The Empirical Manifesto

I saw a blurb on USA Today about a woman who was addicted to painkillers. She was now advocating against taking Vicodin unless it was absolutely necessary, because it is so easy to crave the high and fall into an unsuspecting trap. I don't doubt that's true. For her. But my body chemistry is very different. Vicodin only works on me if I have severe pain. I only feel that "high" when I am managing pain through medication. When the pain is gone, I have no reaction to Vicodin whatsoever. I can take 20mg without feeling anything. That's when I know I don't need it any longer. Her advice is good advice for her, but not for me.

I often feel that way about my own advice to others, and try to temper other's advice to me in the same understanding. I think without that perspective, advice is far less effective. What works for me may not work for you, and vice versa. As someone who utilizes a strong logical ethic in decision-making, an emotional appeal wouldn't work to persuade me. It would be poor advice to someone who is interacting with me, though I can see where it would be beneficial in working with someone else. I understand that feelings may change over time - mutate, and it seems to me irresponsible to base decisions off them. Ignoring that has bitten me time and time again, even in capitulation ("Why did you let me do that?") Then again, others may enjoy the fluidity of re-visiting past decisions over and over and reevaluating them with that different filter time and again. I see the logic in that as well.

But what if there are no clear-cut answers? How do we, individually and collectively arrive at decisions? For the longest time I was employing my very basic understanding of Nash's Game Theory - doing what was best for myself, and the group. After all, its the only way we all get laid. But even those scenarios require that everyone is playing by the same rules. How do you make decisions in such a diverse group? The old business adage is to create a team with the right talent. While I remain a huge advocate of playing to strengths, teams with individual strengths and no collaborative skills do not net optimum outcomes.

The stakes are highest when a command decision is required between opposite requirements. Yet this is when collaboration is most important. Breaking down seemingly dissimilar directions into their individual components - an analytic/synthetic dialectic and focusing on how the differences can be resolved without having either party "give up" that which is important to them. Yet even this is not an answer, its still only a tool. Wielded by the wrong people - those who perceive individual components differently than others - is still problematic. In this hypothetical zero-sum game, if we encounter someone using rational choice theory - the egoistical extrinsic motivator of pursuing an inexplicable desire without an understanding of causality - the goal may never be reached.

This is because the two sides which make up collaboration, assertiveness and cooperation as defined by Organizational Behavior, is wrought through actual behavior. It takes a very open mind to work through these types of severe issues. A personal introspection which requires an understanding of not only intent, but the acknowledgement that intent and action can appear dissimilar to others, which brings us to communication ability. All of these are imperative in the many benefits of true collaboration, in all parties. There absolutely has to be a no-holds-barred mindset of doing whatever it takes to get our own needs met while also meeting the needs - not the expectations, but needs - of others. A tall order for some.

Here lately I've been bereft from decisions made. Yet looking back, and going through all the steps, it still seems to have been the optimum decisions given the talent and collaborative skills of the assembled team. Which emotionally, can be a bitter pill to swallow. The best possible outcome from a zero-sum team is still a zero-sum finish.

46:50

( THINK )

Wikipedia defines functional psychology as a general psychological philosophy that considers mental life and behavior in terms of active adaptation to the person's environment. It good to finally have a name for what it is I muse about. While I was theorizing about the practical application of Kohlberg's Development of Moral Reasoning I kept getting off-track as I had to jump between scores which were conducive to my formulation and subsequent articulation. James Horner's A Beautiful Mind was a given, but as these things often do, one thing led to another, and another.

As I endeavor to not repeat tracks in my various compilations I was struck with a challenge as I have used a handful of these previously. This lead me to wonder if I could find re-recordings of some of my favorites - most notably lush orchestrations of otherwise "flat" synthetic compositions. And indeed I did! Armed with the iTunes store and "City of Prague" as my divining rod, I found exactly that.

This is essentially the playlist I ultimately put on repeat as I was authoring Game Theory. Enjoy!

Jumping into a new situation feet first is the empirical antonym to quitting cold turkey - the creation of a pass or fail scenario, or to put it idiomatically, sink or swim - either figure it out along the way and succeed, or bow out. Learn by doing. A very good, and very effective educational approach as it greatly shortens the learning curve. There's no disagreement that quitting an addiction takes constitution and willpower; creation equally so. Those who are adept at one will be well suited for the other. All things being equal, it would stand to reason that the inverse of that is also true. Whomever struggles with quitting without gradual cessation or a placebo is probably not well suited for immediate and wholly saturating unfamiliar environments.


Which then illuminates the part many overlook - practical application of lessons learned. Within every failure is a lesson, and within every lesson an answer, or rather an opportunity to try again with an altered variable. Accurate conclusions cannot be drawn from incomplete trials and incomplete tests. Therefore a cascading effect of future bad decisions based upon inaccurate information is risked if defeat is assumed after failure because of the application of the failure rather than the success. In short the opposite of a "recipe for success;" instead a very nearly perfect scenario for guaranteed failures, one after the other, forever.


Whether the next particular altercation or variable chosen to be modified is the right one or not is ultimately unimportant, because until the correct combination is discovered it does not exist. Why emphasis is placed on time outside natural disasters or war is beyond the scope of this missive; destiny is timeless - whether the attributes of success are discovered later rather than sooner affects only the present, but giving into failure affects the future.


In short, it is absolutely essential to practically apply all lessons learned of every problem in a series of resolutions as often as required until a solution is reached. To do otherwise compounds failure indefinitely.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/CemLiSI5ox8

Have you ever just watched the movement of ants? They're fascinating in their perceived lack of interaction with each other as they singularly move to complete their assigned task; yet taking into account the movement of others in relationship to their own to create seamless, efficient lines of communication without which has the potential to destroy the very logistics which enable them to survive.

When I'm behind the wheel of a vehicle, I employ the Nash equilibrium:

If we all go for the blonde and block each other, not a single one of us is going to get her. So then we go for her friends, but they will all give us the cold shoulder because no one likes to be second choice. But what if none of us goes for the blonde? We won't get in each other's way and we won't insult the other girls. It's the only way to win. It's the only way we all get laid.

Rather than choose to be hell-bent on constant speed 'because I'm right' or 'because I have the right-of-way' I've found that I'm more efficient and make more ground by not only anticipating other's moves, but more importantly so, reacting to them. In merging traffic for instance, whether I with it or it with me, I vary my speed accordingly by either accelerating or slowing to slip between cars, or more easily allow them either in front of, or behind me more easily. Not only is ignoring this overly simply concept rude beyond words, but by helping them, you help yourself. Driving in traffic is a corporative effort - no one 'wins' if one person chooses not to participate, but everyone has the potential to lose.

And the only reason to not do so, is selfishness. It always amazes me how many people expect other's to be understanding and accommodating when they themselves are not. I run into all sorts of craziness everyday, and post about it often:

• The lady who slowed down on the highway entrance ramp, just before entering a two-lane road filled with vehicles moving at a high-rate of speed (I was behind her.)


• The guy who was going the posted speed limit in the left hand lane with a 'WWJD' bumper sticker on his truck (He'd get the fsck out of the left hand lane, that's what Jesus would do!)


• People who 'slow down' if someone comes upon them too fast (rather than, you know, move over?)


• Drivers in large vehicles who believe that the 'Law of Tonnage' is an *actual* legislative writ which is judiciously levied.

Why the Nash equilibrium works with respect to traffic:

What Mr. Nash recognized was that in any sort of strategic interaction, the best choice for any single player depends critically on his beliefs about what the other players might do. Mr. Nash proposed that we look for outcomes in which each player is making an optimal choice, given the choices the other players are making.¹

You're not the only one on the road. And anytime you selfishly do something because you're "right" you're automatically wrong - because you've failed to make your optimal choice based on what others drivers may do. So even though you can take solace in the fact that you won the battle, in the game of life, you've lost the war.

I apply these same rules in every increasing level of the game. Earlier this week traffic between work and home was moving unusually fast. Someone was coming up on me really fast - I looked down and noticed I was driving 100mph. I can only imagine how fast the person who was closing the gap between us was doing. Thankfully, it was a no-brainer; I did what I always do in these situations - I moved over.

---

^{1 The New York Times "Business" Section.}