One interesting thing they discovered was that circumstances changed the way people answered this question. For example, in Somalia, after the famine and civil war, people shifted to defining themselves by smaller sub-tribes -- e.g., calling themselves Issa rather than Dir. (Dir being a larger group which includes several other clans)
But as the article notes, this isn't the main thing driving the tremendous ethnic diversity on this map: instead, the fine grains here were mostly created by terrain which physically isolates one group from another. Linguistic boundaries tend to match it.
This is similar to the structure of Papua New Guinea, which rather famously has over 800 distinct languages, mostly completely unrelated to one another, for a population of 7.3 million people in an area not much bigger than Germany. There too, terrain makes it surprisingly difficult to get from the home of one tribe to the next. This map gives you an idea of what's involved there: http://www.muturzikin.com/cartesoceanie/imagesoceanie/papou1.png
Another interesting comparison comes from this recent article in Foreign Affairs, which tried to draw a map of the "real" political borders of Africa: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2015-11-08/real-map-africa The idea here was to use foreign travel advisories to identify regions where governments didn't have effective control. This method is somewhat approximate, but the main thing it shows is that most of the Sahara isn't really part of any government at all; in fact, you could walk from Mauritania to Egypt without once stepping into a place that had a government. (Assuming you somehow survived)
Even within areas which are clearly governed, warfare tends to happen along tribal boundaries. Large-scale wars rarely involve small tribes on their own, of course; instead, tribes align with one another, generally based on some shared property like mutual (often fictive) kinship, shared religion, or shared economic needs. These larger alignments can drive much more long-lasting and difficult wars, such as the perpetual instability in Nigeria between the northern Muslims and the southern Christians, or in Sudan (and now South Sudan) between Muslims, Christians and animists.
This is very similar to the pattern seen in the Middle East, where tribes align along combinations of ethnicity, language, religion, and most of all family relationship.
This leads to complex hierarchies of relationship: Hamas could work with Iran because they're jointly Muslim, even though Hamas was principally Sunni and Arab and Iran is Shi'ite and Persian, because they were both fighting against the Israelis, who are Jews. However, there are lots of Persian Israelis, who thus have long-standing relationships with Persian Iranians, and in fact the countries got along fairly well until a different tribal alliance took over Iran in 1979. And Hamas is wary of Hezbollah, who are Lebanese Shi'ites, and also thus clients of Iran, because Hezbollah is mostly fighting wars against everyone in Lebanon who isn't a Shi'ite, as well as fighting against Israel. So Hamas also works with forces in Egypt, which is Sunni and Arab; except not the Egyptian government, which has an alliance with the Israelis, and so instead they try to work with the (Sunni) Bedouins of the Sinai Peninsula, who are at war with the Egyptians, but who are also closely tied to the Israeli Sunni Bedouins, which are...
Anyway, hopefully you get the picture: each group has a bunch of identifiers, and if two groups have any identifier in common (or can make one up), they can use that as the shared language needed to build an alliance. Sometimes these alliances are for trade, while sometimes they're for the purpose of war against a third group. And these alliances can shift quite easily over time.
This can also be useful in understanding the perspective of these groups on regions such as Europe and the US, since they get interpreted as being tribes as well. As far as most of the world is concerned, the US, Latin America, and Europe are three major tribes in their own right, which are parts of the Protestants, the Catholics, and the generic Christians, respectively. (People's individual beliefs have nothing to do with this: religion is a matter of tribal identity, not faith) Importantly, this means that they're not part of the family of Abraham, which is one of the largest super-tribal designations commonly used in the Middle East, merging Jews and Muslims, including Persian Muslims even though that makes only limited biological sense. That means that entirely different language is needed when making alliances with the western countries, which is particularly difficult because everyone knows what the Christians think of the Jews and the Muslims, and people remember the Crusaders very well.
Yes, this is how the world works. Exciting, isn't it?
h/t to for the Foreign Affairs article.
Many of us are wondering what's behind the changes now rolling out on Google+. Reactions seem mixed. For what they're worth, here are my reflections on what is happening.
Design Unification as Cost Containment
One thing that's clear is that the new desktop experience now maps much more closely to the mobile experience. At one level, this represents the "mobile first" philosophy now driving many web services. Mobile usage of the web is overtaking desktop usage, so firms are now leading with mobile designs.
But wait, you ask, doesn't Facebook continue to offer a very different desktop user experience than its mobile experience? Yes, astute observer, that is correct. They do. But remember too that Facebook has a very lucrative revenue stream that more than warrants that investment. You see, maintaining two very different user interfaces may not necessarily be twice the work, and twice the cost of maintaining one.
Google+ does not have that direct revenue stream for Google. Its revenues come indirectly through assisting Google in better serving end users in ways that get monetized by the company's primary revenue engine, which is of course, search. So, given that there are no direct revenue streams, it makes sense that Google would want to try to contain some of the costs of keeping this network going. The good news is that they are keeping it going. User interface unification is just one of the ways that they are trying to contain costs while doing that. And in a mobile-first world, the desktop needs to accommodate mobile - not the other way around.
Design Simplification for Scale
One of the things I've loved, I mean absolutely loved about Google+ is that it was sort of a power-user's service. Over the years, I've figured out how to use this service in very powerful ways to get at information I really want and to build connections with people who share a lot of interests with me.
All that power came at a bit of a cost, however, and that cost was complexity. Let's face it: Google+ really wasn't that easy to master. Over the years, there have been massive problems with "on-boarding" users onto the service. This problem would show up as lots of user profiles without any usage. Profiles without posts. For many of us who have learned to embrace the service, it's obvious how to use it. But the truth is that it was a complex service.
That complexity gave us power, and much of the lamenting (see prime example by this whiner: https://goo.gl/r23nqX) is really us power users dreading the loss of our power tools.
So, why simplify? Why would Google feel the need to simplify this user interface so much? Well, part of it goes back to the cost containment point I mention above. Simpler means less user problems and less user complaints. But that's not the real driver here.
The real driver is reach. Google knows that it has an opportunity here. Facebook long ago locked up the social network graph, but what Google has the opportunity to still win is the interest graph - the place you go to share interests with other people (I've been talking about this for a while: https://goo.gl/lrxIj6). The company is now really wrapping itself around this opportunity. Shared interests are the whole organizing principle around which the new design is based.
The key to success is to make a massive push, much of it in the developing world actually, to draw people into this newly revitalized place to share interests with one another. You can do all sorts of promotion to try to bring that about, but none of that does any good if the service is too complicated to allow easy and quick adoption. That is what this new design is all about: building new adoption, so that Google actually has a shot at beating Facebook (and to a lesser extent Twitter - they have their own, and much more serious, complexity issues).
So, yes, dear power users, many of our favorite power tools are going away. I'm sad too. Truly I am. But here's the good news: not only is Google+ not going away - the company is doubling down in an effort to grow this network, based on a new, and greatly simplified user value proposition:
Scale for Training Artificial Intelligence
And so, before closing, allow me to offer one more, much more speculative, observation.
I am becoming increasingly convinced that Google is turning itself into an artificial intelligence (company). One of the key assets it brings to this challenge is its massive user base of people searching for and interacting with information. In this sense, Google+ becomes another extremely important source of artificial intelligence training.
As we group and cluster things into our collections and communities, we are telling Google about how we humans organize the world of ideas. More than that though, we are building connections between those ideas and each of us. We are, in short, building an interest graph that the company can map to its knowledge graph. Through those connections between people and ideas, all kinds of amazing information becomes possible. It helps the company know what kinds of people care about what kinds of topics, as well as what kinds of people know about what kinds of topics. And both of those are very important things to know when you are a company that is using "Internet-scale" software to harness the power of people to train artificial intelligence.
The key is Internet scale. And that means getting lots of people using the service. That is why Google is changing Google+
Product Director at Google, notes in the comments below that the team is "trying to support advanced user features but working to find the right place for them. The Circle Settings referenced above is a good example. Still there but not front & center for everyone."
That's encouraging. Sounds like it may be about providing options to add back in the more advanced features in certain cases, for those who choose to.
- Cruwys news (current)
DNA Wiki -- Find out what the experts think about DNA
Thanks to a comment by a reader, I got a link to the International Society of Genetic Genealogy (ISOGG) Wiki. This resource is billed as a "
The Folly of Using Small Segments as Proof in Genealogical Research, Par...
Responsible genealogists adhere to high standards of proof in their research, in the evidence that they present and in the conclusions they
Church Record Sunday - Parochial Registers of Borris Carlow ~ Kirwans an...
Apparently a few years ago a cousin contacted me whose ancestor Anna Kirwan Downey was sister to my Great Grandmother Sadie Kirwan Carrow. S
Your Genetic Genealogist: First Look at the Full Genomes Y-Sequencing Re...
GRCh37 is the Genome Reference Consortium human genome (build 37). I guess it is a reference genome similar to CRS or RSRS for mtDNA. This t
Open data: we need to share research results, even when they are wrong
There are huge flaws in the way research data is uploaded, says Mark Hahnel, but how far are we from a universal solution?
Not breaking news: many scientific studies are ultimately proved wrong!
Sylvia McLain: Most theories are eventually consigned to the rubbish heap, but this is scientific business as usual
Exaggerations and errors in the promotion of genetic ancestry testing « ...
Early_diversification. One thing we have done in Genomes Unzipped is to report on what is on the market for consumers interested in getting