity as the level of environmental noise itself.

I speculate that noise is so pervasive because of limited and diminishing processing and filtering capacity. Where the mind is spoon-fed messages directly through sensory channels (video, audio and the like), it effectively relegates then need to process and critically analyse, which significantly impedes one’s ability to isolate the signal from background noise. Therein, it is useful to consider an extension to the SNR formula, in the form of effective SNR.

Effective SNR

From the earlier illustration, we know engineering SNR is objective, observable and can be measured directly. Humanistic SNR however, does not lend itself to this luxury of simplicity. Whilst the SNR in the world around us may have some absolute magnitude, it is not relevant because effective SNR (what we actually absorb) is dictated by other factors, in much the same way as radiation exposure. We all live under the same sun, but effective exposure depends on such things as the level of melatonin in the skin, clothing and sunscreen.

Drawing on our earlier portrayal of the SNR as ’signal power’ versus ‘noise power,’ we can adapt the formula to instead show ‘effective SNR,’ and illustrate why it necessarily differs between individuals.

I have introduced two modifiers, Psi and Omega, to denote tuner-processor and shield strength respectively. Our new formula depicts signal power being moderated by tuner-processor strength (a positive relationship), and noise power being moderated by shield strength (an inverse relationship). The former involves receptivity and sensitivity to signal, the latter concerns ability to filter and block noise. They act in concert to either dilute or concentrate the amount of signal we absorb relative to noise.

Metaphorically, life is like a watered down pot of chicken soup. Our objective is to enhance the flavour. In this regard, we can evaporate water by boiling, or add more stock cubes.

~

Tuner-Processor

Signal perception is handled by two distinct yet related components that moderate the power of the signal we receive. Collectively, they work on the same principle as a sniffer dog trained to detect drugs. The tuner picks up the signal, and the processor enhances it.

It is a two-step circuit. First, we must tune into the signal, and achieving this presupposes an understanding of what the signal actually is, what frequency to tune to. For example, I know that I need to tune to 106.7 Megahertz if I want to catch PBS broadcasting Jazz on Sunday afternoon. In a conversation, there will be certain pertinent things they say that reveal insights into a person’s character, but unless you know what to look for, and are duly attuned, you will miss them. This calibration, or sensitivity to the signal, is a learned aptitude.

Perceived quality of reception is reliant on both tuning aptitude and capacity to interpret it. Having tuned in to the signal, there is then the matter of refining it. Signals do not always resonate in stereoscopic glory, and the further one is from the source, the weaker the strength of the signal.  The processor is charged with the task of concentrating/interpreting the signal, and is the interface that provides for value to be extracted from abstraction.

I could be listening to a broadcast of the most poetic of ballads, but if I do not understand the language in which it is harmonised, I will extract no signal. Our ability to process and interpret is akin to understanding the meaning of the signal. Again, this aptitude is learned by observation, reflection and experience.

A skull and crossbones means danger – it is something we learn early on. The major difference between Signal processing and interpreting a symbol is that the meaning ‘carried’ by a signal (as opposed to a symbol) is volatile. Chances are, most people would understand the negative symbolism of a skull and crossbones, and interpret it as such. However, to the extent process of interpretation is subjective and based on individual bias and heuristic; the meaning in a signal will be disparate and subjective across individuals, even in cases where that meaning is rigid.

We’d expect that as we grow, the tuner-processor develops, learns and evolves to the point where it meaningfully enhances effective signal power. However, if we invoke parity between signal and meaning (in life), then negative effective SNR becomes a potential reality. Scientifically, a negative SNR is impossible because the signal has an absolute number, and cannot be less than zero. Humanistic SNR need not adhere to this rule because signal is loaded/normative and can take a sign: positive or negative.

Demented tuner-processor function lends credence to this speculation.  In many ways, life is like a word-find. Among the confusing muddle of alphabet, meanings are hidden. Precious few strain themselves to discover those difficult, elusive words they know lurk somewhere among the jumble. The countervailing inclination with general society is that it looks at the word-find, and chooses to make up its own words based on arbitrary letters in the puzzle.

Granted the analogy is value, it is almost as if people look at the puzzle, write it off as too difficult, and instead choose to create meaning where it does not exist. With respect to SNR analysis, this is equivalent to taking the noise and interpreting it as signal – a negative signal, fashioned from noise.

Shields

Being able to recognise and hone in on the signal is only half the battle. Shields are charged with the task of blocking noise, and the denominator effect on the SNR is profound.

Shields are primarily heuristics or learned rules of thumb which we subconsciously employ to filter any kind of stimulus. For example, let’s say Melissa, a highly confident ‘go-getter’ walks into a bar, her mind set upon finding a ‘quality’ partner with long-term potential, and for argument’s sake, intelligence and financial stability.  As she casts her eye over the diverse crowd, there are all manner of male specimens. She is seeking a signal but must filter noise to better her chances at approaching the ‘right’ type of fellow. Automatically, she will invoke heuristic shields that immediately eliminate the clan wearing wife-beaters and swearing like drunken sailors, and perhaps the pink-shirt brigade who appear to be outfitted by Roger David. In doing so, she has improved effective SNR by filtering out a proportion of the (unsought) noise.

In many situations, internal heuristic shields can also be supplemented, or replaced by external shields, which can be highly practical as we go about trying to filter noise and isolate the signal or what we’re after.

Returning to the theme of human filtering, it is now very easy accomplish Melissa’s assignment by using an online dating service. To avoid the hassle, convention and expense of trawling at licensed drinking venues, I can simply set practical parameters, and get a computer to ’screen’ for me. Given the potential pool (tens of thousands) is significantly larger than Melissa’s bar, the filters must necessarily be more exacting. I can say I am after a woman, aged between 20 and 26, who lives in a 20km radius, and doesn’t smoke or like to ‘party hard.’ Inputting these simple criteria will narrow the field by a factor of ten or more.

However, I am left with an odd thousand potential candidates from which to isolate a signal. The external/artificial shield has done most of the work for me, blocking 90% of the noise. It is now up to my heuristic shields to assist in filtering more noise and distilling the signal.

Taking it a step further, I append two additional criteria that a computer cannot truly validate: intelligence and validation which isn’t based on physical appearance. The heuristic shields are fired up, and they cause me to overlook all taglines that read like text messages or contain any of the following words: “princess,” “chick”, “hot”, “clubbing”. They also discount headshots where the subject is excessively made up, and those of manufactured pose which are taken with the camera at an elevated angle. Again, this narrows the field by a factor greater than 10.

Of the hundred or so remaining women the field has been narrowed to, there is now a substantially higher effective SNR – the result of using shields as filters to block out much of the noise. The outcome is evidently far superior to the result I would’ve got had I not used shields – I am that much less likely to ask a self-obsessed illiterate airhead out to dinner.

Though external or artificial shields are useful, they should be used sceptically and can never be relied upon in place of actual cognition. With life’s increasing demands on the individual and overload-inducing levels of stimulus, people are beginning to rely too heavily upon external and artificial filtering. This can be as innocent as letting Sam Kekovitch decide what you’ll eat on Australia day (lamb: you know it makes sense), or as sinister as allowing the government’s judgements of what’s good for the country to commandeer your own.

For the reasons outlined above, I posit that we have gradually built a dependence of external shields to filter noise, in many cases putting them above our own reason and judgement (our internal shields).

There are a couple of forces at work here. Firstly, it is a truism with the proverbial shield that there is only so much damage it can withstand before it degrades. In a sense, our shields take energy to maintain. Life is not easy, and it takes considerable effort to process the plethora of stimulus we’re exposed to daily, much less make sense of it. When shields are draining power at a rate faster than they can recharge, we get a decay in shield integrity. Fighting a battle and being pummelled by successive waves of ranged projectile – there isn’t enough time to make repairs. Because, we don’t need to worry about repairing/recharging them ourselves, external shields tend to be an enticing option.

Further, the substitution toward external shields has been encouraged by the advent and rise of television and the internet, conduits of mass media. Al Gore describes a similar phenomenon in The Assault on Reason whereby the usurping of traditional printed media by the medium of television has all but destroyed the intermediate step of critical reasoning in the processing and uptake of information. Imagery must be fabricated by the mind when reading words from a page, scenes must be created, life breathed into the typeface. This utilisation of internal shields is a mentally intensive process, whereby absorbing information from the television requires negligible cognitive effort, and the logic circuit-breaker is bypassed.

~

The Persistence of Noise

Despite logic admonishing us to reject noise, there is an overwhelming tendency to tolerate, accept and even seek it. With a view to understanding why this occurs, we look to the environmental conditions that allow noise to prosper.

On first principles, noise persists out of motive. So long as there is something to be gained from purveying noise, whether that be profit or influence, it will continue ad infinitum. If people did not react to or absorb noise, producing it would become uneconomic, and we would witness a gradual extinction. However, the reality is that noise is absorbed. As to why, ignorance is an elegant rationalisation, but it isn’t the whole story.

Silence is characterised by the absence of noise. Take noise out of the equation, and when there is no signal, you are confronted with a chilling silence. Silence has two sides: a positive, carrying connotations of peace, and tranquillity, and a negative, carrying connotations of foreboding and death.

Insofar as we live in a world of constant stimulation, we have not adequately learned to embrace silence. When we encounter it, we think there is something wrong and become uncomfortable. It happens in conversations:  in a long silence, someone will feel compelled to speak (often meaninglessly) to break that silence. Imagine spending an evening alone in a big, empty house, it is utterly silent. You’d feel lonely. But if there were sounds of cars going by and people speaking outside, or if you put some music on, you’d feel less alone.

Noise can be a comforting distraction, filling the void left when you cannot intercept a signal. By this reasoning, noise is embraced because the alternative silence provokes anxiety.

Differing mind-sets define our attitude toward noise. First, there is a minority in those who have learned to appreciate and value silence, who typically have a replete abhorrence for noise. Second, there is a double majority comprising a group who float obliviously in the noise, like a babies in the womb, and another group who have some sense they’re drowning but are not fully cognisant of it.

These three groups can be classified as noise-avoiding, noise-seeking, and noise-drifting respectively. The avoiders have a conscious aversion to noise. The seekers absorb it in blissful ignorance. The drifters absorb it but experience cognitive dissonance. Noise persists because the critical mass of seekers and drifters give cause for its existence.

Conclusion

Whilst I’d like to think I’m impervious to noise, in both projection and absorption, the reality is far from it. I, like most everyone else (bar perhaps the Dalai Lama) am caught in the noise. I have to deal with it every day. I live in noise, and on days where I cannot extract a signal, I know I am wasting my life.

For most, this is a cruel synchronal paradox. With respect to spatial considerations, the trend toward urbanisation, and resultant higher concentrations of people create fertile ground from which higher gross noise issues. Just be being part of society, you subject yourself to ever increasing levels of noise.

The paradox is that population density increases the bandwidth of both signal and noise simultaneously, and, just as precious stones lie buried in dirt, the signal is surrounded by the noise. They are concurrent.

A few evenings ago, I was having a conversation on this very topic. In some respects, I am quite taken by the idea of removing myself from society in order to free my mind from having to process noise, but on the flipside, I will also be severely limiting my exposure to signal potentiality – the random (or not so random) events and encounters that occur, from which I am able to extract signal. It is this notion that allows one to reconcile living in toxicity – for the rare breaths of fresh air which are that much more intense precisely because of the engulfing pollution.

~ by X on January 27, 2009.