#12 Things That Move
The Dynamic vs The Static
I pick on marketers a lot.
That’s just because they make themselves easy targets. I am not actually saying “Look out for marketers”. I am saying “Look out for people that make dynamic issues seem like static issues”. These are the people that can make sense of something on paper or "in theory" and mistake it for reality. Most of the time, it’s because they have little experience or lack contact with reality.
Things don’t move in the classroom.
They do in real life.
My observation has been this:
Those that sit atop Mt. Stupid are CERTAIN of what they know to be true. They believe their truth is the only truth. They think that what is relevant and accurate from their point of perception is relevant and accurate from all perceptions.
Some never truly engage with or accept reality, leaving them to sit atop Mt. Stupid forever. Those that do engage with reality start to slide into the “valley of despair” because they learn through experience. What they learn is how much they did not know (because a classroom can't teach it). One thing a book cant teach you:
Things Move.
Everyone I’ve ever met that sits atop Mt. Stupid believes there is a single answer for everything or a single best answer for everyone.
The few that I would consider already on the “slope of enlightenment” have a few commonalities:
They have battle scars. (Nobody told them that things move, they had to learn the hard way).
The answer to almost everything is: “It depends”.
Why does it depend?
Because things move.
Not just concrete, tangible things. Things like personal preferences and priorities are also always in motion.
Worse, those that sit in a classroom surround themselves with their like-minded friends on Mt Stupid. In the echo chamber, they tend to miss two critical points of reality:
Static X and Dynamic X are very different things. If we intend to be useful they should be treated differently.
Group Indexing and Individual Indexing are very different things. If we intend to be useful they should be treated differently.
These two realities bleed together. They do not live in isolation (another thing intellectuals struggle with).
Before we go any further, let me remind you that I am coming from the following base assumptions: First, you intend to be useful. If you do not intend to be useful to yourself or others, you can stop reading.
Second, the point of data/research/effort is to modify your behavior to have a higher probability of getting favorable outcomes. If you are uninterested in modifying your own behavior, stop reading. If you wanna sit around and “be right” about stuff or point fingers at others, stop reading. This will not be helpful or interesting to you.
Okay.
Onward:
Static X and Dynamic X are very different things
We can look at something like the income gap as an example. This is not an argument for or against either side of the issue. It’s to illustrate the differences in the data and the narrative. The narrative has potential consequences on our beliefs and, subsequently, our behavior.
Static Inequality:
The top 1% owns 27% of the total income in America.
Nearly every year the headlines show a greater gap between the top 1%, 10%, etc, and everyone else.
Static inequality is a snapshot view of inequality. It does not reflect what has happened, what will happen, or what you can do about it.
Consider this:
Ten percent of Americans will spend at least a year in the top 1% . Over half of all Americans will spend at least one year in the top 10%.
Static inequality tells one story: "The rich get richer". But that's only the story if you fail to realize that things move.
The rich certainly can and sometimes do get richer. 50% of the population spending time in the top 10% means that the poor can become rich, and the rich can become poor.
In fact, they do.
Because things move. A snapshot or series of group-indexed (more on that shortly) snapshots do not tell us what is really going on. Life is a motion picture, treating it as a snapshot is never a good practice.
Dynamic Inequality
"Dynamic Inequality" takes into account the entire future and past life. It accounts for the individuals that make up the data set and their movement.
This tells us an entirely different story: half of us will end up in the top 10% during our lifetime. Again, that means some people will fall and others will rise. What static data fails to reveal is that there is mobility; it’s not the same 10% day to day, month to month, or year to year.
To be clear, I’m not making an argument about whether it’s better or worse. I'm saying that things move. This creates a different reality than the one created under the presupposition that they do not.
Another thing missed by the static data sets:
Groups are not individuals. Your grandma might be a Catholic member of the Republican party. 30 years ago, could have been a Protestant member of the Democratic party. Data sets of groups may be made up of different individuals.
Groups can change or stay the same, individuals within the groups can change or stay the same because…
Things Move.
Russian Roulette, Group Indexing, and Individual Indexing
Imagine for a moment that there is a worldwide game of Russian Roullete.
- All winners get ten million dollars.
-There is one bullet for 17 guns; that's 16 guns with no bullets and a gun with a single bullet.
Assuming six chambers per firearm, that’s one bullet for every 102 trigger pulls. That's over a 99% chance of "winning".
Over a 99% probability of winning.
Winners get ten million bucks.
Is that a good bet?
Let's play out two scenarios:
Scenario 1:
Thousands of people decide this is a good bet and fight to get on the list to play the game. There is a limit of one turn per person, so the competition ends up being 102 people, each with one pull of the trigger.
Scenario 2:
Thousands of people decide this is a good bet and fight to get on the list to play the game. There is no limit to the number of turns per person so a single person buys all 102 turns for himself.
Scenario 1 is a group indexing problem: if we all play this, we all have 1 in 102 odds of dying. The risk is evenly distributed and there is no repeat exposure.
It’s an ensemble probability.
Scenario 2 is an individual indexing problem: if I play 102 times in a row, I am certain to die.
It’s a time probability.
102 people distributing a risk that is below 1% is very different than one person taking on a 1% chance of ruin 102 times in a row.
When you mistake a time probability for an ensemble probability, a good bet "in theory" can quickly turn into a death sentence. It's helpful to remember:
Things move.
Because things move, what we’ve learned to be true in a nice, comfortable environment can turn us into really poor decision-makers. Even if it looks good on paper. The right answer is not always the best answer for survival.
There is more to this, of course. Russian Roulette, for example, has an outcome of complete ruin or death which changes the implication of repeat exposure. But that is what the classroom, the intellectual and even YOU don’t want yourself to know.
There is always more to it.
Because things move.
Onward
Nic
PS. I don't have comments enabled because I don't want another thing to manage. Questions, comments, 6WUs, and Observations about Things That Move can be posted here.