How to cope with an uncertain future

How to deal with the uncertain future

1 The world we live in is a neutral system

What is a neutral system? Simply put, it is: whatever can happen, will definitely happen. The characteristics of a neutral system are: contingency and uncertainty.

This view is very different from the education we usually receive and the scientific view instilled in our education. We are easily confused by the idea:

If we have enough money, buy enough computers, and have enough talents, we can build models of any complexity and solve the world’s problems. any problem. (Is earthquake prediction also very easy?)

However, in fact, the amount of calculation will increase as the variables increase, and the calculation cost will increase geometrically, making it an impossible task. Just think about the fact that we use supercomputers to calculate and predict the weather.

In the computer age, we often fail to understand the greatness of Newton. The secret behind all scientific achievements is that it is simplified to a very small computational cost and is very consistent with the evaluation of the systems or applications we need to understand. within the valid range.

Our books call these simplified effective laws objective laws. This effective way of understanding the world has a side effect, which is that it easily makes people think that the world is full of all kinds of regular secrets, but we haven't found them yet.

We did not realize that when dealing with the complex world, we first made selective screening and simplification. We only need to see things that fit, and the rest is abandoned.

However, we don’t know whether those things that we may ignore will lead to “black swan” events.

"Black swan" refers to an event that has the following three characteristics: rarity; impact and predictability after the event (rather than before the event). (Obviously, the Wenchuan earthquake belongs to this type of event)

"Black swan" is an unexpected event. It is beyond the usual expectations. There is no precedent to prove it before it happens. But once it happens, will have extreme effects. Because of this, human nature tends to weave or find reasons for its occurrence after the fact. And think of it more or less as explainable and predictable.

2 Three Problems with Human Thinking

The randomness and uncertainty of a neutral system will give people the feeling that it directly leads to "agnosticism" and "scientific failure" Argument".

Obviously, this is not our intention. Our purpose is to be wary of the traps of thinking: to recognize the natural shortcomings of human thinking, to recognize the cognitive limitations of scientific tools, and to find basic methods to deal with complex and unknown events.

Fault No. 1: Almost everyone who cares about what's going on seems convinced they understand what's going on.

After the earthquake, experts said this with confidence regarding the duration of aftershocks: Aftershocks may last for 1 week, 2-3 months, or several years.

Do you think such insights have any practical value to people living in aftershock areas?

The second problem: post-event filtering and backward-looking verification mechanism.

The earthquake happened, and then, in turn, everyone thought it was too obvious to talk about the toad. If the earthquake had not occurred, the toad would not have become evidence, but would have been filtered and forgotten.

After the earthquake, someone said this: I beat my dog ??and they didn’t tell me about the earthquake!!! They usually bark so happily, but they slept like nothing happened during the earthquake!

Everyone takes it for granted that dogs are more reliable than the earthquake bureau, but it turns out that dogs are also unreliable.

The third problem: the more information, the more interference.

In a neutral system, having a lot of information is just as troublesome as having little information. There is too little information to draw decisive conclusions. There is a lot of information, and I don’t know what kind of information has the decisive power.

Judging from the results, there is little difference between knowing and not knowing the information.

If the authoritative department has all the information, then this kind of highly sensitive information will directly lead to the risk of liability. Therefore, whether these departments say anything or not, life will not be easy.

This time around the 512 Earthquake, the Seismological Bureau was scolded again by everyone. Due to responsibility or public pressure, earthquake experts from across the country conducted consultations in Chengdu and came up with a warning of possible aftershocks of magnitude 6-7 on May 19th and 20th.

On the evening of May 19, an earthquake early warning notice was issued from the TV station. Chengdu suddenly became a city of despair and panic. Everyone left their homes and fled. After 1 o'clock that night, a 5.0-magnitude aftershock occurred in Pingwu. It was a false alarm. The next day, the government issued another announcement to explain.

During this earthquake, the two largest aftershocks I experienced, the magnitude 6.1 one and the magnitude 6.4 one, were both at home.

The 6.1-magnitude aftershock happened at night, and I was shaken awake for 10 seconds. The 6.4-magnitude aftershock was felt strongly and lasted for 1 minute. Neither time was there any official forecast.

Based on the actual experience of this earthquake, my conclusion is: If someone tells me that an earthquake of a certain magnitude occurs on a certain day at a relatively precise time period. My basic judgment is: this is another rumor that came out of nowhere.

3 Why earthquakes cannot be accurately predicted and forecasted

In terms of earthquake prediction, based on the above analysis, we can roughly make this basic judgment: between the limitations of thinking and the accumulation of technology and knowledge In all aspects, we have not found any effective rules. In other words, the determining factors are extraordinary and there is basically no such rule.

I basically agree with this statement: for a long time, it is unrealistic or even impossible to accurately predict earthquakes.

Our science seems powerful, but it is still too naive for the complexity of nature:

(1) The basic technology and data accumulation in earthquakes are insufficient; Most prediction methods and levels are completely based on empiricism;

(2) Many prediction methods emerged after this earthquake: for example, animal observation method, earthquake cloud method, meteorological method, Tide method, seismic wave method, and probability deduction method. These methods are all used to prove their "effectiveness" through post-facto verification.

I even saw someone repeatedly emphasizing that they predicted the Tangshan earthquake and the Wenchuan earthquake. They explained that they did not release a large amount of information as follows:

"Communicate within the country rather than publish it publicly. The reason why I am not in a hurry to publish it publicly is mainly to be cautious. I just plan to use it in the practice of earthquake prediction." It has withstood repeated tests and achieved practical results."

This explanation is exactly in line with the thinking trap mentioned above.

It seems that the best way to verify these methods is not to say which major earthquakes they have predicted, or what their chances of success are. But, can anyone pat their chest and tell me: Where, when, and with what magnitude will the next big earthquake occur?

I believe that all the news of successful predictions were sent out after the earthquake. Predictions that did not happen became silent evidence, never known.

If what everyone tells me is a probability, I know that the value of all methods is basically the same.

The probability of this prediction determines the possibility of earthquake prediction.

Rationally speaking: if there is a major earthquake, it should be predicted. The key problem is that operability is difficult.

Some people say: If you make a prediction 100 times and fail 99 times, the correct one can save your life.

A realistic possibility is this: you have predicted 100 times, but when you predict 50 times, no one will believe your forecast anymore. Because the above are all mistakes, people's way of dealing with unreliable information is to trash it, and the forecast becomes noise. Its trust level is very low, and it is ignored over time. It is human nature not to worry about things that never happen.

This is the characteristic of human nature, even if we know that earthquakes are fatal. But everyone thinks that earthquakes are very dangerous, but they never come. So what to do? The government and individuals have to find a balance point that can be paid: How much energy and cost will we spend to face an earthquake that doesn't know when it will come?

If an earthquake has already occurred, no matter how it is predicted, everyone will be alert, but as time goes by, everyone will naturally become numb.

An earthquake joke I saw today goes like this:

One day, there was another aftershock. Everyone got used to it and no longer ran out in a panic. Everyone was guessing the magnitude of the aftershock that just happened. Some said it must be 5; some said it was more than 5.5. Lao Sun did not feel the aftershocks. .Everyone asked him why? He said, well, my minimum consumption now is 6.0.

4. The inability to predict accurately does not mean that we can do nothing;

It is frustrating that earthquakes cannot be predicted accurately and in real time. But that doesn't mean we can do nothing.

In fact, the solution is very simple: since the conditions for earthquake prediction are not mature now, don’t spend too much energy and time on prediction.

After the earthquake, there were many articles introducing the situation of earthquake prevention in Japan and the United States:

Japan basically gave up research on predicting earthquakes many years ago and turned to earthquake prevention. System construction and continued investment; the United States has also reduced its investment in prediction, opened its earthquake monitoring database, and allowed more private forces to come in. Their approach is: We cannot predict, but we provide data. It's up to you!

Of course, both countries have put a lot of thought into the layout and planning of urban buildings in earthquake-prone areas.

I think the epistemology of Japan and the United States in terms of earthquakes is more rational, concrete, pragmatic, and much more effective and reasonable than ours. They avoid the mental trap of longing for a once-and-for-all solution and do not look for sunflower manuals for earthquake prediction. Instead, they start from the direction of disaster prevention and reduction that is technically feasible and cost-effective.

I also think it would be a great thing if a Newton-like figure could emerge in the Chinese earthquake community. But before the greatness is confirmed, I still have to think about it: What if the next earthquake is also unpredictable and unpredictable?

Shall we scold the Earthquake Administration again? Then, he rushed under the collapsed rubble and rescued people from the reinforced concrete with his hands?

The way to solve the earthquake does not necessarily have to be solved beforehand, because if it cannot be solved at all beforehand, the best way is to change your thinking and change your strategy.

In the face of things like earthquakes, the basic strategies suggested by "Black Swan" have reference value:

We accept the unpredictable reality and learn from the results. Starting out, in order to find a better outcome, find more than one way and method to reduce disasters from multiple prevention levels. In an earthquake, the most important thing is to protect lives and property to the greatest extent possible.

Establish a complete emergency system: how to transmit information, how to plan houses in earthquake zones, how to configure building structures and materials, how to carry out disaster prevention and self-rescue education in schools, and post-disaster epidemics How to coordinate prevention and control, secondary disasters, rescue and support, etc.

These do not require too much high technology or superman, they just require proper planning and organization, and drills and preparations before disasters. This enables the fear and harm of disasters to be truly and effectively controlled.

(3)

There is no simpler event than experiencing an earthquake to tell us that we live in an unpredictable world. Everything that happens in the unknown world is good and bad.

What should we do when we find that there are many things beyond our ability that we cannot predict?

Don’t trust the experts, change as things change. Take advantage of good surprises when possible and prevent bad surprises when possible. Focus on the results, then make your choice.

"Black Swan" is a book that subverts our blind obedience to science and experts. It tells us how to use wisdom to reflect on the blind spots of knowledge. If you are a scientist, you may be reluctant to accept this recognition of uncertainty. You will see the author peeling away bit by bit the various pretense that humans have in their modes of thinking, expression, and cognition.

It also tells us why human beings are so full of wisdom and possibility when dealing with complex things: Even if there are many things beyond the scope of our knowledge and ability, there is no need to be afraid, as long as we can follow our nature , to maintain the honesty, bravery and imagination in human nature, we dare to give up control of our profession and are not too obsessed with our own knowledge and experience.

Don’t focus on the possibility, but focus on the outcome, and be prepared for everything before the black swan arrives.

Sneeze Network: Original www.dapenti.com

ps: This book is suitable for people who do system analysis and design, and can broaden their thinking.

I personally guess that the idea of ??"black swan" may come from systems theory.