,
9 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
1/ In his books, Asimov describes the (fictional) concept of psychohistory, which I would summarize as follows: predicting the future is not so hard, as long as you don't care about "who" nor "when".
Eg. predicting self-driving cars easier than predicting if Uber or Waymo or …
Eg. predicting self-driving cars easier than predicting if Uber or Waymo or …
2/ Of course, most (financial) rewards come from exactly the opposite: predicting who and when.
3/ Necessarily: value comes from executing (& surviving) the hard or the unluckily.
And necessarily, if it's hard and unluckily, it becomes impossible to predict who will succeed. Only a technology can play large-number iterated games until it succeeds; humans, only limitedly.
And necessarily, if it's hard and unluckily, it becomes impossible to predict who will succeed. Only a technology can play large-number iterated games until it succeeds; humans, only limitedly.
4/ I wonder if one could correlate one technology's probability & magnitude of success to the number of iterated games it allows its innovators to take during their professional lifetime.
(I'm currently jetlagged, so don't take the above too seriously)
(I'm currently jetlagged, so don't take the above too seriously)
5/ Comparing dimensions
Predicting what will happen over breeds of information (a DNA / a tech / a self-reproducing piece of info)
is easier than predicting over space (where)
which is easier than predicting over people (who)
which is easier than predicting over time (when)
Predicting what will happen over breeds of information (a DNA / a tech / a self-reproducing piece of info)
is easier than predicting over space (where)
which is easier than predicting over people (who)
which is easier than predicting over time (when)
6/ and the reason is that these dimension are ordered in descending number of allowed iterations over a bounded range (eg. over a tech, over a country, over a person, over a year)
7/ I suspect that one reason why fractally-organized groups tend to succeed (context below) is because they allow for a larger number of iterated games than their monolithic counterparts.
8/ It follows that the best way that some historical achievement will be completed by yourself is to maximize the number of useful iterations you expose yourself to.
(useful = produces a learning and doesn't threaten survival)
(I explain this in gum.co/powerofa)
(useful = produces a learning and doesn't threaten survival)
(I explain this in gum.co/powerofa)
9/ …while considering yourself an ensemble of mental patterns, rather than a monolithic entity (so that the environmental feedback destroys a single unfit mental pattern at a time making you "evolve" without threatening your own survival)
