Gaming the World

Group dynamics should be of interest to anybody who needs to deal with a group. This can include nations, corporates, religious groups, unions, professional associations and the likes. It can be interesting for individuals in general and can help them to try and understand their position in the society and their contribution to the resulting dynamics. Game theory has been an important step towards rationalizing this dynamics. Its concept of equilibrium between various competing forces is a nothing but a stroke of genius. The theory, however, abstracts the results and a sequence of events. A framework that maybe able to account for human motivations and behaviour may be able to complement the theory. There are two places where I see the potential of extracting such behaviour patterns: the animal kingdom and astrology.

Game theory has found its way to biology. What I propose is that in addition to this we can extract basic behaviour patterns that can be observed. As in physics we begin with the simplest of assumptions, why not first try to extract behaviour patterns from animals? Most animals, after all, exhibit a fairly consistent behaviour when compared to humans. Humans differ from animals in their ability to choose and switch behaviour. A cheetah can never become a vulture but a human producer can transform to sloth. A series of predictable, simple animal behaviour patterns can be used to describe a complex human one, and similarly the way animal groups interact can be used for group dynamics as well.

For example, the diverse wildlife of an African savannah can make an interesting study in basic patterns. We can see that in order to survive the animals seek or develop some kind of advantage. This can take form of numbers, size or specializations. Numbers are sought as either an offensive or a defensive strategy. Most herbivores generally seek groups for a nominal defence against predators, though only few like wild buffalo would take the fight back to the predator. Even carnivores like lions and wild dogs seek numbers to ensure success and survival. Some animals, like the rhino and elephant, count on their size to bully and get their way. Finally, some kind of specialization is used for survival. Giraffe uses its long neck, a cheetah uses its speed while vultures use their flexibility. At the end, various unknown choices on the path of evolution determine the place occupied by any particular animal. This determines their strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threat; so to say. For example, a cheetah goes hungry despite of being the most successful hunter on the savannah due to its inability to defend what it is able to hunt. Lions, hyenas and vultures manage to harass the cheetah enough to forfeit its hard-earned food. So, when Ayn Rand talks about the fact that the creators are taken for a ride, I think it is a brave defence of the heroics of an achiever (cheetah) but ignores the fact that the strength to defend what one has is as important to succeed. For ages, hungry barbarians at the gate have ravenously consumed civilizations smug with its achievements. Be it ancient Rome or India, the story is the same. Similar parallels can be found in other animal behaviours as well. The bottom-line is that each one tries to maximize their advantage as they know best. Be it the chest-thumping of morality to induce guilt, brute force, majority, cunning, intelligence or hard work; the whole question is about getting an advantage and trying to maintain it. Morals come up to try to enforce stability as such a purely Machiavellian society may tend to get totally turbulent. All forms of social institutions come up with a view of creating stability. Nevertheless, a few always manage to find a way to game the system and the ones who feel left out, feeling taken for a ride, push for changes and alternative systems of organization. So, effectively, we have managed to transform power games between individuals into power games with in groups and alternative organizing principles.

Similar patterns can be found in astrology. Astrology gives us a classification system that tries to crystallize "human" elements (picture a periodic table of elements) and defines a set of rules for their reaction in various circumstances. Most people think of astrology only as the sun sign. My observation says that it is NOT about the sun sign as sun is only one out of nine planets influencing a person. Think of it like a vector problem in Mathematics. It is not the presence of one force that counts, it is where the resultant vector would point to that determines the personality. Or a chemical reaction in which certain elements react to produce a result that may be quite different from the reacting elements. In fact, after some observation, it is possible to map the result to its constituent elements without seeing the birth chart, to see how a person behaves and then try to classify it under any of the observable patterns in the matrix. If we are able to see a fit, it immediately gives us a perspective on the person's current state of mind and the possible behaviour he is expecting. And you do not need any birth chart for this! This, for me, has been the most practical application of astrology. A tool to better understand myself, people around me and behaviour patterns. It has certainly helped me to be more understanding and modify my behaviour according to the situation. It has also helped me to understand my own prejudices & thought patterns.

Further, linking this to artificial intelligence and reducing the patterns to programs can help to further refine the framework. Using studies from emergent behaviour or modelling of a probabilistic systems of interlinked events (a system in which events are not definite but probable, and occurrence of any one event has the potential of affecting the probability of all other events in the system) around this could prove to be interesting.

The Will of a Policy

The basic principles that define a company are generally codified into a policy document so as it can be institutionalised over time. These basic tenets help companies to reuse experience (something like design patterns in computer programming) and define a course of action for different situations. Nothing can replace a pro-active, thinking manager. Nevertheless, such a document helps to promote uniformity and makes various company decisions, appointments and promotions appear more transparent and rational. It can also serve as a reference point in times of trouble and internal feuds. However, over time there is a serious danger that the map may become the prison if it is not flexible enough to accommodate the changes in the landscape, so to say. The day a successful company thinks that it has found a "Golden Rule" to succeed, it is doomed to fail sooner or later. There are plenty of examples that show this, the most significant being that of General Motors.

So, I was thinking what can be done to prevent this. As any management book will tell you, flexibility is of paramount importance and there is no final word on improvement. To actually implement this in spirit is another matter. The recent attempt by regulators to make bank write their living wills gave me an idea. Wouldn't it help if every policy point also attempts to define the circumstances in which it should be scrapped off gracefully, lest it sticks around like a troubling, evil relic that nobody understands. Effectively, I want every policy point to not only write its will but also a suicide note. A policy can also attempt to define the thinking behind it and possible scenarios when the recommended line of action may not be the best one. The language has to be very direct, clear and reasonably simple; a grade 10 should be able to make some sense out of it without contradictions. This would prevent misuse and misinterpretation. It is inevitable that better ways will be found to do business, technology will impose fast changes and that there will be potential for growth in the future. Old markets will die, new will come up. Good people will come to organization and there will be some rotten, lazy apples as well. Transparency, fairness, speed and flexibility are the only defence, we are often told. But unless this is put into concrete words of policy and then put into action, they are not likely to mean anything to anybody.

Another thing to remember while making policies is that the world exists in shades of grey. So, it is good to be skeptical about any thought that irrevocably ties you to either black or white. A bipartisan solution is often the most balanced one. Another thing to keep in mind is the cyclical, unpredictable nature of things: what is bad today can be good tomorrow and vice-versa. The same ball that gets hit for a six by a batsman in cricket can get him clean bowled as well. The trick, then, is to use all your experience to watch every ball keenly and play it on the merit of the ball with perfect timing(So easy to say and yet so few that are able to do it with perfection). Management decisions are no different.

With these points in mind, this is how I would like to define the policies for my company. And I hope I will be doing it soon.

Finding Merit

This year I read two books by Ayn Rand- "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged". Very beautifully (and bitterly) written. A considerable amount of depth is evident in every word written in these two books. Nevertheless, like most extreme view points, these books fail to capture the complexity of human society. At the same time, they do raise some key questions that we can ignore only at our own peril.

Let me start with what I agree. I agree with the importance of work, the value of ability against need and justice against charity. I concur with the view that collectivism can promote mediocrity and that many do try to ride on the back of few who produce and create. However, I do not agree with a simplistic view of the world that demands enlightenment from everybody. It completely ignores the fact that the world essentially runs on principles of power and opportunism. You cannot wish it away or solve it magically.Moreover, every argument has two sides. Overall, things are much more complex and the solutions are ever more so elusive.

Many people believe that Ayn Rand stands for capitalism. I don't think so. A careful read will convince you that she damns any system that asks people to discard reason, merit, independence, or happiness. She denounces every system that does not value ability or forces one man to live for another. I think that this can easily include most of the known systems of government except Meritocracy (rule by merit). Hence, I feel Ayn Rand stands for Meritocracy and not an exploitative Capitalism. Once we can see this, it is easy to see that all the problems inherent to a state built on tenets of Meritocracy apply to Ayn Rand's philosophy. Interested reader should read about Singapore to understand the advantages and disadvantages of such a system with a practical example.

I feel that most of the systems of government can succeed, provided certain conditions are met. However, only a few have managed to actually succeed in actually enriching the life of its citizens, maintain peace and provide meaningful progress. Too theoretical or puritan frameworks tend to degenerate more easily. Hence, Communism without fail degenerates into dictatorship while Aristocracy often degenerates to Plutocracy and so on. Meritocracy falls just in between the extremely theoretical and the viable. Provided the country can establish an objective scale of merit that takes into account education, practical experience and practical results achieved into consideration; it is possible to make a meritocracy work. Otherwise there is a genuine danger of it degenerating into a Plutocracy (rule by money) or Oligarchy (rule by elite). Till somebody goes on to establish such a framework (and a country), capitalistic democracies remain our best bet for the better or the worse.

Finally, I think that the same principle can help one make a model corporation. In fact I feel that if a country is run like a well-run corporation, the result would be a true meritocracy.