Chaos Theory, Human Relationships and Budhhism

[SkyHigh]

As I understand it, chaos theory includes searching for order in unordered data, and includes the ideas that a tiny variation in a starting point can result in a drastic deviation over time - hence the "butterfly flapping it's wings" analagy

 

The same day I read about chaos theory, I was out with a female friend, and woke this morning thinking about our relationship, and wondering if we were on the same wavelength - "click" Chaos theory . . .

 

I considered how two people can begin a relationship feeling completely united, on the same level, or wavelength, only to part farther down the line because they have grown apart - is this the butterfly effect? If so, can we take the lessons learned from chaos theory and assume that there are far to many external factors influencing a relationship to ever feel comfortable in predicting it's outcome?

 

But then, Gran and Gramps are still together, and I doubt they know about chaos theory! So how did they make it, with all these external variables? Well, it's not where they start that has the largest effect on the outcome, it's how they change in reaction to the variables along the way. It's doing what it takes to stay on the same wavelength.

[CraigD]

Hello, SkyHigh, and welcome to hypography science forums! Please feel free to start a thread in the Introductions forum to let folk here know a bit about you and your interests.

As I understand it, chaos theory includes searching for order in unordered data, and includes the ideas that a tiny variation in a starting point can result in a drastic deviation over time - hence the "butterfly flapping it's wings" analogy

That’s a pretty good description, I think, of the essence of chaos theory. However, it’s important to note that the ”butterfly effect” (or, by its original, less catchy title, “the seagull effect”) is not intended as analogy when described by its originator, Ed Lorenz, in the 1960s. Lorenz, a mathematical meteorologist, was working on a precise mathematical technique for predicting weather, in anticipation of the availability of electronic computers that would be capable of actually carrying out the required calculations. His goal was the same one hinted at by the famous “father of the computer” John Von Neumandecades earlier – to allow precise, nearly 100% accurate computer forecasting of the weather months, years, or decades into the future. When Lorenz began his work around 1960, this was assumed a practically achievable goal, in great part due to the assumption that the flapping of bird wings, airplane propellers, and the like had little effect on the weather, and, being fairly random, tended to “cancel one another out”. What Lorenz (and others) work – which would ultimately come to be termed “chaos theory” – revealed, is that this is not the case. Rather than being canceled out by countless other small and large air movements, the air moved by a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil could result in rain in Chicago a month later. If the butterfly chose to sit a little longer before flapping its wings, no rain falls on that day a month later in Chicago!

 

The butterfly effect states not that something as small as the flapping of the wings of a butterfly could change the course of weather forever, but that things as small as the flapping of the wings of a butterfly do change the course of the weather forever.

 

A less poetic but more descriptive phrase for this is “critical sensitivity to initial conditions”.

 

Not all systems exhibit this behavior. The atmosphere, and many other complex physical systems, appear to. So, while not technically impossible, the long-term prediction of weather Von Neuman and Lorenz hoped to be able to do requires a vastly more detailed model, one that includes the ability to predict the behavior of individual butterflies and countless other small dynamics. Such a system is beyond our foreseeable ability, would likely cost more than would be gained by advanced knowledge of the weather, and possibly require so much computing hardware that it would significantly effect the weather!

 

An excellent book, suitable for technical and non-technical folk, is James Gleick’s “Chaos” http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0140092501/103-4992893-9819029.

The same day I read about chaos theory, I was out with a female friend, and woke this morning thinking about our relationship, and wondering if we were on the same wavelength - "click" Chaos theory . . .

This seems to me to be getting pretty far from the real body of work that is chaos theory. Although also difficult to predict, human behavior seems to me dominated by communication. When relationships seem to change - failing where we thought they would succeed or vice-versa - it’s in my experience usually due mostly to communication. Sometimes the communication serves to inform the partners that their preconceptions about one another were inaccurate, and they really don’t like/respect/find attractive one another as much as they first thought. More often, there’s too little, and the partners don’t satisfy their need for sharing, companionship, and intimacy.

 

Mathematical estimation techniques seem of limited use in relationships – in my experience, they’re usually the opposite of helpful ;)

[Vicarious]

Your title makes me think of the buddhabrot. I won't post any links. You're probably aware of it. Google it if you like.

[SkyHigh]

Hi,

 

I've actually never heard of buddhabrot before - a freaky coincedence! I'll read about it

 

To tell you the truth, I am out of my depth here. However when I was originally thinking my idea through, I linked it to something I read abouth buddhism, that it wasn't as much about reaching enlightenment, but the path along the way.

 

I don't have the knowledge of religion, philosophy or mathematics to back up what I was thinking, I just felt I saw some relationship between the three subjects in the title.

 

GraigD (thanks for your reply!) uses the phrase "critical sensitivity to initial conditions". I think my insight here is that whilst lorenz discovered the importance of this, successfull human relationships, and (possibly) the the "path to enlightenment", are not so concerned with initital conditions, but how varying conditions are reacted to along the way.

 

Maybe this is the secret to accurate prediction, not having 100% accurate data to input to the system, but understanding what can influence the data and how to react to these influences.

 

CraigD - I don't think predicting the outcomes of human relationships is vastly different from predicting the weather, you need to know what you are starting with (i.e the humans mental state ( a psychometric test?)) and everything that might effect this state up to a given point (the point in time where you want to predict the state, or the weather)

 

Psychometric tests can be used to assess compatibility for careers, surely they can also be used to assess relationship compatibility? The data could then be subjected to a number of equations relating to events that may happen during the course of a persons life and the resulting psychometrics compared again . . .

 

OK, there are far to many external variables influencing this, but a system that predicted the weather would also have to take in to account the possibility of external influences - global warming, volcanic activity, pollution, etc

 

As I said, way out of my depth here. Maybe if someone feels they understand where I'm coming from they can contribute. I wish I'd studied psychology as I've always been a deep thinker!

 

SH

[Turtle]

As I said, way out of my depth here. Maybe if someone feels they understand where I'm coming from they can contribute. I wish I'd studied psychology as I've always been a deep thinker!

 

SH

 

I feel I understand enough to suggest this is indeed a topic for the Philosophy Forum & not Physics/Math. As such, anybody's guess is as good as another.:phones:

[CraigD]

CraigD - I don't think predicting the outcomes of human relationships is vastly different from predicting the weather, you need to know what you are starting with (i.e the humans mental state ( a psychometric test?)) and everything that might effect this state up to a given point (the point in time where you want to predict the state, or the weather)

 

Psychometric tests can be used to assess compatibility for careers, surely they can also be used to assess relationship compatibility? The data could then be subjected to a number of equations relating to events that may happen during the course of a persons life and the resulting psychometrics compared again . . .

When I read these speculations, my first thought was that the many online dating services must have developed such tests. Surprisingly, few of the major dating services appear to use very extensive testing and matching schemes, mostly providing convenient forums for date-seekers to exchange email, and “trust brokering” – assuring customers of safety in their interactions. The wikipedia article suggests that more algorithmic “testing and matching” approaches may have actually reached their pinnacle in the 1960s and 70s.

 

One has to be very cautious with assumptions such as “Psychometric tests can be used to assess compatibility for careers”. Thought it’s well documented fact that such testing has been used in this way, particularly in the US public school system and military, how successful such programs have been is the subject of much debate, with the current prevailing consensus among psychologists that most such programs were nowhere near as effective as early proponents believed. Much of the history of modern intelligence testing (as most such programs were termed), which can be considered to have started around 1916, involved the activities of psychologist Lewis Terman. In short, although the idea that testing could be used to predict very specific outcomes such as individual’s success in particular jobs was once well accepted, it was never well supported by sound evidence, and is now widely considered among psychologists and historians to have been largely wishful thinking and experimental bias on the part of its proponents. A good, terse description of this period in the history of psychology, and of the impact of ideas about testing on society, can be found in the deceptively-titled ”How Would You Move Mount Fuji?” http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0316919160/103-4992893-9819029 (available as an e-book from several e-publishers). Although this short book focuses on employee screening practices of silicon valley companies, especially Microsoft and the “interview puzzle”, it’s perspective is broad.

 

I believe the consensus among psychotherapeutic professionals (one of them my wife), is that the best approach to relationships in one that emphasizes improving couples’ communication skills. Most, but not all, are based on a family of therapeutic approaches known as Rational Emotive Therapy (RET).

[Qfwfq]

I considered how two people can begin a relationship feeling completely united, on the same level, or wavelength, only to part farther down the line because they have grown apart - is this the butterfly effect? If so, can we take the lessons learned from chaos theory and assume that there are far to many external factors influencing a relationship to ever feel comfortable in predicting it's outcome?

In many cases there can be quite an analogy, but this is none but my own ever so humble opinion. The only way to really say, would be to find a mathematical description of the dynamics of the relationship ;) and see if it has chaotic attractors. Google that, you should find interesting stuff, if you haven't come across it following Craig's tips.