Caudaphobia - The Tragedy of the Tails

George Rebane

[This post is long overdue, and was motivated by a discussion with a reader in the ‘Sandbox – 17jun15’ comment stream.  These ideas date from the mid-nineties and were included in my lecture series on Numeracy delivered in 2005-6 at the Nevada County's Madelyn Helling Library.  A more portable (readable?) version of this monograph can be downloaded here - Download NNx - TailsTragedy150619.  Caudaphobia derives from the Latin ‘cauda’ for tail, and the Greek ‘phobia’ meaning a “persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a  specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous.” (dictionary.com)]

1. Main thesis - A sufficiently large, innumerate, and initially democratic population will incrementally and inevitably regulate itself into state of authoritarian servitude as it seeks through legislation and litigation to insulate itself from low probability risks.  Corollary - The pace of such social degeneration is at least proportional to the size of the innumerate population.

2. This thesis is a companion to Garrett Hardin’s “The Tragedy of the Commons” in that ‘the Tails’ also describes the inevitable consequences of seemingly benign incremental social actions each with unintended collateral effects that accumulate into disaster.  Whereas Hardin’s commons was destroyed by such individual ignorance (and greed?) in an environment of no/low social (i.e. state) intervention, we now have an entire social order being destroyed by exactly the opposite of too much social intervention voted and litigated into place by the ignorant and greedy.

3. The entire field of such problems in attempting to avoid/alleviate the effects of the tails - let us name it caudaphobia  - can only be solved by 1) teaching numeracy, 2) establishing a generally accepted moral order, 3) emplacing and embracing rapid/accurate social feedback mechanisms, and 4) decoupling the social system in-the-large so as to limit the extent of caudaphobic damage and permit rapid repair.

4. The genre of caudaphobic problems is the societal equivalent of ‘the self-criticality of large scale systems’ explicated in the field of systems science (also known as Catastrophe Theory).  This states that, without exception, all large, complex, interconnected systems have failures whose intervals are inversely related to their magnitudes.

5. Caudology - the study and analysis - and Caudometry - the observation and measurement of the wider ranging social effects arising ‘from the tails’ of p.d.f.s, and the resulting costs and likelihood of success in attempting to reduce or eliminate the effects of such offensive tails.  These disciplines should be formalized within the schools of economics, sociology, and political science.

6. Example: show how a constant but very low traffic accident rate (accidents/driven mile) ‘guarantees’ that a tightly coupled road system (e.g. a large city’s freeways) will fail whenever enough people use it concurrently (i.e. present themselves to the possibility of accidents).  The low chance of an accident is prescribed by the probability density function’s (p.d.f.’s) tail, but the number of accidents is determined by the number of people ‘in the tail’.  In such tightly coupled cases the individually caudal event causes a system wide breakdown.  Such cases may justify the effort to directly attack the caudal effect, or, more reasonably, to reconfigure the affected system to immunize it from such caudality.  To the large segments of voters with low attention spans the simplistic and, therefore, appealing approach is the direct approach.

7. Numeracy is the possession of a working or intuitive level of knowledge at a non-professional level about some very basic concepts from mathematics and the systems sciences that explicate observations of our surroundings, illuminate received reports, support clear communications, enable reasoned decisions, and thereby guide daily behavior to our own and society’s benefit.  The curriculum of numeracy includes elements from arithmetic, geometry, logic, probability, taxonomy, data presentation, complexity, estimation, control, utility, and decision making.  In a free society numeracy is the indispensable twin of literacy in that to the extent that literacy lets you communicate thoughts and ideas, numeracy gives you the tools for critical thinking that enables you to generate worthwhile thoughts and ideas.

8. An innumerate person, on the other hand, is at the mercy of his more numerate handlers who, instead of information, dispense bits of semantically simple emotion which cannot be isolated and identified let alone examined.  Yet in our society the deficit of innumeracy alone has received absolution from the stigma of ignorance.  Show yourself to be illiterate and you are immediately among the recognizably disadvantaged, a victim of someone else’s neglect, and the target of necessary state sponsored compassion.  Admit innumeracy and your fellow innumerates instantly, and with some relief, accept that void as a shared, perfectly normal trait.  Giving evidence of numeracy elicits no further concern beyond a commensurate confession with the inevitable appendix that such persons must also have large attendant deficits in the clearly more important social skills and also are very likely close relatives of idiot savants.  The real societal effect of all this was best summarized in Thomas Jefferson’s “A nation ignorant and free, that never was and never shall be.”

9. The numerate citizen knows axiomatically that any characteristic of an individual, society, or nature manifests itself over a range of values represented by a distribution specifying how frequently or with what probability such values occur.  Also, that the values distant from their everyday norms will turn up with very low likelihood.

10. Caudal events from the ‘bad side’ of the distribution describing any activity can no longer be left unaddressed with the simple dictum of ‘next time let’s all just be more careful’.  Today the attempted elimination of such rare liabilities is always inaugurated by putting in place the social mechanisms to guarantee yet another ‘right’, the unstated implication being the impossible right of being insulated from any given caudal effect.

11. In a sufficiently large, complex, and tightly coupled social organization (e.g. a large metropolis) the unscrupulous or the innumerate activist, zealot, or lobbyist may always find and cite caudal events as evidence to justify the forging of any new social policy and its enforcement apparatus.  In public debate when such evidence is shown to be vanishingly rare, the retort most impactive on an innumerate audience is, “Yes, but what if it happened to [you, your child, your mother, ...]?”.  This inevitably carries the day, for to argue against it would be conclusive evidence of heartlessness, discrimination, insensitivity, promoting exclusivity, putting the burden on the backs of poor, or, finally, ‘playing God’ - the prima facie evidence of political incorrectness.

Comments

[Patricia Smith]

Ah George, what do you think the world would look like if everyone focused on numeracy? It is a tool, but not the only one.

Thank God, we have diversity or the world would be a very glum place. Think of the great works of art, masterpiece novels, poetry, films, etc that might never had been made. (I didn't include music because arguably, it is based on mathematics, but it's soul comes from imagination - the opposite of logic and order.)

Being a bleeding heart liberal, I do find your arguments heartless just like you stated. I also find them at odds with the definition of Christianity. It seems to me that many people who claim to be Christians, don't actually believe in any of his teaching. Most comments I see on RR are more in keeping with the Old Testiment (an eye for an eye)

PS Please accept this as constructive criticism, but I agree with Ben E's post on a different thread that you tend to write over the heads of most of your readers. If language is a tool for communication, I think you would be better served to edit your $10 words. (I think that's why no one has commented on this thread which is unusual.)

[George Rebane]

PatriciaS 349pm - Thank you Patricia. This little monogram was written compactly for a different audience. I want it in RR as a reference since I can now freely use 'codaphobia' which defines so much of life today, especially as expressed by progressives.

I am saddened that you consider numeracy as just another "tool" to be taken up or left at no cost. That attitude explains a lot of why we are headed where are. The US is the only country whose government does not officially consider innumeracy in their citizens a deficit and offer govt sponsored classes in numeracy as remediation.

[Account Deleted]

How many times have we heard: "Who cares what it costs (money, liberty, privacy, etc)? If it only saves one life, it will be worth it."
Well, yes - to that one whose life was saved. But not to everyone else.
Politicians are expected to constantly provide us with a garden of eden to live in with zero risk and danger. And gosh darn if they don't try.
At some point, they are chasing rapidly diminishing returns. And we pay the price. Most folks are themselves, their own biggest threat. I'm getting tired of having my liberty and freedom and money taken away to try to protect idiots from their own devices.

[Patricia Smith]

George, I was only seeking balance between logic and creativity. There is a place for both. I didn't mean to imply that numeracy could be taken up or left at will. There are plenty of people that excel in both camps.

Scott, I agree that the gov't cannot protect us from ourselves - and they have no business trying to do so. We give them permission when we say "it's OK to take away this groups (fill in the blank) rights as long as mine stay intact."
BTW, does your philosophy extend to marijuana patients' rights? (An activity that only effects the user.)

[Account Deleted]

"when we say "it's OK to take away this groups (fill in the blank) rights as long as mine stay intact."
Well - what 'we' do you refer to? The editorial one or the royal one?
There doesn't seem to be anything in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights about MJ smoking for anyone. Those are matters of law that are not agreed to by many people.

[Patricia Smith]

The Declaration of Independence deems the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as an "inalienable right". Marijuana fills all of those criteria. Many people don't agree that guns should be legal. I don't see the correlation between what we are granted and how popular it is with the majority of the people. We win using either criteria (the majority of Americans now believe that MJ should be legal for recreational purposes). But because the gov't that you claim is so corrupt made MJ illegal, you have no problem that millions of people have lost their rights. If they should pass a gun ban, would you go long with that as well?

We refers to anyone - Libs or Conservs - who agree that it's OK to limit someone's rights. Are you a "we" or an "us" (anyone who doesn't)?

[Account Deleted]

Patricia - you must be joking.
"Marijuana fills all of those criteria."
So you think anything that gets some one off is a right? MJ has proven to be capable of harm and is highly addictive. The 'medicinal' use is being totally abused. Whether it's legal or not is open to debate and for legislatures to enact laws about. But it's not a right.
I don't care what anyone 'thinks' about guns being legal. My right to possess them is spelled out in black and white. Drugs of all kinds are not. Sorry. Deal with it.

[Patricia Smith]

Scott, your ignorance of the medical benefits of marijuana shows. It's not about "getting off", it's about getting well - and yes, everyone should be free to make the most fundamental decisions of how they chose to treat their illnesses. This is not a right granted to the gov't in the Constitution.

And marijuana is not highly addictive despite the Reefer Madness propaganda that continues to make that claim. It is one of the least harmful substances on the face of the earth and has never caused a single death unlike many things that are legal.

[Todd Juvinall]

Getting stoned is a right under the Constitution? Wow! Now that is amazing. What's next, heroin overdoses in the 28th Amendment?

[Account Deleted]

"Scott, your ignorance of the medical benefits of marijuana shows."
In what way? I didn't deny there may be some efficacy for MJ use for some illnesses. I said the medical use of MJ is being abused. Any drug can be abused. It has nothing to do with the drug's legitimate use.
MJ is highly addictive. That has been proven and has nothing to do with Reefer Madness. It's harmful effects are also well known.
Any drug that needs a prescription to be used is controlled and you don't have the 'right' to decide what drug you want to take to treat an illness. You may not like that, but that's the way it is. Med MJ is no different.
" It is one of the least harmful substances on the face of the earth and has never caused a single death unlike many things that are legal."
OK, Patricia - have a nice day in la-la land.

[George Rebane]

PatriciaS 504pm - "There are plenty of people that excel in both camps." Unfortunately according to our National Center for Educational Statistics that has studied the country's adult literacy for almost 40 years now, only 1 in 20 Americans are identified as being "numerically literate" or numerate. We as a society 'don't do numbers'.

Consequently, in the large we also don't understand social issues because all such issues gain their prominence only through the numbers that characterize them. Without the ability to understand such numbers, all that is left is to emote and echo trusted demogauges.

And as Bryan Caplan has documented in his comprehensive 'Myth of the Rational Voter' our electorate is now beyond the pale when they enter the voting booth - they have little or no knowledge of the issues, the candidates, and their stand on issues. They vote on sound bites and celebrity endorsements.

And your implied negative correlation between "logic and creativity" is frankly baffling, since both are completely independent (orthogonal) concepts. You have me at a disadvantage here because I have never mastered progressive talk past a most rudimentary level.

[George Rebane]

PatriciaS 349pm - Here's one of your bon mots that I overlooked in a previous response - "imagination - the opposite of logic and order". Nothing could be further from the truth. However, that line of thought has become a dominant shibboleth of the innumerates. The innumerate lay have been long taught to believe that the 'creative types' are limited to the artsy fartsy crowd of composers, performers, graphic artists, and writers. The technical types - engineers, scientists, and even technicians working in labs and job sites - are thought to labor in lock step turning the crank on logical sequence of soulless formulae and physical processes. Again, nothing could be further from the truth.

The levels of imagination required to spawn the creativity that, say, an engineer or technician has to muster to solve problems to make new things or keep old things working makes the artsy fartsy creativity pale in comparison. Even though we live in an 'ordered universe', the role of creativity in the discovery of its order, and then translating this order into things which improve the quality and extend human life is incomprehensible to those who have no choice but to substitute emoting for rational decisions.

I will address your and BenE's complaints about my "$10 words" and the requirement to use a "decoder ring and a thesaurus" to decipher my scribblings in another post. But I very much appreciate your resurrecting this issue; thank you.

[Gregory]

George 10:28 is spot on, except that accomplished composers and some performers are masters of music theory which is as difficult as any other technical subject, with roots back to the Pythagoreans. Let's remember the Quadrivium of old was comprised of algebra, geometry, physics and music. Basic numeracy and literacy was, at one time, signified by graduation from high school but now even a Baccalaureate falls short, such is the variation of collegiate expectations and performance.

The illiterate, innumerate and illogical rebel against $10 words and $20 logic while clinging to a version of "creativity" that enables them to think of themselves and friends as creative. I think that's similar to teachers who denigrate an expectation of subject mastery for K-12 teachers by pointing to an apochryphal PhD they keep in a corner of their unconsciousness who was a lousy teacher.

[steve frisch]

I think it is a sign of great optimism George that you would copyright your monograph on Caudaphobia :)

[Gregory]

Not surprisingly, Frisch, who would trash the world economy to delay a theorized warming by a few months in a century's time, or criminalize the possession of one of the 300 million-plus guns in the US in order to stop a six sigma event at the hands of sad case like Flood, can only respond with snide sarcasm.

[Don Bessee]

Dr. R @1028 - Who cares what emery and pattie want with regard to your vocabulary? We suffer his mini novels of blather that are supposed to sway with the volume of text, yet they only induce drowsiness. If a multisyllabic word can take the place of a paragraph I say press on! They can use the dictionary in their computer or just google it. Education is an ongoing process, embrace it guys.---- True optimists live longer happier lives and enrich those around them with hope. ;-)

[steve frisch]

Posted by: Gregory | 20 June 2015 at 01:17 PM

Of course I would not 'trash the world's economy' I would grow it..exponentially.

[Gregory]

More magical thinking from Stephen Frisch, BA Political Science, Cal State Frisco, convicted drunk driver, former bankrupt restauranteur and tax fraudster (reformed and forgiven after years of repayments), current President and CEO of the wretchedly misnamed Sierra Business Council, a rent seeking environmental 501c3 that isn't a council of businesses.

Unlike Frisch's comments earlier today linking me to Haldol on another RR thread, the above is, by my understanding, completely supported by established facts.

"Decarbonizing" the economy before alternative energy costs are on relative par with coal, crude oil or natural gas will trash the world's economies, or at least those who follow Frish's favorite Pied Piper. My guess is either an efficient fusion generator or an ultraefficient photovoltaic cell would fit the bill, but whether those are 10, 100 or 1000 years away is anyone's guess.

[fish]

Posted by: steve frisch | 20 June 2015 at 02:15 PM

Of course I would not 'trash the world's economy' I would grow it..exponentially.

Well what's stopping you? Exponential growth....wow....I had no idea! And now would be the time to do it too what with a potential derivative trigger being pulled in Greece on Monday and a projected much deeper US recession kicking off in the fall!

You'd be crazy not to stimulate the economy with exponential growth......I mean except for that whole "sustainability" thing and the fallacy of exponential growth in a finite system....but other than that I'm sure you've totally got the bugs worked out!

[Todd Juvinall]

Frisch wants everyone to own a car? A house made of earthen materials? A toaster in every hut? Pave millions of miles of roads to get those economies flourishing? Does he even listen to himself? Jeeze, we have all that and more and all the commie can think of is taking it and giving it those with less somewhere else. Honestly, people like him truly have a mental disorder.

All that Gregory said of Frisch is in the public record.

[Bill Tozer]

Todd, perhaps the planet would be better off without humans walking around the surface, looking like sub-particle specks from high above. After all, them humanoids are breeding like rats and are causing climate change.

http://patriotpost.us/articles/35864

[Patricia Smith]

George, June 20, 10:28 Even though we disagree on many of the causes and solutions to the pressing problems our country is facing, I respect your well thought out opinions and had hoped RR would be a springboard for finding common ground. In fact, you have influenced my perspective on a number of issues.

Unfortunately, I have come to the conclusion that it is pointless trying to have a rational discussion with the majority of your regular bloggers (there are a few exceptions to the rule). Despite your best efforts to introduce topics of importance, every post devolves into name calling and I'm right, your wrong rants. Therefore, I will not continue to add my 2 cents to any future discussions and will find ways to spend my time more productively.

Cue the hurrahs from the peanut gallery!

[George Rebane]

PatriciaS 933am - I have enjoyed your commentaries and tempered observations; and, yes, there are many areas in which we do agree on the nature of problems, and often on their solutions. I do hope that your departure really is a sabbatical, and that you'll return full of vim and vigor to argue your positions. You're a good woman Patricia.

[Gregory]

Reading through this thread's comments with Patricia's sign off in mind, I could not find one single instance of responses to her posts devolving into name calling, or anyone name calling in her direction. I suspect her frustration is more due to the lack of any support for her positions.

[Todd Juvinall]

I think my request about the ACLU defending a immigrant pedophile may have been the straw?

[Account Deleted]

I can think of many posts of Patricia's in which she has made absurd statements with no regard to reality. When I point them out, she either ignores it or attacks me for reasons that are not germane to the original statement. If she wishes to 'find common ground', I would welcome that. She is welcome to post here any time she wants as far as I'm concerned.
The whole idea of 'common ground' is a tough row to hoe.
I've heard many folks opine: "we really all want the same things"
Yet it's hard to get them to name these 'things' that we all want.
And even when we can agree to a common goal, such as an end to world hunger, I find that my opinion on the way to achieve that goal is not only not shared, but that I am quickly denounced as evil because I don't agree with other's opinion as to the solution.
Well, we can all still try.