Asymmetric Warfare

In the past, it was known that irregular forces in small numbers and wide dispersion could tie down much larger regular forces. In the present day, this holds true for individuals empowered by the internet; such individuals, widely dispersed across the globe, can hold large institutions or even state-sized entities to ransom.

This is why the hammer-blows of state apparatus in any nation, or even the weaker hammer-blows of smaller institutions, are about as effective as using a hammer to defeat a cloud of gnats. You might get some, but in doing so, he who wields the hammer exposes his arm (or as that lovely archaic phrase has it, "chances his arm"). While he attempts to smash the few gnats who are not smart enough to manoeuvre out of the way, the rest will bite.

By tortuous and perambulatory ways, this leads to my thesis conclusion. It's all about governance. Who runs the show? Is it global trends, nation-building policy, state apparatus, or local authority? Is it the customer who is always right and yet often wrong? Is it the economy or is it stupid? Is it principals or principles?

The answers are all very interesting.

Asymmetrical (Redux)

Apart from information asymmetry (which the High Priest of Atlantis mentioned on Saturday night as well), there is another kind of asymmetry I've come to think about more and more. This is somatic asymmetry.

The word 'somatic' comes from Greek soma, which means 'body'. 'Psychosomatic' means 'pertaining to the link between mind and body', for example.

We're often taught that the body has bilateral symmetry; that is, the left side is a mirror image of the right. Various studies have shown that people think of symmetrical body-forms (somatotypes) as being more beautiful or aesthetically pleasing. So far, so good.

However, the body is actually asymmetrical from the beginning. Wherever the heart forms, the lung on that side becomes smaller; most people have a two-lobed left lung and a three-lobed right lung. On the side where the heart has formed, the stomach also grows; on the opposite side is the liver.

A careful look at all of your body will reveal that the body is actually casually and superficially symmetrical, but internally and on close examination slightly asymmetrical everywhere. Most people have one leg slightly shorter than the other, a preference for the right side over the left, and asymmetrical placement of organs one would think should occupy mirror-image locations. (Think of all the organs, glands etc which are paired. Now look at them and compare, where possible. You'll see this is true.)

This is consequences for many of the activities we take for granted. Our shoes wear away slightly more on one side, our musculature eventually suffers from compensating for different angles and masses on either side of the body. As the knees and other joints develop differently, the effect becomes more pronounced. By 40, most of us will be lopsided and think it perfectly normal.

It's part of diversity, I suppose. Diversity begins at home.

Asymmetrical

The concept of asymmetry is an interesting one, for one would expect it to be the natural state of a random universe. At the same time, the idea of randomness is that it should eventually be chaotic all round, and hence oddly symmetrical. The two concepts have always been at odds, sort of.

Here's an illustration. Throw 20 coins in the air and let them land randomly. Odds are that you will get 10 heads and 10 tails, right? Actually, not quite. The odds are higher that you will get a 9-11 split; that is, the combined odds of getting 9 heads and 11 tails or 9 tails and 11 heads are higher than that of the 10-10 split.

It's this phenomenon that bridge players exploit when thinking about who has what cards. If you have five cards in a suit and your partner has none, then it's more likely that of the eight remaining cards, your opponents have a 5-3 split than a 4-4 split. That dictates your pattern of play: they are more likely to run out in 3 rounds than in 4.

The universe, paradoxically, is like that. The average is like a 10-10 split, but the reality is normally a 9-11 split out of 20 coins.

=====

Meanwhile, elsewhere, THIS is a brilliant idea. Jane Austen and the undead, all in one. Wow, what a classic!

The Asymmetry Of Evil

This afternoon one of my favourite colleagues got me thinking about one of my least favourite topics. She was telling me about literary analysis that wasn't quite literary enough, and about something to do with the nature of evil.

And then it hit me: good and evil, just like yes and no, are asymmetric. They are not symmetrical opposites at all.

Evil can be defined in terms of the commission of evil deeds and the omission of good deeds that one might have done.

Good can be defined only in terms of the commission of good deeds. The omission of evil deeds that one might have done but failed to do is seldom thought of as good, but as default behaviour.

It is therefore easier to be evil than to be good. Perhaps it is the effort that one puts into being good which defines good, humanly speaking. It is too easy to put effort into doing evil; perhaps it is too easy to do evil by not doing anything at all.

And then it becomes obvious: evil is only defined in terms of deviation from good, and not vice versa. This is the true asymmetry of it all.