Templeton, Toyota, and Dynamics

Well, today I'm ramping up to getting another day of Toyota Production System type "lean" training, and reading John Templeton's book "Worldwide Laws of Life - 200 Eternal Spiritual Principles", looking for overlaps. (At $11.95 a copy, a good deal!)

I'm also finally learning how muscles work (better late than never) and it's just fascinating.

I mean, this is really strange and not something we learned in physics in college - this "body building" mathematics. As a True Believer ("exponent"?) of hierarchically symmetric principles, of course, I assume that many of the same patterns that govern development of strong arms or abs govern the development of strong corporations or state or nation economie -- with some specific to each level as well.

But muscles. Wow. You make them get stronger by breaking them down and using them up. We can't even decide in our terminology whether this is "down" or "up" -- which instantly calls to mind non-transitive dice and Hofstadler's (Escher's) strange loops, and feedback mechanism.

Now, what is the template here, the reusable pattern? If I break my car down, it stays "down".
If I "work out" (Now a new direction!) I make space or gaps or folds or niches somehow that end up getting "filled in" with interest. Again signature linguistic clues to strange loops.

So, Templeton, one of the richest men on earth, really believes in a concept of "giving" which involves delayed but amplified "receiving" - and finds a spiritual basis for this in Christian scriptures. He says (page xx):

"Of course, an activity of this kind creates an activity in the lives of the givers into which more good can flow!"

So, he seems to be saying that "good" and "goods" (in a commercial sense) follow the same behavior patterns.

Still, I don't find a word in English for this loop, this pattern of behavior that muscles have where you have to use them up to make room for them to automagically refill or recharge.

I noted yesterday to my wife that it was good for rechargable batteries to let them run down, in fact, to go out of your way to run them down to just about zero and recharge them a few times, or they lose the ability to be charged up at all. Curious. Some even recommend that you do this as soon as you purchase them, and that, if you leave them in the recharger and "overcharge" them, they'll become useless and run out much, much faster than new batteries. They won't be able to "hold a charge", whatever that means (in general). (Now, we add the "let go" and "hold on" axis added.)

But, in my System Dynamics course we're studying how to model social processes using "stocks and flows" to capture the feedback structures.

I and a few other students are looking deeper, and asking what it is exactly in social systems, that "holds" any of these structures in place. In typical texts, like Franklin's "Feedback Control of Dynamic Systems" there are marvelously powerful equations and tools and software for designing great systems - but they all assume that the parts you build with don't simply fall part as soon as you connect them up.

In the real social world, that assumption is false, at least by default. Anything you build today will be much more likely to be gone tomorrow than still there when you wake up. So, if we want to draw on the power of Control System Engineering, we first have to figure out how to make, or model, parts that don't simply fall part like they're made of sand. This becomes a required precursor step.

And, parts don't "get made" in social systems, which have a truly funny sort of "clay" to sculpt things out of. Parts of any scale larger than trivial have to get "grown", like muscles, which gets me back to where I started.

I realized my vocabulary of words and concepts to describe how muscles "grow" by using them "up" is missing almost all they key words, which, as Whorf pointed out, makes it hard to think about, let alone discuss. Or , if words fail me, maybe a good picture or an animation or something.

How general is this phenomenon? Can we make employees "grow" by "using them up?" Can we make companies grow by "using them up?' Can we make nations grow by using them up?

Hmm. Well, start with employees. Any good employee actually wants to be "used" in a "good sense" (alert - two solutions!) not in a "bad sense". They want to be "exploited", again in the "good meaning" of that word, not the "bad meaning." (nuance alert!)

They want, in short, to be "used up ..[and recharged to a stronger state] " like MUSCLES, not "used up ... and discarded, like soap. In fact, it's HARD-to-impossible for an employee, or a member of a sports team, or a member of the Army, to "be all you can be" without an external social structure forcing [ nuanced word] you [nuanced noun] to "use yourself up" and "push yourself" and get through the pain / "the annoying feel of weakness leaving the body."

And, wow, are we not wired linearly for this multiday-process-loop. In the short run, rather than happily encouraging us to use them, our muscles complain bitterly about being disturbed from their slumber. Once "warmed up" or after a "great workout" they change their tune, and suddenly we get an "endorphine high" -- but that's way later than when we need it. So even this loop, maybe a month long, of getting the "pull" of the endorphine high to reach back around the feedback loop and inform the bitching-muscle part is nuanced and subtle and something no one ever explained to me before, let alone modeled for me or for a company or department or team growth process.

So, from the starting point, using up a muscle seems "hard" and "painful", and people who do it seem incomprehensible. I mean, they jog in the sleet in the middle of icy roads. Clearly insane.
Yet, "once you get into it" (nuance) the perspective changes and suddenly it becomes both possible and then enjoyable and rewarding.

But, I just don't have good pictures or words for the parts here. There's a ten-minute to 1 hour loop proess of warming up, a 2-5 day process of "recharging", and a 1-2 month process of learning that this is building you up not tearing you down that all have to fit hand-in-glove for this thing to fly at all.

It does fly, it can fly, and I'm finally figuring that out, much to the dismay of my downstairs neighbors who hear my weight-bench and think the ceiling is falling at 6 AM. The 6 AM part doesn't help.

So I can DO it, but I can't MODEL it yet so I can discuss it with someone else, let alone a very busy manager, and say "you need to do THIS" with your people, not "THAT", -- or better, build a "flight simulator" so they can interact and figure this out for themselves.

Boy, social literacy in this one alone would fix a lot of problems in how managers try to "develop" employees or teams and "fail.'

There's a lot of nuance, non-intuitive non-transitive loops, and multiple solution equations here that make this thing, relatively easy to do, very hard to explain in words.

Maybe, with Vensim modeling, I can simulate it comprehensibly and in a way it can be shared with others and discussed at a business meeting.

There are some other subtleties here, the motion equivalents of "a lap" - something that both is and isn't really there. (I mean, where does your lap "go" when you stand up?)

There are things that are like momentum or worse, angular momentum with its bicycle wheel or gyroscopic force that can be stabilizing or maddeningly sideways.

Somehow, though, back to Templeton, building "wealth" and social capital involves a lot of "giving and receiving" and the residual side effects of muscle-building as a result of that cycle, so that, if it is repeated a lot, it gets stronger and wealthier and "healthier" and more "alive."

This suggests that "wealth" is a flow-process, like a lap, not a static-noun, like "a rock" or "a gold bar." It suggests that building up wealth is like building up muscles, where you have to "give" to "receive."

That's just fascinating. I have to build one.

Well, off to learn about "lean manufacturing" and what makes some companies thrive and others become run-down, un-fit for business, and finally fall apart like sand in the wind.

This has so much to do with "life" and "health" and "wealth" and feedback processes! I think they all have to come as a bundle, at each level, and across levels, to work at all.
Batteries and muscles have to "recharge" from outside resources, and it's not through any "action" (at THAT EXACT TIME) that the battery "does" that it gets recharged. People have to "build muscles" or "heal" the "damage" [?] which happens when we sleep, not when we are "doing " something or when the doctor "does something." The best we can do is get out of the way of the natural process [ hah!] that actually does the healing out of sight, off-line, in secret, where it is so easy to be forgotten while being the key to the whole thing.

Ciao.

Wade

Even more on "What's the point of Religion"

(above - picture of the road home, from this site. )

(third part of a series of posts) - I'm trying to reduce 8000 words to 250 here and still get to my answer to the New Scientist's question of "What's the point of Religion?" Maybe the shortest answer is simply in terms of bandwidth and signal theory. There are concepts that are larger than any individual human brain and don't fit in linear symbol string text, so what does the evolving planet use (a) to perceive those and (b) to store and persist those?

Again, I'm trying to explain a model for religion with terms that scientists would recognize.

So far I've mentioned concepts that Science has inherited without adequate scrutiny that need to be re-examined. One of these is the idea that humans are magically special and different from other natural phenomena, so that "social science" is somehow different from "the natural sciences".

Another idea left over from history is the idea that mankind is God's greatest creation, beyond which there has been and never will be any life in this universe that is greater. The term "God" has been removed from that thought by Science, but the rest persists -- in direct violation of the Cosmological Principle that asserts that here and now isn't special, and which, like Occhams razor, is one way to generate hypothesized models to test first.

So, let's break that constraint, which has no basis in either theory or fact. Let's start by assuming that Evolution is occurring on many levels simultaneously, whether that's easy for humans to grasp or to model or not. Further, let's assume that some of what's evolving is superior to human beings -- that humans are not evolution's endpoint, by a long, long way. We are not the top, and not the end-point. That's the Cosmological Principle. We are not at the middle of the universe - same principle.

OK, but then follow that logic, oh Scientists, and take it where it goes.

I'll assert without proof that there are important things that individual human brains are too small to grasp, period. The burden of proof is on the contrary assumption that the world is so simple that bright individual humans, in less than 100 years time, can even learn the terminology, let alone understand the concepts.

And, similarly, I'll assert that there are things that take 500 years of continuous observation to detect that, again, no individual human is going to ever "see".

If these were radio signals we wanted to pick up, with very low wavelengths and long time-constants (compared to human biological clocks, but not to the time scale of the Earth), we would go, OK, and build a receiver/detector that was very large and would remain in place for 500 years. No big deal, if our society was one that undertook such projects.

Generally, society is more short-term focused, as are individuals, so Evolution has instead created meta-beings, persisting structures that last hundreds or thousands of years, to do such sensing and observing and remembering and learning and storing of that kind of information that humans can not and will never personally grasp.

That's the kind of thing that "organized religion" may be good for. We have very few very-long-term structures on Earth, composed of humans, that could serve to pick up the long-wavelength information about this universe we might need to know. Nations are one other contender, but they are too fluid and come and go too quickly, and are focused on short-term issues. Large Global Corporations are perhaps a great long-term solution going forward, but we don't have globe-spanning corporations that go backwards a thousand years -- except these "organized religions".

It is a frustration of many that religion "changes so slowly" -- but, from a pure signal theory point of view, it takes precisely something that only changes slowly to detect and pick up the long-wavelength signals.

Are such signals there? Following Drake's Other Law, yes, surely they are.
Will we discover new, previously unsuspected phenomena if we look at those wavelengths over time? Again, by Drakes Other Law, yes, surely we will. (These "laws", like Occham's Razor, aren't proven, just helpful guidelines for where to dig first.)

Are there other similar phenomena we can use to do a sanity check that our thinking here is not totally off-base? Yes, read any book on large-scale phenomena and how large scale things are not simply larger versions of small-scale things. One example I recall was the amazement people who didn't know Drake's Law had when they built the first Supertankers and one day one of them, on a perfectly calm day with a flat sea, started moving and ripped apart its dock.

This is the first time people realized that the ocean waves "came that size". Waves with wavelengths of half a mile were treated by small ships as just "swells" or not even noticed at all. It took a ship that long to be rocked by a wave that long. In hindsight, we should have fully expected it, by the Cosmological Principle. There is no reason signals and waves around us should abruptly cut-off at the scale of human beings and only exist to one side of that point.

Throughout history, organized religions were the storehouse of "wisdom" - which was largely definable as simply long-wavelength knowledge -- something that it took 100 years to pick up and finally see for sure was there, because it sure wasn't visible or obvious locally to individuals. Then this long-term "wisdom" stuff had to be distilled into local operating rules, so that it was effectively possible for dumb, short-range humans to benefit from smart, long-range understanding. Organized, large-scale, thousands of humans over hundreds of years "religion" served, and still does serve, as that signal detector and transformer for us.

Well, maybe not for "us". Maybe, for Earth. Individual humans weren't very interested in having their short-term impulses controlled by long-term social wisdom a thousand years ago, and still aren't interested in that, not seeing the point, and not grasping how that works.

Today, our society rejects anything over 30 years old as being "irrelevant." Hmmm. We seem to be regressing, or asserting, implicitly, that there are no long-wavelength lessons we should be "learning from history". That is an unsupportable, and invalid Scientific hypothesis - that everything that matters to us is "news".

Surely yes news matters. So does "olds". All wavelengths matter, until proven otherwise.

Right now Earth is busily evolving social structures the size of Microsoft and Haliburton and GE and other globe-spanning corporations. We weren't asked permission for those, and those may be less "human creations" and more "natural evolution's creations." They are way larger than individuals, act like legal "persons", have civil and constitutional "rights", take actions, absorb energy, and are made up of DNA in complex arrangements and hierarchical structures. By all our textbook definitions, corporations are "alive."

The only reason we don't like to think of them as "alive" is the threat to our myth that humans are God's///blind-evolution's greatest creation. Well, not any more, apparently, by Science's own rules and laws and logic.

And, in point of fact, many humans have noted that, in the USA at least, an unspoken coup has taken place and Congress has a new mandate now, to make a nation "of corporations, by corporations, for corporations". The only "economy" that matters now and is reported in the press and Wall Street JOurnal is the corporate economy, than separated from human-level economy a few decades ago, and now are at odds. Good news for one is generally viewed as bad news for the other, although there is some "leakage" between the two.

But, as humans, we've already "lost" the planet, before we even knew there was a fight for control of it going on. A new species has arisen, Corporations, and it has taken over, and we, being fragmented and tiny-thinkers, either didn't see it, or can't see it if we try.

Still, Corporations should treasure Organized Long-Term Old Religions, because there is no other repository of long-term wisdom they can turn to for advice about what LIFE is like at that SCALE of organized activity. Or, like most teenagers, corporations can simply "Not see" what those old fogies around them are so bent out of shape about, and go off to rediscover the lessons of life the hard way, and wrap the family car around a tree as they find out that "oh, ice is slippery!"

Meanwhile, Scientists, you can go back to sleep, because this is happening without your assistance or brilliant assistance, and is already beyond your ability to model simplified versions of, let alone grasp. LIFE will evolve despite you.

It's magnificent to behold unfolding. Probably the same thing is happening on ten trillion other planets simultaneously, evolving and unfolding into a LIFE form shape so far beyond our ability to grasp we don't even have words to describe it.

We're still back here arguing about whether it is "genes" or "species" evolve, and not looking out the window or reading the paper where the answer is apparent. Right now, "corporations" are evolving and spreading and taking over the Earth's evolving re-structuring process.

It's a little uncomfortable where corporate life forms run unexpectedly into existing religious life-forms, as in the Mideast. Some clashes will occur, but there is no need for "survival of the fittest" -- because at the corporate level, "merger into a larger ONE" is also an option that battling tigers never had.

Already, new pathways to evolution are open, like that. The past is a poor guide to the future, in that regard. Darwin didn't even speculate on what shape evolution would take once corporation sized living entities had the ability to clone and merge and have tele-presence.

The good news, for religion, is that as corporations get to live longer, they will "grow up", as do humans, and begin to realize that some of that stuff their parents was spouting actually matters and applies to them: Things, dammit, have consequences. Who knew? Why didn't someone tell me!!??

So, global warming and the collapsing biosphere should be a wake-up call. Corporations can see, or could see, on scales humans never will, so they should start to grasp this, maybe faster than people can.

Well, if they can utilize their internal resources. If a corporation behaves like a huge exoskeleton for a few dudes at the top, it will be stuck and limited by human cognition. If it can accept "Theory Y" and open itself up to internal flow, it can get way past that binding constraint and evolve to something much smarter than the smartest human.

We better see if we can't catalyze that process. We can't "beat" corporations anymore, they already are here to stay. They don't have intrinsic "morality" at that scale, yet -- ie, they are too new to have absorbed long-term (> 1000 year) lessons about what works and what doesn't.

We need as scientists and religious folks to accelerate that learning curve for corporate-scale entities somehow, because we're in the back seat of the family car the kids are about to wrap around some tree.

If someone has a great idea how to do that, let me know. I just trace all the wiring back and point to where the problem is.

Still, it's interesting. If you dig into it, the Toyota Production System and "lean" approach actually does spend a great deal of time removing the internal barriers inside a corporate structure to the flow of information, so that the "aperture synthesis" can take effect, making the whole organization a learning machine with a capacity far greater than "management".

That model seems to be extremely successful. So, maybe there's hope.



( a self-assembling tower crane from howstuffworks.com )

My public health buddies sometimes seem to want to disown me for being willing to hop into bed with corporations, instead of viewing them as the scourge of the earth and something to be fought off and destroyed in a noble losing battle.

I flip it around and say our job in public health (this weblog) is to figure out how to help corporate life forms SUCCEED beyond their wildest dreams, and learn to SEE better -- because they'll SEE the things we're trying to tell them on their own then. And that seems to be the only way to reach them, is through simulation models or real-life experiences that let them find this out for themselves.

I prefer simulators for learning about consequences and limits and to avoid plane crashes over practicing extreme maneuvers with a real plane. We need better long-term, long-wavelength LIFE simulators for corporations to learn from -- multiplayer games on a corporate level that, like the WHOPPER in the movie "War Games", will finally realize -- hmm, curious game, the only way to win "GLOBAL WAR" is not to play the game.

Corporations aren't Darwinian lower life forms that can only "win" or "lose" -- they can actually "merge". That's our way out of this mess. It's not a zero-sum game anymore.

And, corporations do not have to be "the BORG", life-sucking stultifying wretched places to suffer and "work". In fact, a corporation that squeezes individuality out of people is self-defeating, as it reduces the complexity of its own internal ecosystem, and makes itself dumb along some new axis, some new base you could have been covering for it.

So, "bright" corporations exult in "unity in diversity". It's a great model. It's the only good working model. It's not "Am I me OR am I a corporation employee?" In the optimal solution, you're BOTH simultaneously but not in the degenerate solution, in the multiplicative solution.
Each of those identities makes the OTHER identity richer and more satisfying.

That kind of corporation, one can imagine, will have way more success at "innovation" and have way higher morale than one without that feature.

The problem corporate CEO's struggle with is how to maintain "control" in an open-system and prevent it from simply descending into chaos once they stop "running things with a firm hand" from above. Like "angular momentum", the "forces" that emerge to take "control" in an open system are invisible and not at all intuitive to the human animal.

We've seen examples and know that it can work and does work, though. The trick is how to convert a dumb, dull, life-sucking corporate exo-body into a fit, thriving, exciting life-energy supplying exo-body. That's a win-win for the economy, for the workers, for the stockholders, and for everyone except a few top "officers" of the company who become less important in the greater scheme of things and can be expected to fight back against losing or not getting their $250,000,000 perks for their "leadership".

Again, here, the concept of "emergent leadership" needs to be fleshed out, so that even the employees know what it is they are asking for. It's not a question of changing WHO gets to sit in the "top seat" and "run the company." -- in open control, no ONE person runs the company. EVERYONE collectively, in a single unified emergent entity, runs the company.

That is NOT the same as everyone having a "vote" in corporate decisions. The difference is subtle but crucial. The difference is a herd of people versus a TEAM. Again, this is an area humans have little intuition on, and have a hard time seeing, except perhaps when they see a sports team or band "get it together" for a few moments and the experience is astoundingly rewarding -- we resonate to that frequency. We are hard-wired to LOVE that frequency and that experience. Employees who have ever been in a work situation where it "clicks" into a true TEAM never want to work anywhere else again.

But, most CEO's, even if they wanted to, don't know how to navigate from "HERE" to "THERE", so it does little good for stockholders to demand that they do so. The mental models we were taught in school don't even include the "THERE" I'm talking about.

So, let me whirl it by one more time on this way too long post. It's not the employees who run the company in this model, and it's not the CEO, and it's not labor, and it's not management, and it's not some sort of vote sharing between them. NO ONE ON AN INDIVIDUAL LEVEL is in charge. And EVERYONE ON AN INDIVIDUAL LEVEL is not in charge (chaos or Communism).
Nothing on an individual level is in charge. The "in charge" part is no longer located ANYWHERE on the "individual" level plane. The "in charge" part has moved up the hierarchy of being to the EMERGENT plane above the "individual level" that we crudely and vaguely try to tag with the word "team" or "synergy" or "emergent" without really grasping well.

The CORPORATION becomes a living being in its own right, above and beyond the living-ness of the individuals within it, and the CORPORATE-level BEING runs the company. That's the model. If you can't grab hold of and work with "emergence", this model makes no sense at all and keeps mis-resolving itself into chaos or communism or the Borg.

This century, for the first time in the history of the Earth, we finally have the computer power we need to model "emergence". This is just crucial. This is "where it is at". This is our escape route from the mess we've made of this planet and the forces we've already set into motion that are coming back to haunt us.

This isn't "kum bay yah" touchy feely stuff. You watch a great sports team (like Michigan CAN too be, someday!) and it's no "accident" when they win. They "have it together."

That's what we need to aspire to, as families, communities, corporations, nations, and the planet - to "have our act together", to get to that overarching UNITY that embraces and loves DIVERSITY instead of suffocating it, because it spins out into a higher dimension where that unity becomes possible.

We know this can work. Our human bodies are living proof that ten trillion cells can form one "body" and each have a life better than what they had before.

99.9 percent of us WIN in that strategy, and the few people at the top might think they've lost millions of dollars (or billions, or trillions), but money ain't much good if the planet implodes, guys. You can't spend it anywhere if everyone else is dead.

The total value of stored wealth goes to ZERO if everyone else dies, regardless what number of dollars or gold bars it is made up of. Wealth is, at its core, access to future social resources and if there isn't a future society, that adds up to zero.

The way to maximize wealth from here, or rich people, is to maximize the future society that you now own a piece of. Think long-term. You can't even spend a trillion dollars short term anyway. "Emergent unity above diversity" is the only key that's been shown to work here.

We don't NEED TO take each other's stuff, because the pie CAN stop shrinking and start growing again, through emergent Life.

Mathematically, this is a relationship thing. The "inner product" of two vectors a and b is written and computed as magnitude of a times magnitude of B times the "cosine" of the angle between them (their relationship to each other.).

For "real" angles, the cosine function varies between zero and one, so the best you can ever end up with that product equaling is when the two are perfectly aligned, and you get a value of a times b.

For other angles, mistakenly called "imaginary" and related to that strange thing the square root of minus one, cosine is not bounded, and can grow without limit. Any two things, with the right relationship, if you move into that dimension, can have a product larger than any number you'd like it to be. And a company formed of people oriented like that can have a value larger than any number you'd like it to be. It's all about getting relationships off the "real plane" and to having a component in this other dimension, which is very real as well, but a little harder to point to from here, except by example. It's emergent. It's synergism.

It's simply a "complex exponential", as is any simple growth curve. That's pretty solid ground. It's a pure feedback equation where growth is proportional to size already, with the "complex" additional part adding the zing. That's what we need more of. More zing. The curve is a pretty helix-shape, which is kind of interesting - and, like a "screw", by twisting it THIS way, it moves THAT way at right angles to the way you are twisting it. That's important, because we don't have other tools to make the work piece move in that other dimension.

And, you can crank it out like you can a bridge, through solid engineering, once you get the right math understood correctly. We finally have the computer power to solve those equations. There is hope.

Wade

math reference links:

The beautiful exponential spiral - see the bottom left graph in the section


4-D projections halfway down the page and also pictures of the complex "sine" curve showing that it does head off to infinity and is no longer trapped between zero and one.




complex exponential dynamics (fractals)

Complex exponential map (not instantly helpful but animated and pretty).

Complex exponential - Nice interactive live graphics from MIT's open-courseware

Self-assembling tower crane:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/tower-crane4.htm

Does ill-gotten gain produce wealth?

We know our eyes don't show us everything. The world around us is filled with WiFi radio waves, cosmic rays, infrared rays, all sorts of things we cannot see. We only perceive a very narrow part of the spectrum.

So, for the rest, we need to figure out how to tell what's there, and how to tell whether we are right or not. It's easy to make mistakes when you can't see what you're doing.

If "things" are hard to see and get right, "events" are even harder, and "causation" is harder still.

For "causation" we have to not only see two different things correctly, but also see the relationship between them correctly.

Now, we run into a second limit of human sight -- we can see most clearly when things are near us, and less clearly when things are farther away.

In fact, as the same "thing" gets farther away from us, it appears to get "smaller" to our eyes, in many senses. And, worse, the number of things at that distance just keeps on going up.

So, maybe there are 3 things going on right here, close up, highly visible. There may be 10 things going on over the space of a week with our friends or the stock market, somewhat farther away, and less visible. There may be 6 billion people on this planet, 6 billion lives and God knows how many relationships, farther away yet and so invisible we tend to forget about them. All that distant stuff becomes a big blur.

This kind of perception is great when the problems we face tend to be local as well, such as a snake on the ground or some berries that may be good to eat. But some important things are not local, and, as a species, in general, humans are pretty bad at managing those. "Out of sight, out of mind" is a good summary. First, they are far away, and we're dying close up, so they can be put off -- we figure, if we don't survive the short run, the long-run doesn't matter -- which is true.

Second, perversely, we tend to ignore distant events because there are so many of them. Our little brains get quickly overwhelmed, which is locally fatal. We miss the snake, or drive off the road while worrying about next year.

Still, when planning, we need to consider both local and distant events, because, in the long run, many things that seem far off now have a habit of suddenly being upon us. Suddenly, the final exam is here, or the term paper is due, or our mortgage payment is out of our "grace period" and is going to go up by $500/month. Suddenly the kids are grown and gone.

So, we need some basic simple rules to use here and now that will protect us in the long run, because trying to think about the long-run hurts and isn't easy to do and is often wrong anyway.

Many rules like that were distilled into the Book of Proverbs in the Christian Bible Old Testament, any many of those came from Egypt before that. They are worth reading and considering. This is a case where "the olds" may be more interesting than "the news."

As with all wisdom, some days the same words make more sense than other days, so we need to revisit them frequently and ask - "Now, from here, today, can I see something here that can help me?"

Here's one, from the Book of Proverbs, Chapter 10, verse 2, from a website BibleBrowser.com that has 20 other translations, including the Hebrew. This is part of the Judaic, Christian, and Islamic writings as well.

Ill-gotten gains do not profit, But righteousness delivers from death. (Proverbs 10:2)

For now, let's just look at the first part of that: "Ill-gotten gains do not profit."

This verse says something that is pretty important, if it's true -- First it says that there are two kinds of "gain", those that are well-gotten and those that are ill-gotten. By gain I believe this would include financial return, as well as outcomes of political maneuvers, military maneuvers, office politics, treatment of your neighbors, treatment on a larger scale of other countries, etc.

The verse asserts that the benefit of such "gains" depends on how they are obtained. It asserts that, even if the events that got you this "gain" is far away from here and now, it is still connected and still affects the benefit of having such a "gain."

Is that true?

Well, it certainly flies in the face of what we usually assume today. Let's simply look at cash, money. We assume a dollar is a dollar, and there is no difference between a dollar that was obtained by fraud or a dollar that was earned honestly. We assume that the origin of us having this dollar "goes away", and , being far away, no longer matters.

The verse in Proverbs I quoted differs, and says that assumption is wrong. It says that "blood money", money we got through bad actions such as theft or fraud, will turn out not to profit us after all, even though it "looks the same" as good money and is counted the same by our bank or phone company, that accept it as payment.

Besides, the form of this "gain" has been laundered, changed, altered many times, and it has passed through many hands, so even if the original dollar, say, was contaminated and "had the cooties", the electronic figure in our on-line checking account has surely separated us from such contamination, right?

Well, the verse says no, wrong. The verse doesn't say that changing the format of the "gain" makes this effect go away. It says that bad gains will result in bad things happening to you, and isn't worth doing, or worse, is actually a net loss to you.

Hmm. Well, first, things can't stay "connected" over a long distance, can they? Actually, they can. Physics tells us that a pair of particles can be "quantum entangled" so that, even if they are taken to opposite ends of the universe, they are still "connected" and if you change one by measuring it, say, that it instantly changes the other. So, there's at least one instance where distance in space is not a barrier to connection.

Well, still - we don't have to believe something just because some old book says it, do we? No, we don -- but we might consider thinking about believing it if someone had more current, solid, reliable data and evidence that such a principle is true.

Generally, physics doesn't suggest "physical laws" that relate physical things to human actions or intentions. That doesn't mean there can't be such laws, only that this isn't the sort of thing a physicist would ever be able to get a grant to study. This isn't "physics" but is something else, akin to both physics and commerce.

So, reflecting on this question, is there any other evidence that piling up fraudulent profits ends up being a bad idea? Maybe, rephrased, "Does crime pay, or not?"

It is clear that "ill" actions, can yield "gain", often immense "gain": ranging from theft to fraud to pillaging whole countries to making billions as merchants of death ( tobacco, heroin, etc.)

The question on the table, suggested but not proven by this old text, is whether such "gain" behaves differently over time than "gain" resulting from some more honest, socially beneficial wealth-building activity.

Are fortunes made through criminal activity less "stable", or less "valuable" to their possessors than fortunes made through hard honest work? Or not only less valuable, but of zero value, or, worse, of negative value?

Should we envy those those who pull off amazing con-jobs and sell drugs and "get rich"? Obviously, some get very rich. The question is, do they simultaneously get poor in some other way, so that, overall, net, it was a lousy life-choice and a poor business decision?

Given that many people and corporations and even nations are attempting to amass fortunes in this way, by ripping off other people, this is a big question. If nothing else, maybe we want to avoid owning stock in such companies, or not stand too near such people, waiting for lightning to strike or something? Hmm.

Oh, notice by the way that this verse I'm thinking about doesn't say money is bad, or wealth is bad, or profit is bad, or commerce is bad. It implies that profit is good, actually, and is a warning that someone long ago put there, trying to share what they saw as hard-won wisdom, telling us who seek profit that we should stay away from "ill-gotten gain", which , by implication, may look very attractive but turn out not to be in the end.

Reasoning about "impact on your soul" or "Heaven or Hell" is not very popular today, so we'll skip that line of thought. So, it comes down to this question:

Aside from such things that cannot be measured by science or commerce, are there things that can be measured by science or commerce that tell us "ill gotten gains " behave differently than "well-gotten gains?'

What exactly would we look for?

Here I want to bring in a board game called "Go", although the same thing is true for other games such as chess. At one time I was the organizer of the Cornell Go Club, which had several hundred members, about 30 very active, who played this game, and I learned a lot about it. Go was required knowledge of all Samuai soldiers in ancient Japan, and I actually advocated that Cornell's Johnson School of Management, where I was teaching, should include it as part of their MBA training. (That's a Go board from Wikipedia pictured at the top of this post.)

The game is one important way to gain insight into thinking and strategy that we can expect Asians, particularly Japanese and Chinese to use to compete with the US. There aren't very many such ways, so this is important.

One thing I found is that it was essentially always possible to defeat MBA students with a very simple strategy -- keep on trading them visible material short-run gain for longer-term much more valuable "position on the board." So, the MBA's would happily capture army after army, winning battle after battle, until suddenly they realized that they had lost the war. This seemed to be bait that such fish would always take.

The game Go teaches one patience and a long-range strategy. The aim of a good player is to "win by one point". Trying to win by more is overly-adventuresome, and requires taking risks that are not warranted. A balance is required between short-range, short-term tactics and long-range, long-term strategy -- but in the end, assuming one survives the middle, it is only the long-term value of each move, seen in hindsight from there, that matters.

So that may be an example where "foolishly-gotten short-range gain that you had to trade position for doesn't profit you in the end."

This is still not yet "ill-gotten gain", the topic of this post, but is getting closer, and the reflection on the proverb is uncovering some useful wisdom, whether the proverb is "right" or not.

So, let's remove that component and try to be more explicit and narrow in the hypothesis we're trying to test. Rephrased, we have two quesitons:

• Is there something hidden set into motion by socially-destructive gain that comes back to haunt the person or company that carried out that destructive action?
• If so, is it something that would also haunt other people downstream who got paid this money for goods or services or as a stock dividend?

There's no point in looking at the second part of that if the first isn't true, so let's focus on the first part. It seems safe to assume that such an effect was considered "hidden" by the writer of the proverb, because if it was obvious, they wouldn't need to go out of their way to write it down for their children to learn, nor preserve the thought over 3000 years.

Well, we know human vision is flimsy and has trouble seeing hidden connections between things, so we can't rule this out just because it is hidden and not obvious. Doesn't prove it, just doesn't rule it out.

And questions of "mechanisms" in my book can come later. First, blind to mechanisms, we can look and see if there is some effect. Then we can spend the energy to worry about mechanisms or pathways, and before then it's not justified. This seems scientifically valid to me. Besides, "That can't be true because I can't think of how it could happen!" has been used against every breakthrough in science, and doesn't prove anything.

First, we need careful, empirical, observational field-work to simply go see what is out there that needs explaining. In Toyota's "Lean" lexicon, this is Genchi Genbutsu -- actually going down and seeing for oneself instead of assuming you can see well from the executive suite or analyst's windowless cubicle.

I guess this comes down to the core question of theology and of this post:

Do your socially-destructive actions have bad consequences for you, even if you pull off a "clean getaway" and no one sees what you did?

People today seem think that, since the "God did it" mechanism is "dead" that all the social phenomena that mechanism explained can also be thrown away. "Allie Allie in-free!" as the child's game goes.

Two notes - first, I'm looking, as always, at "scale-invariant" rules , so the "you" in that question could be a person, or any larger entity that has "intent" such as a corporation or nation. Maybe this is relevant for cells and atoms, but that's a little obscure from here. (And I'm assuming intent matters, not just inadvertent (oopsie!) accidental, incidental, or "collateral damage", although that's not proven either.)

Do destructive actions have hidden bad consequences that make the visible benefits of them irrelevant or misleading?

OK, how would we test that hypothesis? Well, even though we have to look for cases that disprove it, we can start by asking if there's any case that comes to mind that agrees with it -- or else we should abandon this effort right here. The writer had something in mind, probably a lot of somethings distilled into this advice, so we should be able to think of something.

(to be continued...)