Optimisation freak?

[WALKYRIA]

Are you?
It seems that I'm always busy calculating and adjusting what would be the "optimum" for a certain thing: optimal wife, optimal job depending on own goal, optimal age to marry, optimal place to live taking in consideration other factors, optimal number of kids to have,...etc

LOl, is that an INTP thing to do? Also, I remember that in high school " mathematical optimization" was one of my favorite lesson... I loved it because I saw the real life value of maths and found the process to be amazing... it worked !


Anyways, I get that an "optimizating mind" is a good thing but it can also be an obstacle to spontaneous and magical life. What's the cure?

 

[Tannhauser]

I'm quite the opposite. Optimization requires reducing something to a set of known variables. I dislike the concept of sterilizing real life into variables, neglecting uncertainty and pretending you have perfect knowledge of anything.

 

[Haim]

Well yes,it might be because I have been programming from early age.
About being spontaneous,I am trying to enter that as a good solution to some problems which the decision time is critical(such as asking women out).
I other words,If overthinking cause you to miss opportunity than it is not the best solution for the case.
The time needed to make the decision needs to be considered.Trust in your future self and unknown variables are also needed to be considered.

 

[Sinny91]

I'm quite the opposite. Optimization requires reducing something to a set of known variables. I dislike the concept of sterilizing real life into variables, neglecting uncertainty and pretending you have perfect knowledge of anything.

This.

 

[Pizzabeak]

I'm quite the opposite. Optimization requires reducing something to a set of known variables. I dislike the concept of sterilizing real life into variables, neglecting uncertainty and pretending you have perfect knowledge of anything.

What says that after reducing a few things or events in life that you automatically neglect uncertainty? The process of optimizing can probably include the fact that you don't know everything, as well.

 

[Sinny91]

What says that after reducing a few things or events in life that you automatically neglect uncertainty? The process of optimizing can probably include the fact that you don't know everything, as well.

And this.

 

[Reluctantly]

I don't know. But my baseline changes too much for me to be able to think much about optimizing anything. But maybe I'm not INTP in the classical sense.

 

[Tannhauser]

What says that after reducing a few things or events in life that you automatically neglect uncertainty? The process of optimizing can probably include the fact that you don't know everything, as well.

If you have uncertainty, then there can be variables that distort your results completely. There is no point to optimization unless you suppose that uncertainty can be neglected.

A good example was when people in the finance industry optimized their risk allocation so as to take on as much risk as possible, given their model parameters. At a certain point in the year 2007 things happened which were outside the parameters, and we all know what happened next..

 

[Pizzabeak]

It's optimization within reason. You can just as well die the next day - we know that. Doesn't mean you shouldn't try to optimize your day as well as your human mind can possibly attempt. But it's impossible to, with intent, to try and optimize everything in your life so you for sure don't, say, die the next day.

 

[Tannhauser]

It's optimization within reason. You can just as well die the next day - we know that. Doesn't mean you shouldn't try to optimize your day as well as your human mind can possibly attempt. But it's impossible to, with intent, to try and optimize everything in your life so you for sure don't, say, die the next day.

In life, it's better to have redundancies than being optimized. Like having 2 kidneys. You don't really need both, but it's good to have redundancies in case shit happens.

 

[Pizzabeak]

So is two kidneys optimal rather than redundant then? Or would one or three be considered optimal? It can certainly cost more energy to attempt optimization, including no guarantee that it will pay off. I think most of the time the agents in question aren't really static enough to be truly satisfied by the results they are trying to maximize. Sometimes it just feels easier to not attempt optimization.

 

[Tannhauser]

Well, optimization is using your resources optimally – not too little and not too much. That means removing any redundancies. But say you have lived your life and never seen or experienced famine. Then from your vantage point it would be suboptimal to create a human being which stores a large quantity of fat in their body. Even though most people throughout history ate at least once every day, we have that mechanism – a redundancy of stored energy. Why? Because the future contains uncertainty.

 

[QuickTwist]

I can only assume that INTP's would try and optimize anything and everything.

 

[Haim]

If you don't consider the uncertain that means your optimizations sucks.Many times it is not that there is totally unexpected outcome,but the unknown is which one from the possible outcomes will it be.
Optimize is to have the best solution,you don't have to know everything beforehand,just be prepared for general possible situations and work your way as needed.
What you say is to be flexible,not flexible is not optimized at all,the opposite your solution needs to fit well for many cases.

 

[The Grey Man]

Optimizing is really nothing more than conceiving of and/or willing the most perfect realization of one's end(s), so it must be done always while implicitly accepting uncertainty, or else it would be superfluous, an "ought" where there is no room for "cans", where everything is a fixed "is".

Any standard of optimization is ultimately errant if ultimate end(s) are misidentified, even if intermediately successful.

Edit: Ultimate end(s) = Reluctantly's "baseline"?

 

[Hadoblado]

If you can make an argument for why optimisation isn't optimal, I think you're trying too hard.

Even by deciding not to optimise in favour of X so as to preserve the spice of life or what have you, you're optimising for the spice and mystery. Working with probability is a big part of optimising, I don't think the notion that optimising requires assuming perfect knowledge holds much water.

All the stuff Walk mentioned appeals to me, though I imagine from what else I've seen of his writings that any conclusions we reached might differ.

 

[EvilBlitz]

I'm quite the opposite. Optimization requires reducing something to a set of known variables. I dislike the concept of sterilizing real life into variables, neglecting uncertainty and pretending you have perfect knowledge of anything.

Not true at all. Many of our theories and knowledge are extremely imperfect and that has not stopped us building everything from computers to working fusion reactors(ok the net energy is not great).
You can optimize up to the point of your knowledge then you come up and with new ideas and try new stuff. We would still be stuck with adzes otherwise.
Greater understanding(what optimizing requires) is like walking up a set of stairs into the sky, with every step you see and understand so much more(so much more beautiful), but it shows you also how much more we have to learn(more beauty yet to discover).

A good example was when people in the finance industry optimized their risk allocation so as to take on as much risk as possible, given their model parameters. At a certain point in the year 2007 things happened which were outside the parameters, and we all know what happened next..

Not true at all. Have you listened to Dr Michael J Burry? It was freaking obvious. You sell loans to people who can only afford it with interest rates at certain levels and that once interest rates rise above those levels they will default. It was utterly predictable. Greed and a lack of openness created that issue and have enabled it to happen again(they are selling the same security packages again, sigh, just a different name).
This next crash(most likely this year) is going to make 2008 look like a picnic, probably will exceed the great depression.


Optimization does not require perfection. I would suggest looking up the constructal law and considering the implication of that.

 

[Tannhauser]

Not true at all. Have you listened to Dr Michael J Burry? It was freaking obvious. You sell loans to people who can only afford it with interest rates at certain levels and that once interest rates rise above those levels they will default. It was utterly predictable. Greed and a lack of openness created that issue and have enabled it to happen again(they are selling the same security packages again, sigh, just a different name).
This next crash(most likely this year) is going to make 2008 look like a picnic, probably will exceed the great depression.

You have missed the point, I'm afraid. There were several people who bet on the market crash besides Burry. The reason they could do that, is that they effectively bet against people who used optimization. An example of who the suckers were in this game, was AIG, who insured various derivatives connected to CDOs, and had to be bailed out, alongside many investment banks, when people started to default on their loans in 2007. The reason they lost all their money and had to be bailed out, was that they "optimized" their capital allocation, without taking into consideration that the future might look differently than the past.

 

[John61]

LOL, this thread makes it worth being a member of this forum

As for me, I am not like this at all. I do not recognize the need for having a "perfect" job etc. With all respect, if I have seen this in my personality it might allow me to suspect that I have come into a system where others opinion matters . I really enjoy defining my own approach to the understanding of things. Things must make any sense for me, or else it really isn't something I need to take into consideration before I really really must do it

As for variables and optimizing, well, only in math do I have any need for reducing variables. As for the rest, I do believe I am a kind of a chaos thinker - taking all into consideration at once to produce alternatives and 5-10 different solutions to a problem. I might take some time, but not necessarily. Maybe rank them as well. I do like to be prepared, but the world is imperfect so I understand I can't always be that..when other people are involved

 

[dutchdisease]

To some degree yes but there is often a great deal in flexibility in my plans. Likely because they change everyday.

 

[Haim]

You have missed the point, I'm afraid. There were several people who bet on the market crash besides Burry. The reason they could do that, is that they effectively bet against people who used optimization. An example of who the suckers were in this game, was AIG, who insured various derivatives connected to CDOs, and had to be bailed out, alongside many investment banks, when people started to default on their loans in 2007. The reason they lost all their money and had to be bailed out, was that they "optimized" their capital allocation, without taking into consideration that the future might look differently than the past.

That just means their optimization was no good, not considering all the data you have is bad way to optimize, thinking you live in a bubble is just stupid(hence "bubble")
Also you need to optimize everything including your own optimization, if you optimise for only one type of data(profit,frame per second,brand) than you are badly optimizing and lack future insight.You need to optimize when optimization is the right thing to do at all(not over optimize), where the time needed to optimize is worth the results.In other words you need to look at the bigger picture when you optimize not only at a small part of it.

 

[Sly-fy]

if you like to organize that much, you might want to consider the possibility that you may be an ISTJ or something other than an INTP.