Beyond Order and Status Quo

“Maintaining order rather than correcting disorder is the ultimate principle of wisdom. To cure disease after it has appeared is like digging a well when one feels thirsty or forging weapons after the war has already begun.” – Nei Jing

Is order the ultimate principle of wisdom? Is order better or is it just easier? Is what we see the whole story? Order is another way of saying keep things as they are. Of course curing a disease after it is experienced is like digging a well after feeling thirsty or building weapons after the war has begun. Is that the best we can do, just maintain order? Should we attempt to cure it before? (which would be prevention), how would we know if worked if what was prevented never happened? If prevention works, nothing happens – we can do better.

We can do better than just maintain the status quo. Anything that attempts to keep things as they are is impeding progress. Beyond efforts to prevent problems, evidence from Dr. Wilde’s Risk Homeostasis Theory indicate we never actually prevent problems, they are just moved.517J05w6c1L._SX321_BO1,204,203,200_

Additional information in “FoolProof” suggests not only don’t prevention efforts work because they just move risk and problems, but these these well-intentioned efforts actually create a backlash with unintended problems. One example of many is when well-intentioned people in the NFL created helmets to prevent head, teeth and eye injuries. While many of those injuries subsided, without accounting for delayed head trauma,  other injuries increased. Injuries were moved. Other injuries such as those to the neck and spine increased because a helmet protected head helped players feel safe enough to use their head when tackling (see video).

Of course the hidden problem of CTE or Chronic Traumatic Encepholapthy famously discussed in the movie “Concussion” with Will Smith is another example of a backlash from attempts to improve safety.

A different approach is possible, one that looks forward toward what is being created instead of backward in an attempt to avoid or prevent. Instead of just trying to make it less bad, we should focus on how to create more good (see), from a systems perspective. This approach about a better future has many benefits and is what Dr. Wilde calls expectationism. He also explains why this approach would be more effective as it also improves overall well-being.

After all, the focus on the future is what has helped us realize all progress. Figure what you want, clarify that picture  – determine that idealized outcome, determine what will demonstrate progress, not outcome measures, then work at creating it. As you continually measure progress, you will understand how to correct and improve the path of creating that idealized outcome. Don’t be frustrated if you get off path, they say the rocket to the moon was off course 96% of the time but with continued process improvements, the desired outcome was achieved.

Remember the desired  idealized outcome should be measurable so you will know something was accomplished. Nassim Taleb described in his 2008 book the Black Swan an instance when a rider enters a taxi cab and tells the driver, “Don’t take me to the airport.” Of course this leaves the driver confused because he doesn’t know what to do or how to act because not going to the airpot is not measurable. It is simply a nonevent. Determine a measurable outcome so you can document and measure what you achieve!

Build on the idea of expectationism by creating more good, not just less bad (also see here, here, here, here).  Efforts to decrease undesirable effects don’t work. Rather than just maintain order, lets make it better by focusing on and work on creating what is desired and what could be.

I look forward to hearing about the progress you create.

Be Well’r,
Craig Becker

Expectationism Over Engineering-Education-Enforcement

In an interesting and  well supported proposal, Gerald Wilde suggests creating higher levels of future hope is a more powerful way to alter behaviors toward health and safety than engineering, education and enforcement efforts. Dr. Wilde’s major outcome has been Risk Homeostasis Theory  which is a general human theory of behavioral compensations in response to changes introduced in intrinsic risk. In other words, his data demonstrate that people maintain their perceived risk, what he calls their Target Risk Level (TRL), by using behavioral compensations. To support this theory he uses powerful data supported examples that demonstrate the compensations people make when people are in safer cars. For example when cars have anti-lock breaks, air bags or because drivers have additional drive training, their general response is to  drive more recklessly, possibly because of overconfidence, and these behavioral compensation maintain them at their static target risk level.

This theory therefore suggests that little can be done to improve heath and safety because when one area is made safer, for example through engineering with more lights on the road or through education with more training, people drive faster. Researched examples with enforcement such as more police doing DUI checks leads to people making behavioral compensations such as taking different routes or causing other difficulties. In other areas outside of automobile safety, there are similar behavior compensation responses. For example, when cigarettes lowered tar or nicotine, people smoked more or “harder” thus maintaining the same risk through behavior compensations. The example all of us know are the people who exercise more or harder so they can have their desert or eat more thus nullifying or compensating for any real “gains” in well-being. In other words, Risk Homeostasis Theory is a theory that provides a good prediction of future behavior compensations and expected outcomes. Remember a theory at its roots is just a prediction.

You can see Dr. Wilde’s writings and articles at Risk Compensation Resource Center  where  you can get a copy of his newest book, Target 3: Risk Homeostasis in Everyday Life. In his book he explains that Engineering changes such as safer products or roads, Education or improved knowledge of how to drive or behave and Enforcement of laws and regulations that limit risk behaviors will ineffectively limit or diminish problems because people make behavior compensations such as those previously described.

Unknown

According to  Risk Homeostasis Theory outcome changes are only possible if the perceived Target Risk Level (TRL) is altered. An Increase in Target Risk Level (TRL) can happen if:

  1. Their is a perceived increase in the expected benefits from risky behavior or
  2. Expected costs of cautious or safe behavior is increased

In other words, if it is perceived to be easier and less costly to engage in more risk, it is more likely to happen. Makes sense!

A Decrease in Target Risk Level (TRL) can happen if:

  1. Expected benefits from  safe or cautious behavior is perceived to have increased
  2. Expected costs of risky behavior is perceived to have increased

In other words, if it is perceived that engaging in safer behavior is more beneficial and the risky behavior is more costly, they will not behave as risky. Again, this is common sense.

Although all this seems like common sense, the data he provides and information presented documents that traditional approaches to make the world better or safer through engineering, education, and enforcement, E³, are ineffective because of behavioral compensations.

What helps? Dr. Wilde documents that a belief and desire for a better tomorrow. In other words having something desirable to look forward to. This is something I continually have written about and I emphasize that a better tomorrow won’t just happen, we must help make it happen. As the Second Law of Thermodynamics explains, an open system left to itself will move toward chaos so if we want it to be a predicable and better tomorrow, we must make it happen.

To create a desire to engage in helpful behaviors, he calls for “Expectationism” and the desire to live for something good and better in the future. This also relates to my first step to practice Paneugenesis which is “Operationalize an Idealized Outcome”. Having an exciting and desirable outcome to move toward or look forward to would in itself create expectationism which he demonstrates leads to behavior compensations that make it more likely they will get to experience a desirable future. Data demonstrates people who have an optimistic or desirable view of the future take care of themselves and the world better today because they are looking forward to tomorrow. This also means these people practice environmentalism or are green because they are good stewards.

In other words, Risk Homeostasis Theory provides another solid reason to want to generate comprehensive improvements by creating interactions so everyone and everything benefits thus helping us all have a better tomorrow. I look forward to working with you to make tomorrow even better than today.

78b231f9b4bd2bc5d545579d65bbd187

 –