Flats-isms:
- Speakers to one audience may in fact be presenting to an entirely different audience.
- Idiots occasionally have good ideas; geniuses often have bad ideas. Assess ideas not credentials.
- If you’re giving expert opinion based on your credentials, you’ll still need to put them put up front; failure to do so may result in audience or readership not giving benefit of doubt when approaching something they don’t intuitively understand while those same credentials will be meaningless if falling back on them after the fact once they’ve bought into their doubt. (Once someone formulates a position or makes a decision, such becomes harder to change.)
- He who moves first gains position or angles. He who moves second sets the flow. - This is really the penultimate (next-to-last) mover gets position while the ultimate (last) mover sets flow though that is too big a mouthful - were the first mover not to like the flow, this mover could reverse or out of plane and change the flow but doing so cedes whatever position or angles were initially gained from the first and now third mover to the second mover.
- All centers of power are also centers of vulnerability. Not all vulnerabilities can be turned to one’s own advantage however.
- Darwinism isn’t the survival of the fittest. It is flushing the weakest. It raises the average by cutting the bottom. Being fittest increases one’s odds but one still faces the uncertain threat and may be unlucky. Being best does not guarantee success.
- If even one casualty would prove unacceptable, consider putting all eggs in a better basket. Diffusion works only if some losses are tolerable. It reduces risk of all being lost but increases risk at least some will be lost. Andrew Carnegie’s advice—“Put all your eggs in one basket, and then watch that basket”
- Regarding Earth, we’re all in one basket, let’s make it a better basket.
- Decoys, feints, diversions should have adequate strength to be credible. Additionally, should you realize your main isn’t in position to succeed, you want opportunity to shift focus. Resource limits may preclude this additional concern.
- You shouldn’t bluff more than 20% of the time. Probably less.
- The Field of View is only equal to or less than the Field of Regard. Pair this with Kahneman’s “what you see is all there is.”
- Avoid “always” and “never.”
- You can always* interpolate; take caution if you need to extrapolate.
- You can always quantify the qualitative but you can never objectify the subjective.
- Try to make things as simple as possible but no simpler.
- Apparently Einstein said this long before me but as I didn’t no this and realized it on my own, I’m leaving it here.
- Be a “yes” person though know the power of “no.” Your default answer to subordinates should be “yes” as such will empower and encourage them which in turn means they’ll be more invested and be more motivated. This is not to say you don’t maintain institutional focus or husband resources, you do, and if such gives you reason to say no downward, you can and should. If you don’t have reason to say no downward though, you should not. Default going up should be “no.” They’re trying to consume your resources including time and there should be valid reasons why to do what they ask. Make them do their job and explain. Adjacent is difficult as they may have reasons and legitimate needs though can also swamp your resources. I tend to try to say yes except if resources get challenged or if the person asking has made a reputation for excess consumption.
- Hard work is a cost not a virtue. It should not be valued for its own sake. Effective work is the virtue.
- At some point, attempting to maximize efficiency or “reduce slack” actually buys risk. Imagine a boat at mooring or anchor. Too much slack and it bumps other boats. Too little and rising tide pulls the boat down to swamp at the mooring or floats the anchor driving the boat aground or taking it to sea.
- Economy of scale won’t save money if doing such requires adding complication to force a spread across what multiple items would have covered. (Looking at you F-35 Litening II)
- It only takes only player to wreck positive sum situations playing them zero or negative sum (similar to prisoner’s dilemma)
- Testing should help drive decisions or prove assumptions. (If a treatment will be the prescribed treatment no matter the test result, why test? Testing incurs risk too.)
- Finding one causal problem source does not automatically eliminate others. Their probability goes down though it is possible to have multiple issues that present the same way. VENN diagram that shit.
- VENN circles can be wholly inside other circles, concentric (inside and same post (center)), could be superimposed (same circle or set in entirety), or completely separate, not just partially overlapped as one normally thinks.
- Some persons can be really good in micro settings though prove shit to the masses; some persons are raging assholes though really care for and do well by humanity in macro settings. Some come across as asses though actually care for individuals and are good by the masses. And some are just shits.
- Event purpose has exclusivity. You cannot test, demonstrate, train in the same event.
- Just because you won doesn’t mean your methods were best.
- Trick plays are typically a sign that one concedes the other performs better.
- Things are always the last place you look for them not because you fail to adequately consider where to look but because there’s no need to continue a search once found. In the same way, war is always the last resort. We like to comfort ourselves thinking we’ve exhausted all options before such but the reality is war precludes opportunity for any other option.
- The weight room is a temple. Don’t bring questions or conversation to me while I’m trying to pray.
- Just because one is physically present does not mean one is available.
- Don’t focus on what will happen. Instead consider the range of what could happen. Many possible futures. Try seeing utopia and dystopia then future backwards to turning points prior to current state to help ranging.
- Moral hazard is its own systemic risk. Risk transference isn’t a solution.
- Workarounds aren’t solutions. Workarounds indicate problems exist.
- You don’t have to start “at the beginning” for iterative processes. Instead, you can define the start at wherever is easiest at the moment. If unable to do that, choose your start randomly.
- Sometimes two sides of a spectrum, such as communism and fascism, are like poles on a horseshoe magnet; they’re closer to each other than they are to the middle. Or, take a drive on the political Möbius Strip.
- Winning is sequential. Avoiding losing is in parallel.
- If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck... it could be a loon. (Did you see it swim?)
- Resonance is good for boosting signal outwards. Inside a closed chamber, it damages your ears.
- Vacuums in information create curiosity; better to fill such voids with something innocuous.
- Culpability can sum to more than 100%.
- Strategists generally need to be complex. Operations and tactics are often complicated or compound (though try to be as simple as possible). EQ may be better suited to solving complex while IQ certainly helps compound; systems work is generally compound though working it may require the complex EQ as one needs to deal with multiple stake holders.
- When you hire someone to do a job in your house or employ someone in your home, yes, they work for you and you should expect a quality job. Yet they are also a guest in your home.
- Vaccine effectiveness is really a performance measure.
- Just because someone is present does not mean he or she is available. (Try not to interrupt one’s workout, reading, writing, or thinking. That last can be really hard sometimes impossible to get back. Mental models are houses of cards that take time to build and more time to rebuild.)
- Compliance is not synonymous with safety. There may be a strong overlap but they are not the same.
-
For a moment, consider the VENN of Compliance and Safety. Now realize Safety is actually a bubble within the unsafe or Dangerous. There’s often though not always space between the two of neither safe nor dangerous. Yet ultimately danger can come from all around us. This means that the Safety bubble is not removed from the Danger bubble, rather is is concentric inside of the Dangerous. (The Dangerous could be viewed as its own bubble but really it is unbounded.) Yet there is space between the Safety bubble and Dangerous in many portions. Now superimposed your Compliance circle over this better image of Safety accounting for the fact that Compliance and Safety are not synonymous. Much of Compliance is within Safety, but we see some areas with Compliance being unrelated to Safety, and we see some areas in which Compliance is Dangerous.
- Doing nothing can be a valid choice so long as such is deliberate.
- Strategy is the Art of Bounding your Possibilities.
- While an excellent model, the “Swiss Cheese” model concerning risk management is incomplete. It needs a few layers of soft but non-holed cheese like Brie or Camembert tacked to the ends (and/or sandwiched in the middle). The hard Swiss cheese layers would still look to have at least one layer, ideally more, block the passing through bad event while the soft cheese might be too soft to block as individual layers but would absorb reducing impact. With enough layers the soft cheese could stop the penetration. Think like layers of ballistic gel. To use the other metaphor, consider the causal chain. Typically we think “break the chain” in the sense of remove any link and the accident wouldn’t have happened. Well, you might not have had means to break a link, but perhaps you had means to soften a few links such that these would stretch thus reducing severity or possibly preventing said bad occurrence. Consider the “resilient” versus “robust” though perhaps seek to have a bit of both.
- Designing to Mission Requirements is Systems Thinking for Ordered Complicated problems, such will support evolutionary adaptive improvements; Designing to create Mission Requirements (then subsequently fill such) will tend to be more adaptive and Revolutionary better for Complexity.
- Note actual biological evolution changes slowly with adaptation but also has jumps and bounds as well as resilience due to exaptation. What we consider adaptation is the slow improving while exaptation is the drastic change or revolutionary. Exaptation is typically from radical repurposing.
What if both sides apply maneuver warfare? Will it result in a yin-yang like symbol or a lufberry? Does this instead become “attrition of logistics?” A luff only concludes if both sides agree, if one side rolls out and takes some shots, or if one side, likely both, runs out of gas.
Arguments are like lufberries though consequences less severe. Either party can decide unilaterally to roll out. Sure, they’ll take a shot or two but if they don’t reengage, it’s over. While not initially so, arguing is often about winning, not solving.
Test Hazard Analyses (THAs) (Operational Risk Management (ORM) with mitigating measures split into preventive and corrective) provide a method for creating your limits & Emergency Procedures (EPs), standing orders & preplanned responses, restraints&constraints, & branch plans. Preventive measures produce limits, standing orders, restrictions. Corrective measures drive EPs, preplanned responses, branches. These are created in advance hence users and subordinates need not wait on guidance or decisions to apply proper action. Such need not be your only way, you may discover others in your planning, though you should make cumulative lists. THA or ORM should fold back into your plans while plans may help bring considerations to THA and ORM. These are iterative and should go through at least two full cycles prior to initial action.
Though the range may be limited, THAs and ORM are a way that gets you thinking about multiple possible futures. In this they’re limited as they don’t get you thinking about different possible advantageous endstates. Rather, you’ll still only have one endstate goal in mind. You’ll still only see one possible desirable direction for progress. They don’t get you to paying bears honey to de-ice power lines.
Not mine but good:
- Fast is slow while slow is smooth and smooth is fast.
- I’m in shape. Round. Round’s a shape.
- I’m working half days. 12 hours. That’s half a day.
- The early bird may get the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese.
- Issues don’t die, they take naps.
- Rules are for the obedience of fools and for the guidance of wise men. Though, personally, I’d replace novice or rookie for fool. Also relates with don’t tear down the fence till you know why it was installed. (See Douglas Bader and also Chesterton’s Fence) — 6A — A good guide is to avoid breaking rules for one’s own benefit but to do so when such helps others.
— 6B — Don’t think rules don’t apply to you; instead question if the rules apply to the situation.
- Statistical spread yields clumping and vacuum.
- Proper actions don’t guarantee good outcomes and sometimes bad actions still show good fortune.
- You won’t compensate for bad timing with good performance though you can compensate for good timing.
- Don’t ascribe to malice that which is readily done by ineptitude.
- Imagine how stupid the average American is, now realize half are worse.
- If the cake sucks and the parking sucks, that’s all anyone will remember.
- It may not be your fault but it’s your problem.
- Simple plus simple makes complex. (Complexity often isn’t layers or depth like Inception. Rather, it’s multiple parties to satisfy.)
- You can’t satisfy everyone. (Choosing what not to do is important.)
- Assumptions need to be verified. Assumptions unverified become risk.
- If you want to understand something, take it to the extremes or look at its opposite (and inverse too; presence and absence of)
- Judge people by what they do, not what they say they will do.
- If your boss demands loyalty, give him integrity. But if he demands integrity, then give him loyalty.
- You can’t change big bureaucracies until they have a disaster.
- I have a PhD. That’s Public High school Diploma. P-H-D.
- There may not be a best solution. There may be multiple correct ways. Alternately, there may be no correct answers.
- Unity of effort is obtained through a common understanding of intent.
- Hard work matters most when done in the right conditions.
- Vision isn’t strategy.
- If everything is a priority, nothing is. If everything is an emergency, nothing is.
- If there’s a doubt, there is no doubt.
- Executive decisions should never be made until they have to be. Especially if the circumstances will change in the meantime.
- Two negatives make a positive but two wrongs don’t make a right yet two Wrights made an airplane while three lefts make a right.
- Strive to be competitive but not combative.
- Humor is the back door through which nefarious ideas enter the brain unconsidered.
- “It is no longer the United States are, it is The United States is…” “See that little linguistic trick?”
- Don’t seek equality in oppression, seek equality in freedom.
- Foreign Policy is like a game of Poker in which everyone is cheating. It is not, repeat not, the analogy most choose. FP is not Chess.
- The horseshoe magnet analogy in the earlier list has been dethroned; better, left meets right on the political Möbius strip.
-
The adult who is under the dominion of unilateral respect for the ‘Elders’ and for tradition is really behaving like a child.
-
An explanation is not a justification.
-
If you lack the authority to say ‘yes,’ you don’t have it to say ‘no’ either.
-
Noise goes at precision; bias goes at accuracy.
-
A description is not an explanation.
-
Money in Motion is Money at Risk
-
“There were, to be sure, pacts with devils in all of these: strategies, like politics, are never pure.” — John Lewis Gaddis
-
For support to prohibitive / restrictive versus authorizing or approving mindsets, “In a free society, you don't need a reason to make something legal... you need a reasonto make something illegal.” - Donna Moss, The West Wing
-
Basic Income is Venture Capital for the People — Rutger Bregman
-
Intellect without will is worthless, will without intellect is dangerous - Hans von Seekt
* I may have said always here and this is a good example to avoid using always. It is possible to have resonance spots or poles or zeroes inside a data set. Should those providing the data set have used an insufficiently tight sampling, then these could have been missed. In such case, interpolation could be just as deadly as extrapolation. Though good engineering should have taken adequate sample intervals, in which case interpolation is fine. Aviation assumes interpolation is safe while extrapolation bad as performance curves can drop suddenly. In the case of always able to quantify the qualitative, this is true though there will also be a margin about the values.
Thursday, Nov 5, 2020 · 4:01:32 AM +00:00 · Fffflats
They are deathly afraid of being exposed as afraid, which is why they’re endlessly posturing strength. They’re too afraid of their own fearfulness to begin recovery. They cannot take ownership of their defects, so their egos and selfishness drive their decision making.
This is excellent. I stole it. Thanks B12Love.
Friday, Nov 6, 2020 · 6:55:35 PM +00:00 · Fffflats
I omitted this next one previously as I don’t see application to it outside of aviation. Since I just went on a flight and really enjoyed myself, I changed my mind. I’m adding it. Still can’t think of applications, however.
Hug the canopy, stiff-arm the butt vector; warning, reversals turn canopy into butt vector.
Sunday, Jul 11, 2021 · 4:52:59 AM +00:00 · Fffflats
As Tom Gilovich teaches us via Jonathan Haidt,
“The crucial insight here comes from psychologist Tom Gilovich at Cornell, who says that when we want to believe a proposition, we ask, ‘Can I believe it?’ — and we look only for evidence that the proposition might be true. If we find a single piece of evidence then we’re done. We stop. We have a reason we can trot out to support our belief. But if we don’t want to believe a proposition, we ask, ‘Must I believe it?’ — and we look for an escape hatch, a single reason why maybe, just maybe, the proposition is false.”