{"id":517,"date":"2021-03-21T20:33:17","date_gmt":"2021-03-22T03:33:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kihbernetics.org\/?p=517"},"modified":"2022-07-17T11:38:59","modified_gmt":"2022-07-17T18:38:59","slug":"power-of-not","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kihbernetics.org\/?p=517","title":{"rendered":"The Power of &#8220;NO&#8221;"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2 class=\"simpletoc-title\">Table of Contents<\/h2>\n<ul class=\"simpletoc-list\">\n<li><a href=\"#logical-vs-causal-conditionals\">Logical vs. Causal Conditionals<\/a>\n\n<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#the-effects-of-discriminationnbsp-nbsp\">The Effects of Discrimination&nbsp; &nbsp;<\/a>\n<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n<p><a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" href=\"https:\/\/getpocket.com\/explore\/item\/warren-buffett-says-this-1-simple-habit-separates-successful-people-from-everyone-else\" target=\"_blank\">Warren Buffett says<\/a> &#8220;This 1 Simple Habit Separates Successful People From Everyone Else&#8221;:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\"><p><em>\u201cThe difference between successful people and really successful people is that really successful people say no to almost everything.\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p>It seems more important to know what you DON\u2019T want, than what you DO. And it makes sense, really:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>If you focus all your efforts on just what you want, you will probably miss opportunities that may otherwise grab your attention;<\/li><li>You are also more likely to take on tasks that you really don\u2019t want but you <strong><em>think <\/em><\/strong>will get you closer to what you want.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>One of the first things I learned when I started working as an engineer, that I never was taught in school, was that the purpose of calculating probabilities is <strong><em>not <\/em><\/strong>to predict the <strong><em>exact value<\/em><\/strong> of a variable at any given point in the future, but rather to eliminate the much bigger space in which the variable is <strong>not <\/strong>expected, in order to define the narrow &#8220;cone&#8221; of possible values in which it might be found in the near future. Of course, the base of this cone and the space of possible positions increases the farther you go in the future with your prediction, but it still retains its cone shape that eliminates a huge area where whatever you are tracking is not expected to show up.   <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>So, it seems logical that there is more benefit in any given situation or condition to focus on the <strong><em>negatives <\/em><\/strong>or <strong><em>inverted assumptions<\/em><\/strong> than on \u201cpositive thinking\u201d and affirmative statements. Some time ago I went through the thought exercise described below that may provide some more insight into why I make such a suggestion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"logical-vs-causal-conditionals\">Logical vs. Causal Conditionals<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The well-known &#8220;if\/then&#8221; statement can be either used as a logical conditional statement or as a statement of <strong><em>causality<\/em><\/strong>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The statement: &#8220;<em><strong>If<\/strong> A is a square, <strong>then <\/strong>A is a quadrilateral<\/em>&#8221; is a logical statement, while &#8220;<em><strong>If<\/strong> switch S is thrown, <strong>then <\/strong>bulb B shall light<\/em>&#8221; describes a causal relationship similarly, for example, to an engineering requirement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Causal relationships are easy to disprove because the stated condition is usually not <strong><em>sufficient<\/em><\/strong> for the effect to materialize because in most cases there are other necessary conditions that have to be satisfied in order for the statement to be true. In other words, there are several things that can go wrong to prevent the bulb to light up when the switch is thrown. A connection to the power source might be loose or the bulb might be broken &#8230;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Logical statements, from the other side, are harder to disprove. If the bulb does <strong><em>not <\/em><\/strong>light, we are not justified in concluding the switch was <strong><em>not <\/em><\/strong>thrown, but if A is <strong><em>not <\/em><\/strong>a quadrilateral, we are justified in concluding that A is <strong><em>not <\/em><\/strong>a square.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>We can, however, say for sure that if the switch is <strong><em>not <\/em><\/strong>thrown, then the bulb will <strong><em>not <\/em><\/strong>light (regardless of the state of all other necessary conditions); but we can <strong><em>not <\/em><\/strong>say that if A is <strong><em>not <\/em><\/strong>a square, then it is not a quadrilateral, because it could be a rectangle, rhombus or some other type of quadrilateral.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>It is immediately obvious that the difference between these two types of statements is the fact that a <em><strong>logical<\/strong> <\/em>statement is about a particular <em><strong>entity<\/strong> <\/em>(e.g. the square) and one of its<strong> <em>class attributes<\/em><\/strong> (it is a quadrilateral), while a <em><strong>causal<\/strong> <\/em>statement is usually about an <em><strong>entity<\/strong> <\/em>(the switch) and the <em><strong>effect<\/strong> <\/em>that its change of state (\u201cis thrown\u201d method) has on the state of another <em><strong>entity<\/strong> <\/em>(the bulb will light).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>So, my conclusion here would be that if a conditional &#8220;if\/then&#8221; statement is used for defining a <strong><em>class relationship<\/em><\/strong> between an object and its container class, the statement is most probably <strong>logical<\/strong>, but if the statement is used in the definition of a functional <strong><em>working relationship<\/em><\/strong> between two objects the statement is<em><strong> causal !?<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>If this is true, we can then represent <strong><em>logical conditionals<\/em><\/strong> with a hierarchical <strong><em>organization chart<\/em><\/strong> (or tree) and <strong><em>causal conditionals<\/em><\/strong> with a linear branching (<strong><em>flowchart<\/em><\/strong>) configuration and identify all possible relationships between the elements of each statement.<\/p>\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-image\">\n<figure class=\"aligncenter size-large\"><img decoding=\"async\" width=\"310\" height=\"122\" src=\"https:\/\/kihbernetics.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/03\/image003-4.gif\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-525\"\/><\/figure><\/div>\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-image\">\n<figure class=\"aligncenter size-large\"><img decoding=\"async\" width=\"255\" height=\"131\" src=\"https:\/\/kihbernetics.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/03\/image005-2.gif\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-526\"\/><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n<p>When looked at this way, another difference between the two statements comes out. The original two <strong>positive<\/strong> statements were:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>If A is a square, then A is a quadrilateral (<strong><em>Always True<\/em><\/strong>) \u2013 because the mapping is N to 1 (the structure is stable with a <em><strong>sink attractor<\/strong><\/em>)<\/li><li>If the switch S is thrown, then bulb B lights (<strong><em>Maybe True<\/em><\/strong>) \u2013 because the state of other necessary conditions is not known (the working structure is missing an input)<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n<p>However, when presented in their <strong><em>inverted form<\/em><\/strong> the statements will also invert their properties compared with the previous case and will look like this:<\/p>\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-image\">\n<figure class=\"aligncenter size-large\"><img decoding=\"async\" width=\"311\" height=\"113\" src=\"https:\/\/kihbernetics.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/03\/image007.gif\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-527\"\/><\/figure><\/div>\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-image\">\n<figure class=\"aligncenter size-large\"><img decoding=\"async\" width=\"255\" height=\"129\" src=\"https:\/\/kihbernetics.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/03\/image009.gif\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-528\"\/><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>If A is a quadrilateral, then A is a square (<strong><em>Maybe True)<\/em><\/strong> \u2013 because the mapping is now 1 to N (the structure is a <strong><em>fan <\/em><\/strong>with no attraction) <\/li><li>If bulb B lights, then the switch S is thrown (<strong><em>Always True<\/em><\/strong>) \u2013 because the state of all other necessary conditions <strong>must<\/strong> be OK if B lights (the input now must be applied) \u00a0 <\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n<p>Another difference that also pops up from the original discussion applies to <strong>negations<\/strong> (counterfactuals?) of the two original statements which (as expected) results in the same truth scheme as in the inversion case:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>If A is NOT a square, then A is NOT a quadrilateral. (<em><strong>Maybe True<\/strong><\/em> because of N to 1)<\/li><li>If switch S is NOT thrown, then bulb B will NOT light. (<strong><em>Always True<\/em><\/strong>) (<strong>All<\/strong> conditions must be fulfilled for the final outcome to happen)<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n<p>And finally, the <strong><em>inverted negations<\/em><\/strong> (or negative inversions?) have properties identical to the original two statements:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>If A is NOT a quadrilateral, then A is NOT a square (<strong><em>Always True<\/em><\/strong> because of 1 to N)<\/li><li>If bulb B does NOT light, then switch S is NOT thrown (<em><strong>Maybe True<\/strong><\/em>) \u2013 (the cause of failure may be some other necessary condition) &nbsp;<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n<p>It is obvious that inversion and negation have the same effect on both logical and causal conditionals, but the interesting thing is the fact that the two kinds of statements are behaving differently:&nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-image\">\n<figure class=\"aligncenter size-large\"><img decoding=\"async\" width=\"1024\" height=\"219\" src=\"https:\/\/kihbernetics.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/10\/TF-Table-1024x219.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-910\" srcset=\"https:\/\/kihbernetics.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/10\/TF-Table-1024x219.png 1024w, https:\/\/kihbernetics.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/10\/TF-Table-300x64.png 300w, https:\/\/kihbernetics.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/10\/TF-Table-768x164.png 768w, https:\/\/kihbernetics.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/10\/TF-Table.png 1032w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px\" \/><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n<p>One immediate conclusion from looking at this table is <strong><em>that the best way of describing causal statements is by formulating them as inversions<\/em><\/strong> (If there is an effect then there must be a cause) <strong><em>or negations<\/em><\/strong> (if there is NO cause then there is NO effect). <\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"the-effects-of-discriminationnbsp-nbsp\">The Effects of Discrimination   <\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>So the final outcome of the above exercise was proof of a \u201chunch\u201d I had for a long time that <strong><em>negation <\/em><\/strong>(<strong><em>discrimination<\/em><\/strong>) is in engineering a much more powerful explanatory mechanism for causal relations than positive affirmative statements. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Discriminatory statements are always unambiguous. Saying that if a condition is satisfied something <strong><em>shall <\/em><\/strong>happen does not provide as much information as the statement that if a condition is not satisfied the thing <strong><em>shall not <\/em><\/strong>happen. In the first case, there are always possible open issues about what are all the other necessary conditions for the thing to happen. As the switch\/bulb example clearly shows \u201cthrowing the switch is definitely not a sufficient condition for the bulb to light\u201d (there are other necessary conditions that need to be fulfilled) but \u201cnot throwing the switch is a sufficient condition for the bulb not to light\u201d (in this case all other conditions are irrelevant).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>If the above is true, why is it that in any course on writing \u201ceffective requirements\u201d the first thing they will teach you is to use positive statements? The pressure for \u201cpositive thinking\u201d today is so great that even such problem-solving methods like cybernetics and systems thinking, probability, information theory, and operations planning, are all often misinterpreted and neglected (discarded as useless) because they are not able to provide a definite answer (<em>prediction<\/em>) about <strong><em>what will <mark style=\"background-color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)\" class=\"has-inline-color has-accent-color\">exactly <\/mark>happen<\/em><\/strong> as a consequence of any given cause in an experiment. Having a definite answer about what <strong><em>will not<\/em><\/strong> happen seems not good enough even if it clearly <strong><em>eliminates a much larger space of all <mark style=\"background-color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)\" class=\"has-inline-color has-accent-color\">impossible <\/mark>outcomes<\/em><\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><em>Determinism, Predictability,<\/em><\/strong> and Probability are often vilified in the &#8220;new&#8221; postmodern, chaotic thinking about complexity. The futility of efforts to get a definite (deterministic) answer about the <strong><em>exact outcome<\/em><\/strong> of an experiment or prediction of some future event, seems now clear to everyone. But, from one extreme we suddenly found ourselves in another.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Today all (even negative) predictions are considered futile. The prevailing attitude is that if everything is driven by chaos and thus unpredictable, the best (or only) thing we can do is perform the experiment with no expectations and see what happens. So we now have \u201cedge organizations\u201d with a \u201cjust do it\u201d attitude, with no place for any, not only strategic, planning, no risk\/opportunity management, no end vision of what (or not) the future may bring us or where are we heading. All of that is part of an ancient &#8220;command and control&#8221; attitude and the best thing is to let it be forgotten. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>No point in planning because circumstances will change anyway. Let\u2019s do it and we\u2019ll see how it works. Things will evolve somehow, and if such <strong><em>blind experimenting<\/em><\/strong> was good enough for natural evolution to bring us where we are now, we also don\u2019t have (and don\u2019t want) to know in which direction we may &#8220;evolve&#8221;.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The only problem is that the &#8220;blind watchmaker&#8221; has no favorites and doesn&#8217;t care who dies in the process, so it may be us who is next in line for extinction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Featured Photo by <a href=\"https:\/\/unsplash.com\/@rthiemann?utm_source=unsplash&amp;utm_medium=referral&amp;utm_content=creditCopyText\">Robert Thiemann<\/a> on <a href=\"https:\/\/unsplash.com\/s\/photos\/thinkers?utm_source=unsplash&amp;utm_medium=referral&amp;utm_content=creditCopyText\">Unsplash<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Warren Buffett says &#8220;This 1 Simple Habit Separates Successful People From Everyone Else&#8221;: \u201cThe difference between successful people and really successful people is that really successful people say no to almost everything.\u201d It seems more important to know what you DON\u2019T want, than what you DO. And it makes sense, really: If you focus all [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":914,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"no","_lmt_disable":"no","footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-517","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-complexity"],"modified_by":"py","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kihbernetics.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/517","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kihbernetics.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kihbernetics.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kihbernetics.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kihbernetics.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=517"}],"version-history":[{"count":20,"href":"https:\/\/kihbernetics.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/517\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1327,"href":"https:\/\/kihbernetics.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/517\/revisions\/1327"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kihbernetics.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/914"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kihbernetics.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=517"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kihbernetics.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=517"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kihbernetics.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=517"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}