Wishtank Edu

by: GARRETT HEANEY

The world is changing whether we like it or not. We are in the midst of an historical change in global order. Fossil fuels are drying up, world economies are crashing and people are finally starting to realize that the deciders have steered us into a bad course. I believe this is an incredibly optimistic time for us all.

I think it is important to recognize that some things are beyond our control. We can’t, for instance, decide how others will behave. We can’t decide what others will eat. We can’t decide how others will spend their money. We can only decide how we will navigate our own lives — and it is essential that we learn to do this sharply.

The culture we exist within has convinced many to compromise their individual autonomy. It has silently trained massive populations of citizens to have faith in tiny populations of chiefs, executives and officers. The CEOs have failed though, and their incompetence in decision making has become transparent. It is becoming clear that we must reclaim our decision making responsibility individually and rethink our communities.

The human race is blessed with the gift of volition — i.e. the act of willing, deciding, or choosing. We can choose to evolve rather than fail. A species’ evolution depends on the improvement of certain traits. In order to evolve through this period of transition, we must improve our capacity for volition. We can start by familiarizing ourselves with the research of scholars in the field of Decision Sciences.

Ukrainian born Aron Katsenelinboigen was a leading thinker in this field. He spent the final 18 years of his life as a professor of Decision Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania. He was a founder of Predispositioning Theory and wrote some 20 books, including The Concept of Indeterminism and Its Applications: Economics, Social Systems, Ethics, Artificial Intelligence, and Aesthetics .

In this book he draws an analogy to chess, and defines two methods of decision making — combinational and positional. In chess, good players are taught these methods. In life, few people actually know what they’re doing.

The combinational method is deterministic

A combinational player has one goal and sets a narrow path from Point A to Point B. He follows that path absolutely and he believes he has plotted the best course. He puts all of his energy in the execution of his predetermined steps along the way.

In his book, Aron writes of the combinational:

“The combinational style features a clearly formulated limited objective, namely the capture of material. The objective is implemented via a well defined and in some cases in a unique sequence of moves aimed at reaching the set goal… Finding a combinational objective allows the player to focus all his energies on efficient execution, that is, the player’s analysis may be limited to the pieces directly partaking in the combination. This approach is the crux of the combination and the combinational style of play.”

The positional method is indeterministic

A positional player operates with a much different understanding. He does not limit himself to one, predetermined path. He believes that with each step, the field changes a bit. He continually reassesses his position, and redraws his path opportunistically. With each change in position, he has new knowledge from which to determine his next move.

Aron writes:

“Unlike the combinational player, the positional player is occupied, first and foremost, with the elaboration of the position that will allow him to develop in the unknown future. In playing the positional style, the player must evaluate relational and material parameters as independent variables… The positional style gives the player the opportunity to develop a position until it becomes pregnant with a combination. However, the combination is not the final goal of the positional player — it helps him to achieve the desirable, keeping in mind a predisposition for the future development. The Pyrrhic victory is the best example of one’s inability to think positionally.”

We can learn a great deal about the nature of combinational and positional decision making through this last example.

The Pyrrhic victory

Historically, the Pyrrhic victory gets its name from King Pyrrhus of Epirus whose army defeated the Roman army in two battles between 279 and 280 BC. In both of these battles, the Romans lost more men than Pyrrhus, but not in proportion to each sides’ overall supply of men — i.e. the Romans had a much larger supply of men, so their losses in the battle were not as dire as the victor’s. It’s a paradox, and the story told by Plutarch goes:

“The two armies separated; and we are told that Pyrrhus said to one who was congratulating him on his victory, “If we are victorious in one more battle with the Romans, we shall be utterly ruined.”

Pyrrhus used combinational decision making to overcome the Roman army twice. He was very effective in doing so, but his goals were limited to each victory. He acknowledges in the exchange above that his methods would not be successful in future battles, and were therefore not sustainable. A more positional style of decision making would be necessary — or could have steered him clear of these costly victories.

Time to move

Our nations are on the cusp of realizing a similar lesson. Our leaders are being forced to recognize that their system of decision making is failing. The societies that they have created have been directed towards the limited goal of maximum profit from consumerism. This direction has utterly and ultimately failed, and we are seeing it crash all around us. While we cannot depend on our leaders to change their system, we can change our individual and community systems. Our current position is in transition, and we have the knowledge to make better decisions towards a more sustainable future.