Today, I pen my suggestion that in every situation or problem, there will always be a "Best Method" to proceed on from there or to handle it.
I raised this suggestion back in camp during one of the heated discussion. The purpose of my suggestion is to solve the apparent deadlock of "Should we kill 1 to save 10". (which to me is a no brainer question, but some appeared to enjoy confusing it with many other less important considerations).
First and foremost, knowing the implication of the existence of a "Best Method in every situation" puts meaning to our discussion, otherwise, it's just useless talk. This is something I left out during the bunk-debate and i regretted not having the chance to clarify.
The implication is this:
- If a "Best Method" exist, then we can say there is no other better choice than to choose the best method. Thus we should always choose the best method.
- If a "Best Method" exist, and if a systematic way to discover this "Best Method" also exist, then we can acheive, simple perfection in handling situations.
- If a "Best Method" exist, and if this "Best Method" is known, then we can learn how to handle all situations.
People are confused with "Best Choices" and "Best Method" when I first talked about it. The idea of "Best Method" seems completely remote like they have never thought about it and many have trouble understanding it. So here I present the normal person mindset.
To these people, "Best Method" is hardly differentiable from the "Best Choice" because there is always a newer choice better than the best choice if we are allowed to increase the range of our limited choices. To them, the "Best Method/Choice" is always outside of their limited choices. In addition, everything else is impossible to them just because they currently cannot see them as viable choices.
The dotted arrow represents how a normal person experience an increase in their limited choices: through a feeding mechanism that gives them more choices.
This as you realise, is a very upsetting view. This is simple-mindedness in action and is a completely mistaken concept. Let's look at a better way to see things:
Getting the terms right
- Anything not inside "All Possibilities" are "All Impossibilities".
- All possibilities represent anything that is possible, like assinate LKY
- All options represents possibilities within your ability in that situation, like commiting suicide
- All choices represents options that are deemed approperiate and have passed the sanity tests for an individual person, for that situation, according his abilities. The key difference lies here, in that "All Choices" need not be a subset of "All Options", it can grow to include "All Possibilities" according to the individual.
- The choice is the choosen method, and it must also be the "best choice" as the individual sees it*, otherwise he would not have choosen it.
- The "Best Method", however, is an option that may fall anywhere within "All options"**. In my illustration, it is within "All options" and also within "All Choices".
- The dotted grey circle shows that an increase in "All Choices" does not change*** the "Best Method". It may, however, emcompass a "Best-er Choice" (Better than the previous best choice) as the individual sees it****.
- The "Best Method" may not have been chosen because the individual may have failed to analyse the situation in a "correct" way, if it was within "All Choices".
- If the "Best Method" is not within the "All Choices", it means that there were limiting factors preventing him to include it in the list of "All Choices".
Notes to the terms
* A friend has argued that the choice may not always be the "Best Choice". But I choose to argue that the fact that it was a choosen choice, it must be the "most balanced choice that fulfills the person's objectives" and hence it must be the best choice. For example, knowing that fighting is not a good way to solve a conflict, but yet he fights anyway, is a balance between several attributes such as logic, morals, feelings, emotions and the outcome is the result of how the person weighs them all. Nevertheless, the discussion of a Best Method does not depend on the choice he makes.
** At this stage, the "Best Method" is taken to be within "All Options", so that it is always possible fall within "All Choices". The proof by deduction will be shown later.
*** An increase in the range of choices does not change the "Best Method" no matter where it lies. Furthermore, it does not improve your ability to choose it if it already lies within "All Choices". But it does improve, if it were outside of "All Choices" initially.
**** A simple cause for increase in "All Choices" is an increase in wealth. Hence with more money, one can buy more expensive products. And if and only if the more expensive product is a better product, then the "Best Choice" changes.
I raised this suggestion back in camp during one of the heated discussion. The purpose of my suggestion is to solve the apparent deadlock of "Should we kill 1 to save 10". (which to me is a no brainer question, but some appeared to enjoy confusing it with many other less important considerations).
First and foremost, knowing the implication of the existence of a "Best Method in every situation" puts meaning to our discussion, otherwise, it's just useless talk. This is something I left out during the bunk-debate and i regretted not having the chance to clarify.
The implication is this:
- If a "Best Method" exist, then we can say there is no other better choice than to choose the best method. Thus we should always choose the best method.
- If a "Best Method" exist, and if a systematic way to discover this "Best Method" also exist, then we can acheive, simple perfection in handling situations.
- If a "Best Method" exist, and if this "Best Method" is known, then we can learn how to handle all situations.
People are confused with "Best Choices" and "Best Method" when I first talked about it. The idea of "Best Method" seems completely remote like they have never thought about it and many have trouble understanding it. So here I present the normal person mindset.
To these people, "Best Method" is hardly differentiable from the "Best Choice" because there is always a newer choice better than the best choice if we are allowed to increase the range of our limited choices. To them, the "Best Method/Choice" is always outside of their limited choices. In addition, everything else is impossible to them just because they currently cannot see them as viable choices.
The dotted arrow represents how a normal person experience an increase in their limited choices: through a feeding mechanism that gives them more choices.
This as you realise, is a very upsetting view. This is simple-mindedness in action and is a completely mistaken concept. Let's look at a better way to see things:
Getting the terms right
- Anything not inside "All Possibilities" are "All Impossibilities".
- All possibilities represent anything that is possible, like assinate LKY
- All options represents possibilities within your ability in that situation, like commiting suicide
- All choices represents options that are deemed approperiate and have passed the sanity tests for an individual person, for that situation, according his abilities. The key difference lies here, in that "All Choices" need not be a subset of "All Options", it can grow to include "All Possibilities" according to the individual.
- The choice is the choosen method, and it must also be the "best choice" as the individual sees it*, otherwise he would not have choosen it.
- The "Best Method", however, is an option that may fall anywhere within "All options"**. In my illustration, it is within "All options" and also within "All Choices".
- The dotted grey circle shows that an increase in "All Choices" does not change*** the "Best Method". It may, however, emcompass a "Best-er Choice" (Better than the previous best choice) as the individual sees it****.
- The "Best Method" may not have been chosen because the individual may have failed to analyse the situation in a "correct" way, if it was within "All Choices".
- If the "Best Method" is not within the "All Choices", it means that there were limiting factors preventing him to include it in the list of "All Choices".
Notes to the terms
* A friend has argued that the choice may not always be the "Best Choice". But I choose to argue that the fact that it was a choosen choice, it must be the "most balanced choice that fulfills the person's objectives" and hence it must be the best choice. For example, knowing that fighting is not a good way to solve a conflict, but yet he fights anyway, is a balance between several attributes such as logic, morals, feelings, emotions and the outcome is the result of how the person weighs them all. Nevertheless, the discussion of a Best Method does not depend on the choice he makes.
** At this stage, the "Best Method" is taken to be within "All Options", so that it is always possible fall within "All Choices". The proof by deduction will be shown later.
*** An increase in the range of choices does not change the "Best Method" no matter where it lies. Furthermore, it does not improve your ability to choose it if it already lies within "All Choices". But it does improve, if it were outside of "All Choices" initially.
**** A simple cause for increase in "All Choices" is an increase in wealth. Hence with more money, one can buy more expensive products. And if and only if the more expensive product is a better product, then the "Best Choice" changes.
Comments