The Science of Communicating & Marketing Your Business

I wrote about two rules for minimizing the chances of making mistakes in Minimizing Mistakecule Probabilities. Thanks for the comments and feedback.

One conversation really got me going. It dealt with what one does (in math, in business, in life, ...) when you need to look beyond the immediate move. "Your reasoning is valid for this move. What do I do when I want to minimize my chances of making a mistake in the next move while I'm still making this move?"

Another Whoa!, don't you think?

Great question, that.

The first thing to recognize is that we're getting ourselves involved with the fractal universe(s) question; Is the spatial distribution of information homogeneous once you get to a certain scale.

Okay, let me rephrase that.

<QUANTUM PHILOSOPHY ALERT>
Each decision we make bifurcates our universe. Not the Universe, just our universe (thank goodness, huh?). This is because ultimately everything is a binary operation (interestingly, this is how ancient and aboriginal societies view the universe. As one old native gent said to me, "Nice to know it only took you white guys a few thousand years to catch up.")

Thus, looking forward there can be many possible universes (often stated as "not all quantum observables can be simultaneously specified"). Looking backward there can be only one and moving backward from where you are to where you were must be a straight line, continuous operation. This is why predicting outcomes is mathematically intense while someone claiming to predict the past is laughed at.

Of course you can predict the past, it already happened. There's no prediction involved. You may not understand it but you can predict it. 

And prediction is the beginning of understanding, yes? 

True, yes, and also there doesn't seem to be a good reason for time to flow in one direction only (according to physicists and their kin). This means that the mathematically intense prediction equation should be "inversable" and that that inverse equation should be (or at least "become") linear. It becomes more and more linear as your understanding increases. The two are related mathematically.

This linearity is "the spatial distribution of information should be homogeneous at a certain scale". That scale is your level of understanding.
</QUANTUM PHILOSOPHY ALERT>

And I use this how, Joseph?

In simple(r) English, "When in doubt about a next move, go with the move that offers the greatest number of possible options after that next move."

Example: You've just started a game of Klondike solitaire. There's a red 9 (bottom pointing arrow) and two black 8s (top pointing arrows) in the 4th and 7th piles (counting left to right)

Which 8 do you place on the red 9 (assuming you would and discounting card playing strategies)?

The 4th pile has three unknown cards under the 8, the 7th pile has six unknown cards under the 8. You maximize future options -- possible future moves -- (based on the limited information you have available) by using the 7th pile's 8 because there are more cards in that deck, hence you can play longer before possibly losing the 7th position due to a lack of cards, you'll have turned (possibly) six unknowns into knowns, ...

I've been applying this strategy for about four weeks now as I write this. So far it works pretty well when playing cards (and it's implications for building optimal social networks are incredible).

Funny thing is, now that I'm thinking of it, this is also a rule in psycho- and neuro-linguistics; Choice is better than no choice. As this rule appears in so many different disciplines, it might be time for it to become a NextStage Principle, don't you think?

Please contact NextStage for information regarding presentations and trainings on this and other topics.

Upcoming Conferences:

• The 4th Annual SNCR Research Symposium & Awards Gala at Harvard University in Cambridge, MA, 5-6 Nov 09

Sign up for the NextStage Irregular, our very irregular, definitely frequency-wise and probably topic-wise newsletter.