rats and randomness
Morning notes: I opened a document for A History of Technology, Volume 1 and keyed some material on primitive time-reckoning. Then some notes from A History of Private Life.
Otherwise, I didn't get to my novel today. I became a little (and pleasantly) sidetracked by downloading and reading the Grumpy Old Bookman's essay "On the Survival of Rats in the Slush Pile". In this he applies Nassim Nicholas Taleb's theory of "black swans" (unpredictable statistical freaks that upset the existing order--such as the success of the Harry Potter books) to the publishing industry. The Grumpy One concurs with Dr. Taleb that such anomalies have much more to do with chance than with qualities inherent in the black swan itself. After the freak success has occurred, people universally apply mistaken thinking to account for it, an instance of survivorship bias--to pay attention only to the qualities of the "survivor" (black swan), and not to those of its vanquished competitors. On this theory, it is impossible to predict in advance what project will become a black swan, since the factors that cause this phenomenon are essentially a conjunction of circumstances outside any individual's control or even knowledge.
I read with interest and appreciation, but also skepticism. There are problems with invoking randomness as a key factor in any situation, since the very concept of randomness is an elusive one, and its use reflects the underlying belief-system of the user. The Grumpy One makes it clear that he thinks of it as what he calls circumstance, which he defines as "everything that you cannot control, or even influence". This is a long way from the randomness understood in, say, quantum physics, which is thought of as a property of quantum events, which are unpredictable even in principle. Usually, for most of us, random means "having causes that I don't perceive or understand, leading to results I can't predict".
From this everyday point of view, there could well be orderly causes at work--we just can't perceive what they are. Yes, things look random; in other words, we don't understand why they are the way they are. But, as Jung warned us, we should beware the defense mechanism of projection: our ego-protective tendency to say, "That's meaningless" instead of, "I don't understand it", projecting our lack of comprehension into the object.
I suppose I'm skeptical of the assertion that the success of, say, Harry Potter is merely a fluke and nothing more--that it could just as well have happened to any other book. The truth of that assertion is unascertainable: to test it would involve winding back the calendar and substituting another work in identical surrounding conditions. It is a matter of faith to believe that another work would have performed the same.
Yes, 12 publishers rejected Harry Potter before one decided to take a chance on him. Yes, people of apparently middling talent achieve fame and fortune. Yes, genius sometimes suffers and dies unrecognized. Does this necessarily mean it's all random?
Nothing's random if you believe in karma--or the gods. Indeed, Joseph Campbell, in Creative Mythology, describes the worldview proposed by Arthur Schopenhauer that life--the universe--is really like a vast dream, in which we're all both dreamers and the apparitions in each other's dream, all in marvellous synchrony and interpenetration. As we get older we can look back and see what seems to be the hidden hand of an underlying purpose in the seemingly random or unwelcome events of our lives. Coincidences crop up, people arrive at crucial moments, to change our course and take us where, it later feels, we were meant to go. Random? Or guided? Who writes the dream of life? Who writes our own dreams at night?
This question of guidance is also an undecidable proposition; there's no way of confirming it. It's an impression, a feeling--as is the impression of randomness. Yes, my ego-desire to become successful and famous may be frustrated, but how important is that ego-desire in the long run? Is that ego-desire born of my true best interests? Or is it a mere striving after wind?
Events might be random; they might not. There's no way of knowing, so we have to choose. Which choice is going to light the way for us?
Otherwise, I didn't get to my novel today. I became a little (and pleasantly) sidetracked by downloading and reading the Grumpy Old Bookman's essay "On the Survival of Rats in the Slush Pile". In this he applies Nassim Nicholas Taleb's theory of "black swans" (unpredictable statistical freaks that upset the existing order--such as the success of the Harry Potter books) to the publishing industry. The Grumpy One concurs with Dr. Taleb that such anomalies have much more to do with chance than with qualities inherent in the black swan itself. After the freak success has occurred, people universally apply mistaken thinking to account for it, an instance of survivorship bias--to pay attention only to the qualities of the "survivor" (black swan), and not to those of its vanquished competitors. On this theory, it is impossible to predict in advance what project will become a black swan, since the factors that cause this phenomenon are essentially a conjunction of circumstances outside any individual's control or even knowledge.
I read with interest and appreciation, but also skepticism. There are problems with invoking randomness as a key factor in any situation, since the very concept of randomness is an elusive one, and its use reflects the underlying belief-system of the user. The Grumpy One makes it clear that he thinks of it as what he calls circumstance, which he defines as "everything that you cannot control, or even influence". This is a long way from the randomness understood in, say, quantum physics, which is thought of as a property of quantum events, which are unpredictable even in principle. Usually, for most of us, random means "having causes that I don't perceive or understand, leading to results I can't predict".
From this everyday point of view, there could well be orderly causes at work--we just can't perceive what they are. Yes, things look random; in other words, we don't understand why they are the way they are. But, as Jung warned us, we should beware the defense mechanism of projection: our ego-protective tendency to say, "That's meaningless" instead of, "I don't understand it", projecting our lack of comprehension into the object.
I suppose I'm skeptical of the assertion that the success of, say, Harry Potter is merely a fluke and nothing more--that it could just as well have happened to any other book. The truth of that assertion is unascertainable: to test it would involve winding back the calendar and substituting another work in identical surrounding conditions. It is a matter of faith to believe that another work would have performed the same.
Yes, 12 publishers rejected Harry Potter before one decided to take a chance on him. Yes, people of apparently middling talent achieve fame and fortune. Yes, genius sometimes suffers and dies unrecognized. Does this necessarily mean it's all random?
Nothing's random if you believe in karma--or the gods. Indeed, Joseph Campbell, in Creative Mythology, describes the worldview proposed by Arthur Schopenhauer that life--the universe--is really like a vast dream, in which we're all both dreamers and the apparitions in each other's dream, all in marvellous synchrony and interpenetration. As we get older we can look back and see what seems to be the hidden hand of an underlying purpose in the seemingly random or unwelcome events of our lives. Coincidences crop up, people arrive at crucial moments, to change our course and take us where, it later feels, we were meant to go. Random? Or guided? Who writes the dream of life? Who writes our own dreams at night?
This question of guidance is also an undecidable proposition; there's no way of confirming it. It's an impression, a feeling--as is the impression of randomness. Yes, my ego-desire to become successful and famous may be frustrated, but how important is that ego-desire in the long run? Is that ego-desire born of my true best interests? Or is it a mere striving after wind?
Events might be random; they might not. There's no way of knowing, so we have to choose. Which choice is going to light the way for us?
posted by paulv at
6:26 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home