4 ms·

The only thing we know is something big happened and it's probably going to have some effect. That's it. It's not like we don't have examples from history to lo

by zcw100 7y ago

The only thing we know is something big happened and it's probably going to have some effect. That's it. It's not like we don't have examples from history to look at. Even with the clarity of hind site can you say what the effect of the AIDS crisis was? Polio? Spanish flu? No we can't. Would things have been different if they hadn't happened other than a lot of people wouldn't be dead? Sure, but how would they have been different? Not so sure. I don't think it's even worth speculating other than knowing that whatever you come up with is probably going to be wrong.

wenc 7y ago
I think it's possible to know more than just "there's going to be an effect" from history. 1st order effects (i.e. this happened because of this) are usually quite obvious and observable. For instance, are we going to see remote work becoming more mainstream because of this? I think that is almost a certainty at this point. In simple systems, 1st order effects are dominant. However you're right that in complex systems like geopolitics, the dominant effects are not 1st order, but higher order (2nd, 3rd, 4th order) and those are hard to isolate -- all the effects are mixed. Also, we can't measure the counterfactuals ("what would have happened if...") because they didn't happen! Of course, historians and writers will try to fill in the gaps with their theories and invariably they're going to be wrong to various degrees and still make the NYT Best Seller list. That notwithstanding, we can still learn something (albeit limited) from the 1st order effects that are observable -- it's not all or nothing.
- zcw100 7y ago
  They aren't obvious and observable other than your defining 1st order effects that way. Remote work becoming more mainstream because of this isn't a certainty at this point. It took a pandemic to get employers to allow it in a large way, why would you assume that once that is gone you're going to keep it? For all you know there will be a backlash and there will be less remote work than before. Did you think you're going to come out of this with more leverage with your employer?

by zcw100 7y ago

wenc 7y ago

I think it's possible to know more than just "there's going to be an effect" from history. 1st order effects (i.e. this happened because of this) are usually quite obvious and observable. For instance, are we going to see remote work becoming more mainstream because of this? I think that is almost a certainty at this point. In simple systems, 1st order effects are dominant. However you're right that in complex systems like geopolitics, the dominant effects are not 1st order, but higher order (2nd, 3rd, 4th order) and those are hard to isolate -- all the effects are mixed. Also, we can't measure the counterfactuals ("what would have happened if...") because they didn't happen! Of course, historians and writers will try to fill in the gaps with their theories and invariably they're going to be wrong to various degrees and still make the NYT Best Seller list. That notwithstanding, we can still learn something (albeit limited) from the 1st order effects that are observable -- it's not all or nothing.

zcw100 7y ago
They aren't obvious and observable other than your defining 1st order effects that way. Remote work becoming more mainstream because of this isn't a certainty at this point. It took a pandemic to get employers to allow it in a large way, why would you assume that once that is gone you're going to keep it? For all you know there will be a backlash and there will be less remote work than before. Did you think you're going to come out of this with more leverage with your employer?