Ok. So basically there have been these two things I've drafted a long time ago that I never put down on paper and fleshed out. I told myself that one of these days I would, but never got around to it. But I came across an interesting quote that put me over the edge. I just started reading Daniel Dennett's Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking at the start of the section "Making Mistakes" he quotes Feynman:
If you've made up your mind to test a theory, or you want to explain some idea, you should always decide to publish it whichever way it comes out. If we only publish results of a certain kind, we can make the arguments look good. We must publish both kinds of results.And while he isn't talking to someone like myself who is just shooting the breeze with these random ideas, the quote in context of Dennett's section made me think that seeing the raw thought process is interesting. At times the fleshed out argument is perhaps what is logical after the fact upon reflection. While in one's stream of consciousness getting from A to B might not have happened in a logical fashion, the process of rewriting and editing creates those logical steps which the initial brainstorm does not process through. (And the very words I write at this moment can be meta-analyzed...in an infinite regression...) My blog posts here are more so stream of thought than well-thought out, logically valid and sound ideas. But these two posts are definitely on the farthest end of not well thought out. And if I were to edit them now, I'd have a lot of more things to say and qualify. Not that I'm still saying anything profound (this stuff is, after all, more food for thought than anything else), but would probably make more (albeit initial) sense to a larger audience.
Anyway, so here are thoughts I had. The first one I wrote sometime in January of 2013, and revisited perhaps once or twice. Very basic stuff. It was largely in response to watching congressional hearings all kinds of political videos. I think I was frustrated by media portrayals (on both sides) of the candidates and figures in general.
The second one I wrote July 5th 2011. I wrote it and made the basic accompanying graphs while lying in bed one random summer night.
Different, to say the least.
Rock on,
Joe
-----Here's the first one I wrote down this past January-ish 2013 (note at the start I am not calling the respective candidates either adjective, but rather I am trying to illustrate a point...I am mouthing the words and sentiments of pundits on T.V. for much of it...IN NO WAY what I think is the appropriate position)-----
Obama Messiah, Romney devil…perception out of whack on two fronts:
A) not as crazy as it sounds..sensational
B) latching onto Obama or the respective candidate as the source of the ideology…the millions of people backing an ideology and thus elect a candidate…and people will just attack the candidate. "Obama is wrecking the country"…it's not Obama himself...
We hold politicians to such a pedestal…they are regular people! Can you imagine?Actual, regular, people!
Yes - Obama represents more than just himself, and undeniably that's what people are perhaps meaning to attack…but then we shouldn't confuse ourselves by thinking you are attacking the person! It's unhealthy and the source of way too much angst in the country. If you understand what you are really against, you wouldn't be so angry, and a bit more understanding.
We give meaning and lots of stuff to things that inherently do not have any particular meaning. Like a date, for example - there's nothing inherent about the day. We happen to call it July 4th and we happen to associate certain things with it.
But in protesting american independence if someone were to say "I hate the date july fourth", without recognizing that it's not the date they hate but what is behind it….that's where the issue arises.
Note - I'm quite the patriot - this example was the craziest one that shows what I mean.
But in all fairness - presidents play into the trap…but its their job to represent more than themselves. Is it expecting too much for the people in turn to understand that it's not the person but the office?
There seems to be a tension here between the office, the person, and the American populous' perception.
-----And here is the second one I wrote down July 5th 2011 with the diagrams at the bottom-----
I've thought about this for some time... Finally putting down on paper. Running with ___ [name withheld] at 730am tomorrow instead of 7am, gives more time to work now :)
Anyway, so basically the idea is that we cannot deny the effect luck has on our lives. There are so many outside factors that are uncontrollable. Despite this, we maintain a sense of control. How? We are able to tip the scales into our favor. So if things go exactly 50% in our favor, any action, theoretically would tip the scales to our desired outcome. But no such thing would, I assume, occur, and we do not have any practical knowledge of the chances. But let's say it's 49% going our way, we can make the difference. Undoubtedly certain outside influences effect more than others - but if we were to quantify the sum luckiness and unluckiness, we could determine how a person's actions would affect an outcome. Also, what exactly is considered lucky or a positive outcome is very subjective. In some scenarios more is required (let's say, in 46%-54% unlucky to lucky) in some less (49% unlucky to 51% lucky) But then where is the percentage points for our actions? Where do they weight in on the scales? If one were to act as a robot, the chances would stay as they are.
I made Pie Charts A-D. In each one Outside-Favorable has 100 outcome weighted points, and Outside-Unfavorable has 90 points (optimistic). See "Outcome A", things still work out. However, the more control over our lives, the better shot of influencing them. "Our own" in the key of the pie chart has a "*" because it can go either way. Also, because even "our own" can be debated as outside influences affecting (some say even controlling) which would again, just contribute "outcome points" to either outside-favorable or outside-unfavorable.
In addition, as time goes on more and more things become less and less dependent on luck. For example, whether or not you hit or miss a particular baseball pitch is more dependent on luck the less times you have. After a while, an average kicks in. A lot of factors influence the there and now decision, and over time they tend to flesh out more averagely. And THAT is where we have most impact. It's paradoxical. On one hand chance is more "fair" 50-50 farther on we go in outcomes, but that is where we can make the most impact because our decisions can tip the scales. The paradox lies in the blurrly line between the chance of an outcome now, as a factor of luck and your decision, and the chances it happens given the fact that over the course of a lot of years things have balanced out and then inherently gave a kind of inertia to more even things.
Entropy tends towards chaos, and lucky vs unlucky tends in the bellcurve towards 50-50. But the things that will tip the scales are one's that have a long-lasting impact, however small.
In a similar fashion our own personal choices have an inertial of their own, and making more of them enlarges their impact and thus over time as the unfavorable versus favorable tend to 50-50, your choices tend to a greater share of the pie (as seen from outcome A-D).
Just as thought as to why so many things seem random yet in the end our decisions can have a huge impact on the path of our lives.
No doubt, this is a theoretical model and there are various big time events that can throw things off. But just my thoughts as of now.
Anyway, I want to get some sleep now, so I can create that intertia and make a difference. A lot of ideas to iron out, especially this notion of outcomes over time, but nonetheless, it's a start.
Peace,
Joe
No comments:
Post a Comment