Contra Recklessness: The Black Box Theory of (Everything)
Having previously asserted that Bill Clinton lost the election for Al Gore, and that much misery throughout the world might have been avoided if Slick Willie had refrained from slicking his willy, I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge that the final decission in the 2000 presidential election was handed down by the US Supreme Court, and in a 5/4 vote. The most reductionist read of history is that the election was decided by one person, or parsing even more finely, by 20% of each of the five justices who sided with Bush.
With that, and with Richard Bach’s fondness for the uses of flight as a metaphor still fresh in our minds, I would like to introduce the readership of The League to John Vigor’s Black Box Theory:
Take Joshua Slocum, for instance. During his circumnavigation he was chased by a pirate vessel off the coast of Morocco. He cracked on all sail, but the pirates were still bearing down on him. Determined to give a good account of himself, he ducked down below for his rifle. Suddenly a squall hit the Spray. When his little vessel was under control again, he glanced back and saw that the squall had dismasted the pirate ship, which lay wallowing in the wreckage of its spars.
Then there was Harry Pidgeon, who sailed twice around the world singlehanded. On one occasion, when a change in wind direction set his yawl, Sea Bird, sailing toward the coast while he slept below, the boat ran aground on the only sandy bay in tens of miles of rocky coastline. Furthermore she had to pass over a rocky ledge at the entrance to the bay. Had it been low tide when Sea Bird sailed in so confidently, she would have gotten no farther. As it happened, Pidgeon was able to refloat her, refit her, and carry on.
Over the years I noted the same theme recurring in talks with such splendid seamen as Bernard Moitessier, Jean Gau, and Eric Hiscock. In fact, I expect all of us who have sailed for any time have had similar experiences – and thanked our lucky stars at the time. But it isn’t luck, really. There’s much more to the Fifth Essential than mere chance.
In 1986, when I started fitting out my own 31-footer, Freelance, for a voyage from Durban to the United States, I reduced the Fifth Essential to a simple system of accident prevention. In the Freelance corollary to the theory, every boat possesses an imaginary black box, a sort of bank account in which points are kept. In times of emergency, when there is nothing more to be done in the way of sensible seamanship, the points from your black box can buy your way out of trouble. You have no control over how the points are spent, of course; they withdraw themselves when the time is appropriate. You do have control over how the points get into the box: you earn them. For every seamanlike act you perform, you get a point in the black box. Points come in so many ways it would be impossible to list them all. But I can send you in the right direction. Let’s say you’re planning a weekend cruise down the coast, and time is precious. You have been wondering for some weeks if you ought to haul out the bosun’s chair and inspect the masthead fittings. It has been a couple of years since you checked everything up there, but it would mean delaying your departure by an hour, maybe more, should you have to change a shackle or something.
If you finally give in to the nagging voice inside you and go aloft, you earn a point in the box. If you don’t take that trouble, your black box will stay empty. If you sniff the bilges for fumes before pushing the starter button, you’ll score a point, just as you will for taking a precautionary reef at nightfall or checking the expiration date on your rocket flares. Thinking and worrying about what could happen is also a good way to earn points – if the wind started blowing into your quiet anchorage at 40 miles an hour and the engine wouldn’t start, or whether you should put a couple of reefs in the mainsail before you climb into your bunk, just in case.
No matter how good your seamanship, there are times when there is nothing left to do but batten down the hatches and pray. If you have a credit balance of points in the box, you’ll be all right. People will say you’re lucky, of course. They’ll say a benign fate let you get away with it. But we know better. That luck was earned, maybe over quite a long period.
On a boat, on a climb, in the air, one is faced with a near constant series of actions and choices we can make. By taking some actions, we are reducing the effects of the unknown and uncontrollable. Other actions (or inactions) open the door to mayhem, sometimes only a crack, and sometimes only a slight crack is enough.
The sea doesn’t care whether your live or die. Best to control what (little) you can, as you can, and tip the odds in your favor.
I’m reminded of The Right Stuff, the scene where the test pilots all talk about the test pilots who crashed as if it were something vaguely avoidable. If they slowed down at the right second, if they sped up at the right second. If they banked or ducked or pulled up. The ones who crashed, crashed because they didn’t have the right stuff… so they got their picture up on the wall.
Not like us. Not like us still drinking in the bar, toasting those pictures.Report
Yeah, kind of like that, if you reverse the chain of causality, and are going 6 miles an hour instead of 600. 😉Report
That’s the very first chapter of the book, and it’s there to explain exactly who these guys are. While lesser souls (like their wives and girlfriends) think “He died because the goddamn plane broke”, they knew quite well that The Right Stuff would have found The Right Answer.Report
Every student pilot learns the three most useless items are: Altitude above you, runway behind you and fuel still at the gas station.Report
I have different messages akin to this theory put in different ways, especially in risk management. But Vigor’s idea of banking your luck in a box through skill and preparation is a pretty good visualization of those ideas.
I fully intend to steal (with credit!) his theory in future trainings.Report
I was first pointed to Vigor’s essay by my sailing/boatbuilding/filmmaking mentor/adopted-older-brother-or-near-my-age-uncle Bob Wise who as it happens, was the subject of my very first (guest) post here at The League, On Consumerism, Living the Dream, and Hope. He sent me the link as I readied my boat, my crew and myself for our first major passage (Montauk to Bermuda).Report
Funny how they’re going to great lengths to not say “God did it”. A “black box”? Seriously?Report
“God did it” is the monotheistic appropriation of luck and fate.Report
As the famous sailor Louis Pasteur said, “Luck favors the prepared boat.”
God too, or so I’m told…Report
Feh, Gore lost the election for Gore. His strategic errors were legion: (under use of a politically potent Bill Clinton being one of the major ones); his performance at the debates were miserable and even once Florida turned into a debacle his attempts to recount only select counties rather than the entire state was a poor choice. If Clinton’s shenanigans had been that lethal they’d have been lethal for Clinton himself, not Gore (hell if the wooden Gore had been caught having a tryst it probably would he at least humanized him).Report
This, all this.Report
North, right: Clinton’s approval ratings, even among independents, were well over 50% at the time of the election. One of the many things wrong with Gore’s campaign was that he treated a popular president in his own party as though he didn’t actually exist.
Of course, despite running an incredibly inept campaign, Gore still won the election. 😉Report
I don’t think we can be all that confident that a Gore victory in 2000 would have spared us much of the bad things that have happened in the last 12 years. Maybe the stars would have aligned differently and 9/11 would have failed, but otherwise, the presidency would have had the strong incentive to demand broader powers from a compliant Congress and citizenry. The US was probably on a collision course with Iraq of some sort with or without 9/11 (although admittedly that collision might not have taken the form of regime change).
Most important, by 2004 or 2008, there would’ve been a lot of “Democrat fatigue” and compassionate conservatism and neo-con let’s take over the world-ism would not have been discredited yet….paving the way for a Bush Jr. or a Bush Jr. clone, or maybe someone much better…who knows?
It’s of course hard to make such predictions accurately, which is my point.Report
Well of course, there’s no knowing. Counter-factuals are, wait for it, counter-factual!
Also, if Gore had won in 2000 it would have meant he started his cold-fusion research 4, even 8 years later, and I can assure you, in 2018 those 4 years are going to make a big difference.
None the less; butterfly, Brazil, even without a “vast right-wing conspiracy” the world is out to get you. Why make it any easier for them?Report
The third sentence is utter word salad – what were you trying to get at there?Report
“Cermet,” welcome. I understand the man perfectly. He’s talking about the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect
A butterfly beats its wings in Brazil in 1746, and a chain of causality enables the Supreme Court to steal the 2000 election for Geo. Dubya Bush. As we know, everything goes to hell thereafter, permanently.
Me, David, I think it’s more like that old Schulz:
Lucy: Wow, look, a butterfly! I’ll bet it flew up here all the way from Brazil.
Linus: (Inspects it closer) That’s not a butterfly, it’s a potato chip.
Lucy: Well, I’ll be. I wonder how a potato chip got all the way up here from Brazil.
Al Gore would not have reached his later and current level of personal and ideological insanity. He would have tamed his eco-jihadism and likely become a serviceable US president when 9/11 hit. And I think here in 2012, with the Obama admin already having squandered gov’t billions toward an industrial policy of “clean energy,” we’re about where we might’ve been regardless, finger up butt.
Neither will I ream your reference to cold fusion, which is just a rung above Art Bell territory.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528797.100-can-cold-fusion-research-survive-pioneers-death.html
Sometimes the longshot comes in. Next to CERN, I like the risk-to-reward ratio far better.
Cheers, David. I’m far more at your back than in your face. Rock on.Report
best friends forever pictures
Report
Like Flynt & Falwell. Moralists understand each other.Report
Cold fusion is bunk, but desktop fusion can be a reality. I’ve been consulting with IKEA, CERN, and some civil engineering firms on buiilding a really, really, really big desk. It’s just a matter of time and cost, and finding investors who don’t ask why the desk costs as much as the reactor.Report
U one heap funny guy, Mr. Turner. We could use a couple of more like you.Report
touche’Report
Pierre Cornielle got some serious Hari Seldon on. Forget Al Gore, I’m not even sure that Stalin and Mao were The Mule, or even that “Hister” fellow. Looking at the histories that birthed them, they seem like inevitabilities more than freaks.Report
Mohammed was The Mule. (Maybe Paul, for that matter.) There’s an interesting Silverberg Novel called “Roma Eterna” that, as alt histories go, is particularly appealing to those to whom alt history appeals.
There’s a short story in there that deals with Mohammed.
You should pick it up, if you ain’t read it.Report
Paul was the Walrus.Report
I just re-read DeCamp’s Lest Darkness Fall, one of the founts of alt-hist. Towards the end, the guy from the future, who has fought off the Byzantines by solidifying and modernizing the Gothic kingdom of Italy [1], tells Justinian, as a good-will gesture, to watch out for this Arab preacher and take care of him sooner rather than later.
By “Paul”, I presume you mean St. Paul, though Paul Atreides was also both Mohammed and the Mule.
1. One amusing example: The Goths had an elective kingship, though candidates had to be related to the royal family. The future guy gets his man elected by waiting until his main rival was speaking, and then having an African slave boy run up to the rival and call him “Daddy”. You can’t beat “modern” campaign tactics.Report
Stupid question: what is this mule reference? What does it signify, exactly?Report
A individually viable, even powerful mutant that cannot reproduce. See: sportReport
Asimov. In the 2nd Foundation book (Foundation and Empire), there was a character introduced called “The Mule”.
This was the character that threw everything off the rails. The sociologists and historians and all those guys had figured out what the next thousand years would look like… but The Mule showed up and did what Great Men do: He changed everything.Report
And then Issac cheated and pulled an Architect.Report
Daneel? Yeah. It’s as if the old atheist needed to believe in something, after all.Report
I’m torn. Half of me agrees with the whole “end of history” thing that Asimov has going on, but the other half asks “if you’re going to fall in love with a character, why Seldon? Why not The Mule?”Report
Well, that part is obvious. Asimov wanted to be Seldon, not the Mule.Report
You’d think that if any author could hold off on sentiment, it’d be him.Report
Asimov Mary Sued things up quite frequently, imo. (particularly in his mystery fiction)Report
Everyone knows that this is what the end of history looks like.Report
Heh.
Q: Were the Hegels buried next to the Fichtes?
Hegelian answer: We’ll find out.Report
Oh, I’d completely forgotten that one. To my shame, I tried to read it when I was a teen and put it aside for being boring (needs more robots/explosions!). I think I have the peace of mind to read it for real this time.
Yeah, Saul/Paul from Tarsus.Report
Dune is well worth reading, but if you’re tempted to start on the sequels, think “Second Star Wars Trilogy”. (As for the ones with his son’s name on them, think “Star Wars Christmas Special”.)Report
No, Dune had enough explosions/robots for me. It was Lest Darkness Fall that I tried to read during one of the interminable summers of prepubescence.Report
LDF has a copule fights and battles, though it’s more about politics. Surprisingly little technology, because DeCamp was quite realistic about what 6th-century tools could build.Report
Mohammed as The Mule. Exc, JB. Can’t think of anyone who fits better. As for Silverberg, I read every word he wrote up until Lord Valentine [even have a collection of him in the pulps], but one of us changed.Report
I had a comment discussion whether Lenin could have been a The Mule. I remember reading somewhere that he was caught by British Authorities who reasoned that they had two options:
1) put a bullet in his head
2) give him a suitcase full of gold and put him on a train to Russia
They chose 2.
Of course, I have no memory of where I first heard this theory so it might be bullshit. I prefer to believe it to the point where I haven’t researched it further.Report
It was the Germans who allowed Lenin to travel to Russia in a sealed train. Why would the British want to destabilize their ally? (Lenin had been living in Switzerland, as recounted in Tom Stoppard’s Travesties).Report
Ah, awesome. That makes the story even better. And now it’s kinda verified!Report
The Germans actually sent him on an armored train, if I remember correctly, up to the Baltic, from where he went to Sweden, and then by boat into Russia, where alerted Bolsheviks were waiting for him, if I remember correctly. The Germans and Russians both spent money, time, resources, and manpower on fomenting revolution among their enemies. How much the Germans were involved with the Bolsheviks is, if I’m not mistaken, a hotly debated question among historians, but revolution behind the lines was seen as a way of ending the war sooner.
The Germans also gave guns and money (and possibly lawyers) to the Irish, and maybe the French radicals as well (France damn near revolved at one point).Report
As for Silverberg, I read every word he wrote up until Lord Valentine
He was one of my favorite novelists in the 60s and 70s, but the Majipoor books lost me as well.Report
Majipoor was an odd bunch of novels.Report
May I nominate Franklin?
Propagandists are always more important than people believe.Report
If you’re going in that direction, you need to include Tom Paine and Sam Adams and Patrick Henry too. But once you’ve got a cadre of propagandists, suddenly it isn’t a Mule anymore but a movement, and you’re back in Seldon territory.Report
I’ll not sully Franklin-the-statesman’s name with the likes of those provincials!
But, better for me to quote Poor Richard: “Cleanliness is next to godliness.”
Paine and Adams and Henry were quite good… in theory and in rabblerousing.
Franklin belongs to a different movement, if you must find him part of one. Fit him in with Priestley if you must.Report
Uberdeist Tom Paine actually suggested God made America as a refuge for Protestantism. Now there’s some ace propaganda.Report
*snort* as if that’s a new idea! The city on a hill and all that.
Funny to see how Paine links with Priestley though.Report
To be sure, it’s speculation, but it’s not at all unreasonable. Much of it strikes me as probable: President Gore would likely not have objected to USA PATRIOT, war in Afghanistan, seizure and extrajudicial detention of “terrorists,” warrantless wiretaps, enhanced interrogation techniques, airport security theater including barefoot speed dating, turning a blind eye to Russian and PRC human rights abuses against victims who happened to be Muslim, or the institution of kill lists. President Gore would maybe not have expanded the theater of military adventure to include the deposition of Saddam Hussein. There’s no reason to think that the war in Afghanistan would have gone any better under Gore than it did under Bush. Or any worse.
Of course, Al Gore never became President, so yes, this is speculation. But I do subscribe to the notion that quite a lot of policy, both foreign and internal, is governed by realism rather than internal ideology — there is little discernable difference between a nation’s political parties or even its ideological centers of gravity when it comes to matters of relations with other nations. Self-interest, cruel and cynical, governs all and most of the rest is window dressing. Particularly in the case of a dominant power relating to other nations acquiring the capability of asserting themselves, promoting regional rivalries, confusion, conflict, chaos, and even civil war amongst other nations is a very effective tool for the maintenance of dominance and preventing regional centers of political and economic gravity from projecting their power beyond a containable sphere of influence. This realism transcends whether the incumbent government is left- or right-leaning.
Pierre also alludes to institutional incentives for the Presidency to self-aggrandize its own power at the expense of Congress and the judiciary; I think that’s a real phenomenon, and hypothetical President Gore would have been as vulnerable to it as President Bush was in reality.
There may be Mules in history. (I’d nominate Napoleon, Lenin, and Gandhi as relatively recent candidates, but not Hitler, Stalin, Reagan, Thatcher, or Churchill.) But GWB wasn’t a Mule, and there’s no reason to hink Al Gore would have been one, either.Report
My counterfactual runs more like this:
Undistracted by l’Affiar, the Clinton administration is more aggressive (tomahawks) and more importantly, there is a more, open, orderly transition and what dots there were regarding 9/11 are connected and it never happens. The nation fails to lose it’s fishing mind (I blame we-the-people more than Bush) and we don’t go on an orgy of foreign adventurism and compulsive shopping, both paid for with borrowed money.
For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the message was lost.
For want of a message the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.Report
I don’t see that scenario happening.Report
But don’t you see, Jaybird? I’m both more perceptive and more insightful than you are. I see things you miss, and grock meanings you can’t grasp. Of course you don’t see it. And that’s the point. 😛Report
No, I’m down with that. I still don’t see it.
In my amateur studies of history, I see humans being much better at crisis management than crisis prevention. (And that’s without even talking about crisis escalation.)Report
Of course; because most crisis prevention goes unrecognized, even by those responsible for the prevention.Report
Crisis prevention is the art of making nobody want to explode the bomb.Report
But how can you know when history doesn’t reveal its alternatives?Report
Perhaps there is a possible Jaybird who agrees with the thesis. I know of no actual ones who do.Report
We’re all possible Jaybirds.Report
I think we’re all Jaybirds on this bus. about to experience a period of simulated exhilaration.
If you dig a hole that’s deep enough, everyone will want to jump into it.Report
Love the new avatar JB. Whichever JB I’m talking with here that is. I might have to make a new one, this Jefferson is getting a bit long in the tooth and I doubt he ever said that about dissent, but I like the sentiment.Report
So your claim is that the Clinton administration blowing up Al-Shifa wasn’t hawkish enough, and that if only he hadn’t had that silly impeachment thing he’d have done more?Report