minimal viable predictability

===

A little bit lost and
A little bit lonely
A little bit cold here
A little bit of fear

But I hold on and I feel strong
And I know that I can
Like to know who I am

Been talking to myself forever
And how I wish I knew me better
But never seen the sun shine brighter
And it feels like me on a good day

On a Good Day/Oceanlab

===

I’ll be honest. I’m not sure I am writing with a viable idea in mind or writing simply because I has scribbled minimum viable predictability on a piece of paper and started wondering if there was a viable idea lurking within. So lets go on this journey together.

While it’s natural for people to crave predictability because it offers some stability maybe we should all crave limited predictability. Part of this may actually just be reducing environmental uncertainty. It’s possible I could suggest that this is all harnessing aspects of complexity, but, simplistically, the concept may simply be harnessing aspects of the world as it exists just trying to figure out how to get things done and how to do them well. and maybe what I am thinking is that while we are never really prepared for reality, if we can find a minimum viable predictability it’s possible we will least be prepared for the really important things.

Which leads me to the role of fear.

A sense of ongoing continual uncertainty only breeds a high level of continual fear. So, what is the price demanded by continual fear? On one end we get pseudo-intellectuals analyzing an uncertain world and suggesting things like ‘we are in a polycrisis.’ On the other end we simply get people careening between holding onto anything perceived as certain as their world tilts and letting go of anything and everything believing that living in the now is the only sane thing to do. So let me suggest that Polycrisis isn’t really a thing and it is actually just an accumulation of our fears. I say that because yes, the world is complex and we face complex things daily, but suggesting we can’t untangle enough to tackle things is a less than useful suggestion. It may be more useful to seek out some of the deep structural patterns and attempt to either navigate them or nudge them in different directions. This would demand that we avoid only what I would call point and shoot thinking, i.e., data shows this, so we do this and data says this, so we do this. But. Fear leads to measurement and numbers. We measure what we fear. Yeah. Numbers making decisions for us. Scary stuff. I call not non-viable predictability.

Which leads me to the past and numbers.

Fear and predictability often intersect with the past and numbers. What I mean by that is we tend to lean into the past on “historical learning” and the future on numbers or “what the future will be comprised of” with the intent to reduce our fear.

• The past

The past offers seductive analogies. Yeah. Exact analogies do not hold up to the scrutiny of the existing situation, but the illustrations they offer are often vivid. Through those illustrations it’s possible to discern some general improvements which might contribute to better outcomes. Ah. That “discern” thing. Part of the challenge is being able to discern whether change has happened, or is happening, or will happen, and maybe most importantly, if it is even happening at all. The past can certainly inform imaginative scenario thinking but (a) it has its limits and (b) we should constantly be testing those limits. To be clear. Scrutinizing the past CAN help in planning which provides for essentials to be in place – to expedite, limit, guide, counter, accept – as the situation suggests. This demands visualizing a desired future in realistic terms, or, envisioning the future which is undesired and the plans made to avoid it – both of which the past can help inform, but not predict. In rummaging around the past for some minimal viable predictability you must simultaneously hold these truths:

• recognize the future has no place to come from but the past, therefore, the past has some predictive value
• recognize what matters for the future – in the present – is departures from the past; the alterations, changes, which effect familiar flow and patterns thereby affecting any predictive value.
• Recognize time, and the situational context, is a reflection of the constant weaving of present to future, to past and present, making any decisions contingent upon ever-changing comparisons

My point is that none of this is exact which is what minimal viable predictability is actually all about. It has to do with dealing in the margins, maybe a little bit sharper sense of purpose, maybe a little bit better definition of a desired future, and maybe a little clearer sense of the danger and obstacles.

And while the past may not be analogous that doesn’t mean that it’s not useful to accumulate an inventory of historical learnings and the context within which those learnings occurred. This creates accumulated points of reference readily available within the thought process. Through that processing of the past you end up with a minimal viable predictability surrounded by an array of options all of which have associated probabilities defined by current conditions and capabilities within which the probabilities reside. To be clear. Looking back at past realities can suggest some limitations on some future possibilities and probabilities, but, the bottom line is it can illustrate some possibilities within the future.

That said. I cannot remember who offered this framework, but when viewing the immediate situation it’s helpful to think through things in terms of known, unclear, and presumed. This is a derivative of Follett’s law of the situation. This allows you to be able to think about the past or see the past analogies a little bit more clearly in order to be able to see that sometimes they share some characteristics to a degree and, though not analogous and specific, can surely offer reference points for the current situation.

• The numbers

It seems a common belief, in a fear driven world, to assume that any numbers about the future are better than none. Well. That’s just weird. Logically, in order to produce numbers about the unknown (the future) the current method is to make a guess about something or other, usually called an assumption, and to derive an estimate from it through some subtle calculations (numerical-based reasoning). The estimate is then presented as the results of scientific reasoning which is, supposedly, something far superior to mere guesswork. This is a pernicious practice which can only lead to the most colossal planning errors because it offers a bogus answer, absent of any real experience-based judgment, to some important questions. As a consequence, this means what is often called the foreseeable future is actually nothing more than wishful thinking. But there is another really dangerous practice. That is ignoring past erroneous ‘predictions’ (and their predictors) or simply excluding them from all analysis. It’s as if because they were erroneous it somehow establishes an eternal truth or, well, that particular prediction, in any form, will ever come true. Silly, and dangerous. And then numbers get used to define reality and, unfortunately, reality doesn’t automatically translate into some “correct” data set or some neat numbers. It always exceeds what can be measured so then, in seeking some concrete predictability, what is measured becomes a kind of argument for a particular understanding of reality. And this is where numbers really go off the rails. This may sound odd, but when it comes to numbers one must consider ‘numbers significant to whom.’ What I mean by that is leaders, statisticians and numbers people showcase an unprecedented amount of numbers to be able to prove what is significant and what is not; what is reality and what is not. These experts may have never asked whether these numbers are significant to the everyday schmuck like me and you or, more to the point, what it would take to quantify what they deemed important to the larger society to make it significant to the everyday schmuck like you and I. And maybe that is my point with numbers. Numbers struggle to bridge the past, present and future and when we attempt to force them to explain not only some ‘reality’ but also offer some certainty in the future it falls apart.

Let me end this section with something Rob Estreitinho just said: “imaginative leaps into the future are one of our greatest strengths. But i’d argue being able to borrow from the past in thoughtful ways is a strong second. The reality is businesses need rationalisation most of the time, so evidence is indispensable. And being able to log good evidence as you go, therefore, saves you a lot of time. Or, if not evidence, then enough precedent to give confidence this new thing might work. Point is, you need a system to let you quickly find what to borrow from.”

I imagine I could argue this summarizes an aspect of minimal viable predictability. I imagine I could argue this summarizes the role of the past and numbers in crafting a minimal viable predictability.

“There are two sets of futures, the future of desire and the future of fate and man’s reason has never learned to separate them. In action they may be intertwined, but distinguishing one from the other easy. The future of desire is always predictable; the future of fate seldom is.”

Desmond Bernal

Which leads me to optimism.

I wanted to end on a more positive note. If you take a more optimistic view of the future, even without a shitload of predictable stepping stones or even predictability, you tend to find your way. So maybe if you attach maximum viable optimism to minimal viable prediction you can find a happy, successful, progress path. In fact. Maybe that is the pathway of meaningful progress. But that’s a piece for another day. Ponder.