For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
This is called “sensitive dependence on initial conditions”. In any chaotic system, the exact starting point can lead to wide variations in result. I sometimes call this “the tip of the spear”, which can be infinitely sharp.
I was sitting in a bar tonight, contemplating a woman. Common enough occurence. What I was wondering is if some one thing I had said or did, or some one or several parts of who I am made a large difference, such that what could have been a rewarding relationship was ended before it began. That rough thought process, I suspect, is common enough as well.
This in turn led me to begin pondering chance more broadly. If some one person had not come in, and given me the chance to talk with her, would that have made the difference? Given a chance, I can be very persuasive. Pondering, I decided I had done some 75% of what would have constituted perfection, and the appearances all indicate that still would not have sufficed. I’m an odd duck. Charming at times, but very unique in my worldview, and way of doing things. It is what it is. I like myself, and have no plan to change–or pretend to change–for anyone.
Pushing even farther out, though, I got to thinking about randomness as an aspect of human experience. How do we manage it? For primitive people, it is sticking together in groups, and doing what has always worked. Yet, their degree of chance fortune and misfortune was no doubt much greater than our own, where accidental premature deaths are no doubt much lower than they were, say, 10,000 years ago.
How do we turn “the tip of the spear” into something which almost always works the same way, rather than leading to wild swings in outcome?
Edward de Bono uses the concept, in discussing perception generally, of what he terms “catchment areas”. No matter where rain falls on one side of a mountain, it flows the same way. The same applies on the other side. In effect, the rain is funnelled from a large area to the same spot. It is organized and channelled.
Likewise, what is the role of insurance of various sorts? Is it not channelling chance such that no matter what happens, the same rough outcome is achieved?
And this can be broken down according to my four cultural tasks. For example, someone who believes nothing will be thrown into chaos, given a sudden tragedy. Someone who is a committed Christian will also be hurt, but recover more quickly, and endure far less internal anarchy and dissolution.
Someone who believes in an account of the nature of reality that is non-scientific–which does not accord with observable facts–will be thrown into a tailspin if something happens that cannot be accounted for within that world view. People who believe in science, understand that all truth narratives are contingent, and they expect the unexpected (at least the more intelligent people).
Politically, if you have a narrow, very rigid system of governance–say the rule of the tribal elders–and the elders are killed in a war, you are in trouble. If you view all political organization as originating in individual perception and volition, then you can adapt to anything.
Economically, free markets are the paradigmatic self organizing system.
All in all, it seems we have managed risk well, and can do better. As I said in a post a couple of days ago, if we solve all the material problems of the world, we will have to create new challenges for ourselves, but that can be done with intention, and with a mind to the evolution of such challenges.
Hope this makes sense. Bit tired.