From Distance: Lessons from Psychohistory

Note: As it has been a quiet week in the NBA, I thought I’d try something different. I invite you to read the following with different glasses. Try reading it while thinking of team draft/tanking approach, or politically, or simply about relationships. 

In Isaac Asimov’s Foundation, the character Hari Seldon, a psychologist, sociologist, and statistician, develops a branch of science called psychohistory. His science basically examines the actions and reactions of societal history in order to formulate a predictive model for future macro-societal events.

Seldon doesn’t portend the actions of individuals. The science recognizes that an individual is too limited in sample size, and generally too fickle, to accurately predict its actions. However, a very large group of humans will act, relatively, in a far more predictable manner.

Essentially, the book is about the fall of the fictional Galactic Empire, and by its nature a callback to the fall of the Roman Empire. Seldon’s science indicates that if the Empire were left to its own humanistic devices, it would take 30,000 years for it to completely crumble and reform into a second stable empire.

Instead of waiting for a miserable period of decay, an extended Dark Age, and a subsequent slow regeneration of technology and peace, Hari Seldon devises a “Plan” that, according to his psychohistory, will condense the process to a mere 1,000 years.

The Seldon Plan anticipates when a particular societal crisis will happen. In that pivotal moment, a holographic form of Seldon appears to a major player in humanity to nudge that person in the correct direction.

What is important to keep in mind, is the Seldon Plan does not always make a particular present more peaceful. That “correct direction” can actually be a horrific act when only seen on its own. Condensing a regenerative process from 30,000 years to 1,000 can only be accomplished by blowing up certain traditions and comforts.

A slow decay is imperceptible to most humans. It’s easier to overlook small issues when one is comfortable enough to enjoy the greater good. We are procrastinating gods on all scales. Seldon’s Plan overrides those tendencies.

“Just because something works doesn’t mean it can’t be improved.” Shuri, in Black Panther

Before one begins to lump Seldon in with the “genius savior” trope that painfully continues to dominate our societal conscious, it should be noted that The Seldon Plan was designed to be constantly worked and reworked by the brightest minds of any particular day of Asimov’s fictional universe.

The most intelligent people among us recognize that no plan is beyond reevaluation, regardless of its initial genius. Asimov ended up spinning the concept into an entire series. Some claim the later novels bastardize the original premise. I disagree. Asimov simply allowed it to evolve as science is apt to do.

“The Seldon plan is neither complete nor correct. Instead, it is merely the best that could be done at the time. Over a dozen generations, men have pored over these equations, worked at them, taken them apart to the last decimal place, and put them together again.” 

In the above quote, one could simple take out “The Seldon plan”, and replace it with “Science”.  Go ahead. I’ll give you second.

For all I know, the world is currently being nudged in the “best direction” by some holographic rendering of science. But in case it isn’t, we need to do a better job of enacting the plan on our own.

Things that probably don’t jive with Seldon’s Plan:

Defending a tradition based purely on the fact it has been around awhile. 

If the reason for why you are doing something is simply “That’s how it’s done!”, then you might want to reevaluate. Or perhaps make amends(ments).

I can’t tell you how I know, I just DO! 

No, you don’t. No one really does when it comes down to it. The vast majority of our life on earth is spent in our minds, abstractly constructing a “reality” that is in no way free from our biases as an individual.

We don’t truly know what is happening down the street from us. We are right to assume that our favorite cafe probably still exists where we last saw it this morning, but the actual recall and construction of that entity is entirely our mind’s creation.

Even when we are in a room, enjoying something’s tactility, we are still interpreting the object with our individual “software” regardless of the tangibility of our “hardware”.

That is true for everyone. It doesn’t matter whether we are “right” that a tree exists. A mind’s perception of that tree in the first place is still an individual’s perception and hers alone.

And that is only speaking geographically!!! Add in temporal questions, and things get even more inherently unknowable. Afterlife?  The 2018 draft? Really? How about after lunch?

Staying in a situation because “it could be worse” / Getting out of a situation because “it could be better”

Okay, this might seem a little confusing, but it is a continuation of the previous fallacy of absolute knowledge.

Some people are paralyzed by the fear of a potentially worse situation so they stay in the known quantity. The fear of the unknown, and thus becoming one who “doesn’t know” drives them to stay in a comfortable situation in order to avoid feeling the fool.

Conversely, a person who falsely thinks he knows a theoretical future to be “true” maybe is undermining a decent current situation out of lust for the theoretical one.

Man, Ben. I guess we can’t win. Are you saying to cut your losses like you implied with Seldon’s Plan , or to suffer, grit your teeth and bear a tough situation?

What I am saying is that we need to eliminate our hubris of knowledge in order to make any rational decision. We don’t know it will work out either way. Don’t grit your teeth and bear it because you know it will “be okay”. It might not be okay. Nor should you break something because you know something better is out there. Maybe there is a high probability of that being true. Be content with probability.

We must accept that the most rational thing humans have ever done is to recognize that we are incapable of acting 100 percent rationally. 

We can’t do it. Not as individuals anyway. We are too limited by our unique sensory perception of the world to truly understand another person’s take. We may feel empathy. As a social species, we may happily reflect a multitude of gestures, reciprocating our realm specific needs. But we don’t really understand what it means to be anyone but ourselves. Even if we end up learning to define the amazing connectivity we have as a species, that still doesn’t eliminate the individual perspective.

The idea of absolute knowledge tricks us into believing we can be more correct about abstract things than those from different cultural backgrounds from our own. It creates competition and inferiority complexes about intangible things that have no actual solution.

Ridding ourselves of that way of thinking would be a huge step toward acting with compassion. If we didn’t feel the need to be completely right about a thing at the expense of another person’s “right”, then we’d do a lot better as group.

Value systems, laws, regulations, and the like do need to be put in place. Any rebuild starts with the seemingly unfortunate necessity to destroy the past. That initial explosion is likely to be more painful than a slowly drawn out deterioration. We must have the courage to act. Not because we know it will all turn out okay, but because it probably will.

An abandonment of the myth of definitive knowledge wouldn’t force people to totally disregard their fellow man. Finding direction through probability would only make it easier to evolve our value systems. If we utilize our rationality as much as we can, while acknowledging the limiting factor of our biases, we may be able to maximize our group potential without indulging in misplaced competition. Without a false competition that breeds condescension, we can be more grateful for what we have, even in our biased individual heads.

(Fill in the blank) is neither complete nor correct. Instead, it is merely the best that could be done at the time.