Living with Uncertainty - the Lords of Chaos!

Those who feel at home in chaos are equipped for success and happiness at least in this era, probably all eras!

a) Stability is not the way of Nature, only a human thing
b) I propose it is selectively valued/defined eg by financiers





What were are seeing nowadays is the inability of a system based on a certain religion (see Max Weber and The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism in Wikipedia) deal with globalisation and other systemics and dynamics of the era. This system's inability to be adopted or approved by the world, even parts of Europe - the EU.

The greatest shortcoming of the human race is ...

According to Dr. Albert A. Bartlett, professor Emeritus of Physics at the University of Colorado at Boulder and his 8 part video lecture (YouTube videos) "the greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function". For example a 5% stable per annum increase figure says nothing or little to him/her, whereas it leads to a doubling (+100%) in 14 years.

This may help explain, IMO, among other things our inability to realise the effects of population growth, global warming and other dynamics that have a vital effect on us.

But I dare say, with my background in Operations Research and an MBA, that IMO an ever greater shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand or perceive multi-variable functions, in plainer words, the fact that most outcomes do not have a single causal factor but are a result of many and, often, the interplay between them. As well as the ability to understand the distinction between correlation and causality.

This inability manifests itself in all aspects of our lives, from understanding the Universe to daily economics. And forces many people, from attorneys in trials to politicians to marketers to journalists etc, to try to often satisfy our need for mono-factor causality and inability to deal with a variety of causes to one outcome by simplifying and thus distorting reality as they present it to us. It also leads us, IMO, to a propensity for believing conspiracy theories rather than understanding that it was a variety of non-conspiring factors that led to an outcome.

Another major shortcoming of our human race is the inability of most of us to deal with uncertainty which is the way of the Nature. And our quest for certainty or security (be it in investing, etc) often leads to avenues that cost us a lot and still not provide but the feeling rather a reality of security.

Do you agree with Dr. Bartlett's choice or any of my two choices of the "greatest shortcoming"? Feel free to comment or offer your own choice.

David Cameron is IMO right when he argues that ....

IMO David Cameron was very right when he spoke against the mentality/philosophy/mantra that "behind every accident there is someone who is personally culpable, someone who must pay".

He was referring to over the top UK (and EU) health and safety regulations.

IMO this applies to other areas of life and public policy as well.

Philosophically speaking, the worldview that behind every event (be it accident, crime, success, failure, or anything) there is a single and identifiable causal factor (someone, etc) who is (personally or organisationally) culpable, someone who must thus "pay" (via jail time or fines etc) has IMO roots that are partly religious and partly philosophical/existential. This worldview has admittedly made public prosecutors in the US try to "simplify" court cases in order to satisfy the juries "need" for a clear culprit AND motive to exist.

Of course on the other side of the spectrum lies the philosophy that everything was meant to be.

IMO, and based on my multi-variable problem formulation and solution background (Operations Research, Decision Sciences, etc), the reality lies somewhere in the middle - somewhere in between: for everything that happens there is a wide number of causal factors at play and there is a vast difference between causality and correlation. Enormous.

The same issue arises in Financial Analysis, eg, as in the technical vs. fundamental analysis issues.

It also stems, IMO, from our adversity to risk and fear of death.

Am I exaggerating?

Are we dust in the wind?

"Dust in The Wind": A beautiful song by Kansas, one of my fave of all times.

Now, philosophically speaking: Are we indeed dust in the wind? And in what sense?

What is your POV? If we accept that we are, then what could that mean, philosophically, re our personal lives and values/mindsets?

About our values and priorities as "Humankind"? Eg does that make us abstain from petty arguments and feuds and wars and focus on the things that really matter, love for our fellow humans, less greed, etc.?

A more "intellectually" rather than materialist based living?

uncertainty as opportunity or risk: USA vs. Europe

Europeans used to view uncertainty as a threat - do they still do that?

Americans used to view uncertainty as an opportunity - do they still do that?

thinking: There is no certainty in Nature, is there? (part 2)

Read part 1 first

Tami sent me the following comment re part 1 of this post:

"Nick, is uncertainty really Nature's way or is it that humans project their expectations into the way they perceive Nature to react? Seriously, as I reflect back over my life and compare how Nature has reacted to human impact I think it is quite certain how Nature reacts. For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction - it is a law of physics and as such, a law of Nature. Hence, the more humans impact Nature, the more violent the reaction. Look at the intensities of natural phenomenon (typhoons, hurricanes, tornadoes, thunderstorms, tides, etc.) - the changes in the intensities have been predictable in direct relation to human impact on Nature."

One of the stimuli for this analysis has been a quote I read some months ago by the well known pioneer Amelia Earhart. Whereas I in general I agree that Nature has laws, laws of Physics, Chemistry and other "Natural Sciences" (as opposed to "Social Sciences"), those laws, when taken as a whole, do not provide us with a certain - sure thing prediction. A good example is Meteorology. In spite of its advances, it can still not predict 100% the weather.

Of course human impact on this planet produces a counter-impact and whereas I am a "believer" in the dangers of global warming, it is my opinion that while we know that it does cause major instabilities and changes to our planet's climate. we cannot predict what those effects will actually be, because in spite of having and being aware of "laws" in Nature, its complexity is such that no law or set of laws can provide us with certainty.

What is more, the point of view of my "analysis" is not humanity in general, but the individual person. The effects of natural phenomena on individual people are much harder to predict than the effects to humanity as a whole.

What I am saying is that a human being faced with Nature and world in general, and the impact of all "laws", Natural or Social on him/her (I would not call Social laws "laws", though, but, rather, "theories").

Of course the absence of certainty and the presence of risks of various kinds does not mean that a person should not "endeavor" or "live", but that a person should "build" his/her "life" and./or decisions or hopes on a concept of certainty.

At the same time, it is of course important, IMO again, for one not to exaggerate or over-estimate risks (exaggeration of a risk = "phobia").

In other words, between having 100% and zero control over our lives, there are many situations in between (that 100% and 0%).

thinking: There is no certainty in Nature, is there? (part 1)

Last year, in the Spring, American drivers recorded a record fall in miles/km driven in the US, thus "showing the market" (and the speculators) that the demand for gasoline is not inelastic. At that time, I had commented that the US drivers did the whole world of energy or especially gasoline/petrol consumer a great favor by this move and its effect on/message to "the market" and while the world price of oil remained high for a few more months to come in 2008 (causing along with the global price hikes of staple foods a global crisis, before the "subprime driven" one came along), in my opinion, that decline and its message were crucial and remain so.

In general, while some socio-economic groups in Europe were protesting and going on strike asking some kind of special treatment from the governments, American drivers "showed" us - reminded us that in a market, it is not only the supply side that "makes" the market, but the demand side as well. In short, a major "lesson" in the so called "market economics".

But the idea of adaptability goes beyond markets and economics, it is in my opinion, nowadays, relevant in all aspects of life, each aspect and comprehensively/systemically as well!

Being flexible, able to adapt to changes, not only is economic conditions (see the above example) but also job, social, regulatory/legal, personal/family, etc etc etc, seems to be a key "survival and prosperity tool" of our times. In my opinion, it has always been (in the history of humankind).

That, along with the realisation that nothing in Nature is risk-free and that uncertainty is the way of Nature and that our tendency, many of us, as humans, to seek "risk-free" situations or "certainty" (in anything from job, clientele, relationships, place of residency, investments, etc etc) is noy only counter-Natural but also un-realistic - a myth which we "pay" a huge "cost" for.

Thinking: Sanctuaries

In these turbulent, highly uncertain times, what are our "sanctuaries"?
Home?
"Sanctuary" employers - companies (for employees)?
"Sanctuary" economies (for companies)?
"Sanctuary" relationships (of various "kinds" of "relationships", friends, etc)?



What are your "sanctuaries"?