# The Nadir of Existence By:: [[Ross Jackson]] 2022-10-09 Economics and analytics focus almost exclusively on optimization. Making things the best they can be is a worthy goal in many cases. Sometimes one wants to minimize a function (often costs). Applied analytics explores marginal paths toward extremes. In thinking about this perspective, it sometimes seems that humans are located at the nadir of existence. In terms of conscious [[intelligence]] and thinking, humans appear to be simultaneously too smart and too [[stupid]] to live well. Human history is filled with epic stories of human ingenuity and folly. Often these are framed as individual merits or flaws rather than dual aspects of the human condition. Humans have achieved amazing technological advancements. In terms of weapons, gadgets, machines, and devices humans have advanced due to the power of human thought. In terms of how to find joy in life, we seem to have progressed very little. At the start of the “let’s make things” phase of human existence, there was an implicit belief that technological advancement would unlock existential growth. By making things easier we would be making things better. Humans would have more time to pursue their passions and there would be less competition for resources among individuals and nations. It was a reasonable theory and undoubtedly worth a try. Enough data have been collected to start to question the validity of this theory. Have time-saving devices (e.g., washing machines, microwave ovens, personal computers, virtual assistants, etc.) made life more restful? This is an empirical question and lends itself to analysis. If anything, life seems to be increasingly chaotic. If so, there is a benefit derived from asking why this might be. Analytics is a powerful tool. Through its application, one can examine elements individually and collectively to determine optimal solutions…in theory. These results will be tested by reality. Part of humans being situated at the nadir of existence is that we seem just smart enough to do those things, but not nearly smart enough to change our thinking when data run contrary to our beliefs. We pursue advancements, at least in theory, to make things better. Are things better? In many ways, yes. In the one way that might matter most (our human connections to a meaningful existence), the answer might be no. This isn’t the fault of analytics or those who have applied it in the past; at least not necessarily. It points to the crux of persistent human failure. Letting go of our most cherished beliefs which seem to be false is one of the most challenging and painful things humans can do. We don’t like it, and we don’t tend to do it. Often, we would rather be consistent than accurate. Analysts, at their best, hold no dogmas. All we can do constructively as humans are a) develop theories, b) test them against reality, and c) be honest about what we observe. We are smart enough to do the first two steps with wild abandon. Outside of the laboratory, we don’t seem anywhere near smart enough to do that critical last step with any degree of persistence and effect. In the nadir of existence, we are unable to let go of what we know to be false-to-facts. #### Related Items [[Analytics]] [[Economics]] [[Existential]] [[Optimization]] [[Beliefs]] [[Folly]] [[Truth]] [[Data]]