Skip to main content

Thoughts XIII - models and catastrophes



Models.  The deep skinny on model building based on the application of analysis is this:  Make it as simple as possible, but make it as complex as necessary.   Tall order and a laudable goal, though achieving both simplicity and complexity is a challenge.  We have a min-max problem, difficult to solve.  Nonetheless, it is attempted by all. Each suffers at the expense of the other.  The question I pose here is whether this is possible?  Both goals are vague and meeting either is virtually impossible to measure.   
So, depending on the interpreter, the model will be seriously affected.  This is the case even with the most scientific of problems.  When the solution goal is unclear, the situation vague, the problem is wicked, or the course of action is fuzzy, there arise conflicts on what model to build.  Deformed models are produced.   Once a model is in place, it has a systemic existence.  It has invested adherents.  It doesn’t die easily no matter how wrong it may be.
So, what should be done?  Forget simplicity; forget complexity. Try the following. 


1.      List all the factors affecting the problem
2.      Prioritize them as to importance.
3.      Build a model addressing the factors in order of their importance.
4.      Test the model for feasibility and acceptability. 
5.      Revise the model. 
6.      Repeat steps 1-5 several times. 

Catastrophes.  Americans are seduced by local catastrophes and react to create permanent changes. Americans like the extreme solution. 
  • Business profits are down for a quarter.  Make a policy change. Fire the CEO and get another.
  • School performance is down for a couple of years. Make a policy change.  Change the entire curriculum.
  • World temperatures increase for a couple of years.  Cry global warming.
  • Coal is a polluting menace.  Make a policy change. Eliminate the viability of coal for the generation of electricity.
  • A gunman shoots several people. Make a policy change.  Eliminate guns.
There is no argument about any of the events mentioned.  All occur.  It is the magnitude of the reaction toward sweeping changes that is challenged.  Too many changes chase after the symptom with little analysis of the cause.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Behavioral Science and Problem-Solving

I.                                       I.                 Introduction.                Concerning our general behavior, it’s high about time we all had some understanding of how we operate on ourselves, and it is just as important how we are operated on by others. This is the wheelhouse of behavioral sciences. It is a vast subject. It touches our lives constantly. It’s influence is pervasive and can be so subtle we never notice it. Behavioral sciences profoundly affect our ability and success at problem-solving, from the elementary level to highly complex wicked problems. This is discussed in Section IV. We begin with the basics of behavioral sciences, Section II, and then through the lens of multiple categories and examples, Section III. II.     ...

UNCERTAINTY IS CERTAIN

  Uncertainty is Certain G. Donald Allen 12/12/2024 1.       Introduction . This short essay is about uncertainty in people from both secular and nonsecular viewpoints. One point that will emerge is that randomly based uncertainty can be a driver for religious structure. Many groups facing uncertainty about their future are deeply religious or rely on faith as a source of comfort, resilience, and guidance. The intersection of uncertainty and religiosity often stems from the human need to find meaning, hope, and stability in the face of unpredictable or challenging circumstances. We first take up the connections of uncertainty to religion for the first real profession, farming, noting that hunting has many similar uncertainties. Below are groups that commonly lean on religious beliefs amidst uncertainty.   This short essay is a follow-up to a previous piece on certainty (https://used-ideas.blogspot.com/2024/12/certainty-is-also-emotion.html). U...

Robin Hood and Cliven Bundy

  Actor Herbert Mundin, playing Munch in the 1938 film The Adventures of Robin Hood (starring Errol Flynn) is charged by Prince John's troops of slaying a royal deer in the royal Sherwood forest.  The punishment is death.  Though the events of this film are a portrayal of events dating to the 15th century, they became by the 19th century a "robbing from the rich for the poor" theme so often depicted in other film genres. The William Tell legend is another. The plot is simple.  A poor man desperate to survive tastes the forbidden fruits owned by the authority, and is condemned. I would love to hear this event debated on the current TV news shows.  On the one hand, Munch would be a champion in service to his family.  On the other hand, his legal rights are restricted by legal authority. so, the argument would proceed.  Legal scholars cite statutes chapter and verse, while others would root for the common man.  Fast forward to 2014. Parallels ...