|
As I've gotten older, one of the things I've begun to notice is that people do things for reasons, and nothing happens without somebody doing it.
After combining those two concepts, it's analogous to combining the twin principles of Occam's Razor and cui bono; the simplest way to figure out why something is happening is to figure out who benefits from that action.
It took me a while to figure this out. I used to think that things happened because of natural forces or dialectical materialism or social darwinism in action, but now the only razor that can logically explain why things - big and small - occur is:
Who benefits?
In my job, who really benefits from what I do? At the client, who really benefits from getting this project done? At the investor, who benefits from getting this deal through? On your team, who benefits from shifting your growth target to this position or that position, from this space to that space?
On a grand scale: who benefits from Syrian bloodletting? Who benefits from EU economic paralysis? Who benefits from a weak Obama presidency? Who benefits from a successful Chinese rebalancing; who benefits from a desperate Chinese government?
An aside - romance and friendship are two things where you try to keep such questions as far away from your actions as possible.
But, sadly enough, I can feel that question creeping into all aspects of my life. Some days I'll wander through all my personal interactions like I'm the protag in a G-rated version of a Raymond Chandler book; the depressing thing is that it makes the day easier in that now I can slam dunk all my interpersonal conversations and decisions.
And then I realize why I'm seeking to combine these two principles when I deal with people - because people are complex, man, and if I can simplify them into simple needs that need to be fulfilled, then they suddenly become easy to deal with; they become nothing more than arrows that point in one direction, and suddenly the words and interactions I must deliver them flow as easy as ducks in a row.
I wish it didn't have to be this way. I wish we could just be simple - simply complex, in that delightful way, in that capricious way, when we do things for reasons other than naked self-interest - but alas, it seems, that as I get older, not only do I default to cui bono more and more as a default mode of interpersonal analysis... but that style is right an increasing amount of the time.
Or maybe I'm just drunk.
Another aside - has anyone ever read Durkheim here? Hands up if you have; my next post is going to be about suicide.
P.P.S - Gone is the fierce idealism that made me once drive to change the world around me; I now find that the world has changed me much more than I have changed it - and most disturbingly - I welcome my new, altered, soma-filled mindset.
  
|
On August 12 2013 15:25 Shady Sands wrote:
An aside - romance and friendship are two things where you try to keep such questions as far away from your actions as possible.
Why? If you're in a relationship, doesn't it make you happy if your partner is happy? With this simple function added, maximizing your own benefit will most likely be best for both of you.
|
On August 12 2013 15:55 spinesheath wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2013 15:25 Shady Sands wrote:
An aside - romance and friendship are two things where you try to keep such questions as far away from your actions as possible. Why? If you're in a relationship, doesn't it make you happy if your partner is happy? With this simple function added, maximizing your own benefit will most likely be best for both of you.
it also makes no functional difference to anyone else though
unless you try telling them that you're actually just doing it for yourself, in which case it's probably not going to work out well?
|
Very much agreed.
But i've pretty much come to terms with the conclusion.
|
You admit to oversimplification, so at least that's a plus, but it's the only questionable core assumption that you successfully identify and bring to the fore. But maybe the rest escaped you because you are drunk. 1/5
|
As I've gotten older, one of the things I've begun to notice is that people do things for reasons, and nothing happens without somebody doing it.
i could hardly disagree more with these statements. Unless you're going to peel back the meaning of the word "reasons" to the point of uselessness, it's self evident people often don't act in the classically rational sense, and the second statement seems to me to be more naive than otherwise. The phrase "unintended consequences" doesn't mean anything to you? How about "natural disaster"?
|
Balanced view is better, I think. Some people make the mistake to overlook the "who benefits" aspect, yet others make the mistake to think everything happens for a reason and is caused by someone, when a lot of things actually really "just happen".
|
On August 12 2013 15:25 Shady Sands wrote:
Who benefits?
In my job, who really benefits from what I do? At the client, who really benefits from getting this project done? At the investor, who benefits from getting this deal through? On your team, who benefits from shifting your growth target to this position or that position, from this space to that space?
On a grand scale: who benefits from Syrian bloodletting? Who benefits from EU economic paralysis? Who benefits from a weak Obama presidency? Who benefits from a successful Chinese rebalancing; who benefits from a desperate Chinese government?
The problem with this sort of thinking is that you've already decided on a cause before you begin your analysis. Instead of observing actors and trying to discern a motivation, you go in already convinced that it's because of someone's greed and try to fit the scenario to your assumption. Needless to say, opposing arguments are usually futile. This is the very definition of ideology.
Of course if you're in a business, likely much of the behavior is oriented towards making money, but that's not the entirety of a person's life. The bigger issues you listed aren't even that interesting but still are the result of many factors.
The perhaps even sadder counterpart to this is when some people assume that no one can have a principled argument against something and so invent some nefarious ulterior motive to explain why their cause celebre is being opposed.
Maybe your new mantra should be the reverse of Occam's Razor: If you can quickly and easily explain something, you probably need to dig deeper.
|
It's not always meaningful to ask about who benefits from something, because some things are far too hard for any person to orchestrate. Asking "who benefits from EU economic paralysis?" as a way of explaining why it happens implies that, assuming that person exists, they have the power to cripple the economy of the EU if they want to.
Applied "on a grand scale", that style of reasoning seems to me to lead to kind of crazy assumptions about shadowy cabals that somehow have godlike understanding and control over world events. Especially when talking about macroeconomics, systemic causation is real, and the system is often far too complicated for anybody to manipulate to their desires even if they had the power to do so.
"Who benefits?" is a good way to explain why people make their decisions ex ante, but as a coverall explanation ex post it assumes an implausible level of predictability. Unintended consequences are real, and so is incomplete information, and misinformation.
|
Depends on the field you work in actually. if you are in politics , finance sectors. Usually if anything major is happening you expect someone or some organization to be the string pullers and benefiting from the chaos
|
Who benefits from earthquakes?
+ Show Spoiler +Perhaps the devil makes them happen!
|
On August 12 2013 15:25 Shady Sands wrote:
But, sadly enough, I can feel that question creeping into all aspects of my life. Some days I'll wander through all my personal interactions like I'm the protag in a G-rated version of a Raymond Chandler book; the depressing thing is that it makes the day easier in that now I can slam dunk all my interpersonal conversations and decisions.
And then I realize why I'm seeking to combine these two principles when I deal with people - because people are complex, man, and if I can simplify them into simple needs that need to be fulfilled, then they suddenly become easy to deal with; they become nothing more than arrows that point in one direction, and suddenly the words and interactions I must deliver them flow as easy as ducks in a row.
I find that incredibly sad. It's hard to hold a more contemptuous view of humanity than that.
|
to everyone that replied,I think he is trolling us. Long ass stream of consciousness rant about occam's razor and then slips this in the bottom?
+ Show Spoiler +On August 12 2013 15:25 Shady Sands wrote:
Or maybe I'm just drunk.
Please don't commit suicide Shady. Or at least use Gillete brand razor if you do. Only losers use Shick.
|
On August 13 2013 12:22 sths wrote:to everyone that replied,I think he is trolling us. Long ass stream of consciousness rant about occam's razor and then slips this in the bottom? + Show Spoiler +On August 12 2013 15:25 Shady Sands wrote:
Or maybe I'm just drunk.
Haha, the classic internet escape and quite needed at that.
This whole Cui Bono or any system breaking down the world in simple categories is as far from reality as you can get. It´s not that nobody has found the proper explanation, yet. It´s just that it´s not that simple. Cui Bono makes sense as a legal term (isn´t it derived from Latin policy/justice), where you operate within a restricted space with artificial rules. In the outside world, where motivation, benefit, and action are not necessarily linked you won´t get far with it.
|
On August 13 2013 16:57 Daswollvieh wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2013 12:22 sths wrote:to everyone that replied,I think he is trolling us. Long ass stream of consciousness rant about occam's razor and then slips this in the bottom? + Show Spoiler +On August 12 2013 15:25 Shady Sands wrote:
Or maybe I'm just drunk.
Haha, the classic internet escape and quite needed at that. This whole Cui Bono or any system breaking down the world in simple categories is as far from reality as you can get. It´s not that nobody has found the proper explanation, yet. It´s just that it´s not that simple. Cui Bono makes sense as a legal term (isn´t it derived from Latin policy/justice), where you operate within a restricted space with artificial rules. In the outside world, where motivation, benefit, and action are not necessarily linked you won´t get far with it.
Exactly. If you are familiar with Nicholas Nassim Taleb's work, then you should know that one thing he laments most is taking highly theoretical constructs (i.e. Econs, Gaussian Bell Curve, Statistical Methods) out of context and trying to apply them to the real world, without correct empirical research. I have seen many random wrong uses for Occam's razor (this blog being one of them), that I think that the big part of people is just trying to show off their knowledge.
|
Ha, yeah, I'm detecting a lot of the telltale signs of Taleb-ite representation in this thread.
|
Are you partial towards people whose self interested goal is to just be involved with people who shares interests similar to theirs?
I think relationships based on things like that are as close as it gets to an ideal 'capricious' and fluid interaction.
|
On August 14 2013 08:38 UniversalSnip wrote:
Ha, yeah, I'm detecting a lot of the telltale signs of Taleb-ite representation in this thread.
After reading his wikipedia page, that dude sounds like a genius, but a total asshole about the way he makes his money and expresses his views.
|
Northern Ireland25884 Posts
If nothing else, Occam's Razor is one of the finest ever names for a prog rock band. So mad somebody got in there before me :@
|
On August 15 2013 04:23 docvoc wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 08:38 UniversalSnip wrote:
Ha, yeah, I'm detecting a lot of the telltale signs of Taleb-ite representation in this thread. After reading his wikipedia page, that dude sounds like a genius, but a total asshole about the way he makes his money and expresses his views.
Can't comment on the money, but otherwise that sounds like a fair description to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
