The Contours of the Lenses of Wisdom
It would be impossible -- and yay, futile -- to attempt provide a comprehensive expurgation of the vast works of Professors Kahneman & Tversky, Girard and Mandelbrot in a space as small as this one, and that is not the intent here. That content is available in quantity via your favorite search engine and numerous books and articles.
Rather, I only intend to provide brief outlines of those parts of the theories that will be used as lenses to create The View. Most content will be placed in the drop-down sections under The Lenses of Wisdom in the upper right corner:
The Prospecting Lens, The Mimetic Lens and The Fractal Lens.
In their most expansive conceptions, each of the Master Crafters' theories contains a descriptive and categorical duality that has broad applicability.
Rather, I only intend to provide brief outlines of those parts of the theories that will be used as lenses to create The View. Most content will be placed in the drop-down sections under The Lenses of Wisdom in the upper right corner:
The Prospecting Lens, The Mimetic Lens and The Fractal Lens.
In their most expansive conceptions, each of the Master Crafters' theories contains a descriptive and categorical duality that has broad applicability.
Prospecting: Duality in the Models of D. Kahneman & A. Tversky
Kahneman & Tversky's models concern the functioning of the human mind, and specifically how the human mind makes decisions. As described in Professor Kahneman's masterwork, Thinking, Fast and Slow:
Our brains are comprised of two characters, one that thinks fast, System 1, and one that thinks slow, System 2.
System 1 is an autopilot system. System 1 operates automatically, intuitively, involuntary, and effortlessly—like when we drive, read an angry facial expression, or recall our age. System 1 consists of subconscious values, drives, and beliefs that influence our “gut reactions.” System 1 Jumps to conclusions regarding causality. System 1 operates effortlessly, can be wrong but is more often right, and is heavily influenced by heuristics, or rules of thumb.
System 2 is an intentional thinking system. System 2 requires slowing down, deliberating, solving problems, reasoning, computing, focusing, concentrating, and considering data — like when we calculate a math problem or fill out a complicated form. System 2 articulates judgments, makes choices, endorses or rationalizes ideas and feelings. System 2 will make up stories to either confirm or deny the conclusions already made by System 1. System 2 requires conscious effort to engage. System 2 can be wrong or right depending on how hard it works. System 2 examines heuristics when so inclined.
As Kahneman notes: “The way to block errors that originate in System 1 is simple in principle: recognize the signs that you are in a cognitive minefield, slow down, and ask for reinforcement from System 2." Yet most of the time people do not do this and continue to make the same System 1 error over and over again.
A decent summary may be found here.
"Prospect Theory", for which Kahneman was awarded the Nobel Prize (while crediting Tversky), is actually just one of the heuristics and is an example of what psychologists have labelled "The Framing Effect", which in practice means that people will often give different answers to the same question depending upon the form in which the question is presented.
Note that "Prospecting" on this site is intended to encompass not only "Prospect Theory", but is also intended as a short-hand for the broader ideas of Kahneman & Tversky and the heuristics, or rules of thumb, that drive much of human decision-making behaviors.
Our brains are comprised of two characters, one that thinks fast, System 1, and one that thinks slow, System 2.
System 1 is an autopilot system. System 1 operates automatically, intuitively, involuntary, and effortlessly—like when we drive, read an angry facial expression, or recall our age. System 1 consists of subconscious values, drives, and beliefs that influence our “gut reactions.” System 1 Jumps to conclusions regarding causality. System 1 operates effortlessly, can be wrong but is more often right, and is heavily influenced by heuristics, or rules of thumb.
System 2 is an intentional thinking system. System 2 requires slowing down, deliberating, solving problems, reasoning, computing, focusing, concentrating, and considering data — like when we calculate a math problem or fill out a complicated form. System 2 articulates judgments, makes choices, endorses or rationalizes ideas and feelings. System 2 will make up stories to either confirm or deny the conclusions already made by System 1. System 2 requires conscious effort to engage. System 2 can be wrong or right depending on how hard it works. System 2 examines heuristics when so inclined.
As Kahneman notes: “The way to block errors that originate in System 1 is simple in principle: recognize the signs that you are in a cognitive minefield, slow down, and ask for reinforcement from System 2." Yet most of the time people do not do this and continue to make the same System 1 error over and over again.
A decent summary may be found here.
"Prospect Theory", for which Kahneman was awarded the Nobel Prize (while crediting Tversky), is actually just one of the heuristics and is an example of what psychologists have labelled "The Framing Effect", which in practice means that people will often give different answers to the same question depending upon the form in which the question is presented.
Note that "Prospecting" on this site is intended to encompass not only "Prospect Theory", but is also intended as a short-hand for the broader ideas of Kahneman & Tversky and the heuristics, or rules of thumb, that drive much of human decision-making behaviors.
Mimetics: Duality in the Models of René Girard
René Girard's conceptions comprise two competing models of human culture and societies.
By way of background, the build-up of human societies involves the mimetic mechanism: "Mimetic theory explains the role of violence in human culture using imitation as a starting point. “Mimetic” is the Greek word for imitation. Girard chose to use it because he wanted to suggest something more than exact duplication. This is because our mimeticism is a complex phenomenon. Human imitation is not static but leads to escalation and is the starting point for innovation. Girard’s great insight was that imitation is the source of rivalry and conflict that threatens to destroy communities from within. Because we learn everything through imitation, including what to desire, our shared desires can lead us into conflict. As we compete to possess the object we all want, conflict can lead to violence if the object cannot be shared, or more likely, if we refuse to share it with our rivals.
The duality arises in this way: On the one side Girard identifies and describes the concept of "archaic sacred" religion or ideology that views officially sanctioned violence as a tool for maintaining societal and cultural order. Girard's analysis holds that humans are endowed with natural tendencies or genetic predispositions to copy the desires of others (mimesis) and towards episodes of violence to resolve conflicts with mimetic rivals so as to get what they want, which often involves replacing the mimetic rival. Societies and cultures were made possible when humanity started using sacrificial violence ("foundational murder") to build group consensus and maintain a cultural narrative and sense of order. The sacrificial violence took the place of and extinguished the more randomized violence of individuals in the community. But more often than not, the victims of this sacrificial violence were actually just innocent scapegoats. Examples of this mechanism and these types of societies are pervasive through history and include the obvious: ancient human and animal sacrifices, Greek and Roman practices of ritualized slaughters, medieval witch hunts and inquisitions, the Crusades, lynch mobs, the French Revolution's Reign of Terror, the 20th and 21st Century genocides that were intended to ethnically cleanse their societies, and the recent rise of Islamic terrorism and "state", as well as the mimetic "War on Terror" reaction to it that often does not target actual terrorists but substitutes convenient scapegoats instead. It has also been channeled into less destructive forms, such modern consumerism and celebrity culture, where people compete for fame and fortune and then periodically shame and humiliate almost randomly chosen scapegoats. Wherever society "makes an example" of someone, especially in a disproportionate manner, the scapegoat mechanism is usually in play.
On the other side of Girard's conception is the revelation that the archaic model is based on a fundamental falsehood and that continually creating and murdering scapegoats is no way to run a society. We now know, or at least have the capacity to know, that the scapegoats are innocent and that the violence is unnecessary and essentially destructive. The idea that official violence should be rejected as the organizational mechanism for an orderly society was first attributable to Mozi and Gautama Buddha, but then crystallized by Jesus of Nazareth. The Christian narrative of the innocent victim, while often followed more in aspiration than in deed, has come to dominate in much of the world, even and especially in modern secular ideologies. Girard notes that claiming victim-hood is, practically speaking, a necessary precursor to making a modern appeal for action, and that it is now almost impossible to successfully persecute without doing it "in the name" of a victim or victims. Thus, modern yet archaic ideologies, both secular and religious, often use the narrative of protecting innocent victims as a cover for destruction or atrocities committed against their mimetic rivals or designated scapegoats. The archaic cycle continues to arise and fall in spasms of violence even though it is recognized to be ineffective and morally bankrupt from the perspective of an outside observer.
Note that Girard's mimetic theory predates and is not related to "memetics" as popularized by Richard Dawkins.
By way of background, the build-up of human societies involves the mimetic mechanism: "Mimetic theory explains the role of violence in human culture using imitation as a starting point. “Mimetic” is the Greek word for imitation. Girard chose to use it because he wanted to suggest something more than exact duplication. This is because our mimeticism is a complex phenomenon. Human imitation is not static but leads to escalation and is the starting point for innovation. Girard’s great insight was that imitation is the source of rivalry and conflict that threatens to destroy communities from within. Because we learn everything through imitation, including what to desire, our shared desires can lead us into conflict. As we compete to possess the object we all want, conflict can lead to violence if the object cannot be shared, or more likely, if we refuse to share it with our rivals.
The duality arises in this way: On the one side Girard identifies and describes the concept of "archaic sacred" religion or ideology that views officially sanctioned violence as a tool for maintaining societal and cultural order. Girard's analysis holds that humans are endowed with natural tendencies or genetic predispositions to copy the desires of others (mimesis) and towards episodes of violence to resolve conflicts with mimetic rivals so as to get what they want, which often involves replacing the mimetic rival. Societies and cultures were made possible when humanity started using sacrificial violence ("foundational murder") to build group consensus and maintain a cultural narrative and sense of order. The sacrificial violence took the place of and extinguished the more randomized violence of individuals in the community. But more often than not, the victims of this sacrificial violence were actually just innocent scapegoats. Examples of this mechanism and these types of societies are pervasive through history and include the obvious: ancient human and animal sacrifices, Greek and Roman practices of ritualized slaughters, medieval witch hunts and inquisitions, the Crusades, lynch mobs, the French Revolution's Reign of Terror, the 20th and 21st Century genocides that were intended to ethnically cleanse their societies, and the recent rise of Islamic terrorism and "state", as well as the mimetic "War on Terror" reaction to it that often does not target actual terrorists but substitutes convenient scapegoats instead. It has also been channeled into less destructive forms, such modern consumerism and celebrity culture, where people compete for fame and fortune and then periodically shame and humiliate almost randomly chosen scapegoats. Wherever society "makes an example" of someone, especially in a disproportionate manner, the scapegoat mechanism is usually in play.
On the other side of Girard's conception is the revelation that the archaic model is based on a fundamental falsehood and that continually creating and murdering scapegoats is no way to run a society. We now know, or at least have the capacity to know, that the scapegoats are innocent and that the violence is unnecessary and essentially destructive. The idea that official violence should be rejected as the organizational mechanism for an orderly society was first attributable to Mozi and Gautama Buddha, but then crystallized by Jesus of Nazareth. The Christian narrative of the innocent victim, while often followed more in aspiration than in deed, has come to dominate in much of the world, even and especially in modern secular ideologies. Girard notes that claiming victim-hood is, practically speaking, a necessary precursor to making a modern appeal for action, and that it is now almost impossible to successfully persecute without doing it "in the name" of a victim or victims. Thus, modern yet archaic ideologies, both secular and religious, often use the narrative of protecting innocent victims as a cover for destruction or atrocities committed against their mimetic rivals or designated scapegoats. The archaic cycle continues to arise and fall in spasms of violence even though it is recognized to be ineffective and morally bankrupt from the perspective of an outside observer.
Note that Girard's mimetic theory predates and is not related to "memetics" as popularized by Richard Dawkins.
Fractals: Duality in the Models of Benoit Mandelbrot
Benoit Mandelbrot's models concern the organization of natural systems, whether created by human activity or natural forces.
Mandelbrot pioneered a new form of math that he dubbed "Fractal Geometry" to describe geometrically complex objects and distributions. He had the insight to recognize that many natural things that seem to embody disorder, including the leaves on trees, coastlines and securities markets could be described and simulated by recursive mathematical formulas and what are known as power law distributions and exponential functions. This type of mathematics was in sharp contrast to the Euclidean models that could only describe regular, smooth geometric forms and the bell curve based statistical models that could describe so-called "normal" distributions.
As discussed in more detail on the Fractal Lens page, Mandelbrot's ideas were expanded beginning in the 1970s to encompass what is now known as complexity theory and chaos theory.
One of Mandelbrot's more prolific disciples, Nassim Taleb, crystallized the difference between Mandelbrot's fractal mathematics and rough models from the simpler, smooth models, thereby creating two models, which he calls Mediocristan and Extremistan. Mediocristan is the world that can be described by normal bell-curve statistics and Euclidean geometry that are relatively "smooth". It includes things like furniture and buildings, the heights of human beings, standardized tests and actuarial tables. Extremistan includes the things that Mandelbrot's fractal mathematics describes that are relatively "rough", such as the weather, earthquakes, coastlines, mountainous terrain, Pareto's 80/20 rule, the distribution of wealth and income, and the relative popularity of books, movies, music and websites.
The other key features of these models are (1) normal systems are often relatively static and contain some form of equilibrium or balance, while systems described by Mandelbrot's theories are usually dynamic and in disequilibrium; and (2) normal systems are usually predictable using ordinary statistical methods, while systems that can be described by Mandelbrot's mathematics are often highly unpredictable.
Mandelbrot pioneered a new form of math that he dubbed "Fractal Geometry" to describe geometrically complex objects and distributions. He had the insight to recognize that many natural things that seem to embody disorder, including the leaves on trees, coastlines and securities markets could be described and simulated by recursive mathematical formulas and what are known as power law distributions and exponential functions. This type of mathematics was in sharp contrast to the Euclidean models that could only describe regular, smooth geometric forms and the bell curve based statistical models that could describe so-called "normal" distributions.
As discussed in more detail on the Fractal Lens page, Mandelbrot's ideas were expanded beginning in the 1970s to encompass what is now known as complexity theory and chaos theory.
One of Mandelbrot's more prolific disciples, Nassim Taleb, crystallized the difference between Mandelbrot's fractal mathematics and rough models from the simpler, smooth models, thereby creating two models, which he calls Mediocristan and Extremistan. Mediocristan is the world that can be described by normal bell-curve statistics and Euclidean geometry that are relatively "smooth". It includes things like furniture and buildings, the heights of human beings, standardized tests and actuarial tables. Extremistan includes the things that Mandelbrot's fractal mathematics describes that are relatively "rough", such as the weather, earthquakes, coastlines, mountainous terrain, Pareto's 80/20 rule, the distribution of wealth and income, and the relative popularity of books, movies, music and websites.
The other key features of these models are (1) normal systems are often relatively static and contain some form of equilibrium or balance, while systems described by Mandelbrot's theories are usually dynamic and in disequilibrium; and (2) normal systems are usually predictable using ordinary statistical methods, while systems that can be described by Mandelbrot's mathematics are often highly unpredictable.