The problem arises when you try to apply simple rules to complex issues. Yes I know I've beaten that drum before but I'll do it again........and again........and again, as part of my personal crusade to avoid the pitfalls of reductionist thinking, i.e. the whole is not necessarily the sum of the parts. A problem shared is a problem halved. Have you heard that one? Half a problem plus half a problem equals the whole problem, thus obeying the basic arithmetic rule of 1+1=2. So if my wife loses her wedding ring and knows it is somewhere on the lounge floor, then if we divide the room into two and each search half of it, then the sharing of the problem rule probably applies, i.e. it will take us half the time to find the lost ring compared with the time taken if one of us searched alone. But if I have a problem with my computer and enlist the support of a 'PC Jockey' to help me fix it, then because of her experience she will probably solve the problem in a fraction of the time than if I go it alone. The magnitude of the computer problem has been decimated because of the skills and experience of one of the participants. But suppose I share a problem with a 'dumb partner', for example one made of wood and metal! If I decide to dig a hole in my garden 1 metre by 1 metre square and 1 metre deep, using my bare hands and no tools, it could take me 10 hours to complete. If on the other hand I enlist the support of a 'dumb partner' in the form of a spade, it might only take me one hour to dig the hole. My efficiency has increased ten-fold. But some would argue that in the one hour required to dig the hole, I have only contributed 10% towards the efficiency because without a spade and in one hour, I could only dig one tenth of a hole. So the spade has contributed 90% of the efficiency, which again follows the simple addition rules of 10%+90%=100%. I have seen that argument employed when analysing the benefits of automation but where it falls down, in my opinion, is the fact that I can dig a hole without a spade, but the spade can't dig a hole without me. So, in a ten hour period, I can dig one hole without any help from the spade, whereas the spade on its own cannot dig a hole. Put the two of us together and in ten hours we can dig ten holes, i.e. 1+0=10!!
No, the rules of arithmetic haven't broken down. I have merely demonstrated that a simple additive relationship does not apply to describing the efficiency of a man with a spade. It follows that if adding things together doesn't always give simple predictive results, then conversely understanding things by pulling them apart is not always possible. As I write this post for my blog, there are many issues around the world that are, in my opinion, examples of simple solutions being applied to complex problems, often with disastrous results. The austerity programmes in some European countries as a means of solving their economic problems, do not appear to be working. The military coup d'état in Egypt and the removal of President Morsi to bring stability, doesn't seem to be working. In each case taking something 'undesirable' away from 'the whole' has not left 'the whole without the undesirable', which again defies the simple arithmetic logic of 1+1=2. In the case of the financial austerity programmes, taking away excess spending has not left the countries with healthy income vs expenditure, because unemployment has increased, consumption has reduced and revenues have plummeted. The removal of President Morsi in Egypt has brought an abrupt end to one year of democracy and left the country deeply divided.
Simple arithmetic works very well when checking the supermarket shopping bill and has a part to play in most problem solving but if life's challenges were always simple and mechanistic, peace and prosperity would just be round the corner. Unfortunately Utopia remains a dream.
No comments:
Post a Comment