Uncertainty: three ways to think

We all know that the future will be different from the past, and with that difference comes uncertainty. Science and experts cannot eradicate this uncertainty, and though they can help us with useful information, ultimately we have to make our own decisions.

In the face of uncertainty, all our decisions will be trials with varying chances of a positive outcome, but three attributes will increase our chances of success: (a) realistic knowledge, (b) thinking intelligence, and (c) emotional intelligence.

Realistic Knowledge

Richard Feynman, a theoretical physicist and Nobel laureate, described the work of scientists by the following words: “Science is like sex: sometimes something useful comes out, but that is not the reason we are doing it”.

Of course, it’s good when science creates a useful surprise. However, idealised laws, absolute logic, and perfect symmetries are Platonic concepts that are not only different from real sex, they can also sometimes lead to unhelpful surprises. This Platonic elegance captivates sciences away from the reality of fundamental randomness, ignoring effects such as friction forces, noisy data, and—in general—unpredictability. For example, Newton’s laws of motion don't provide the information that cars utilise more than 50% of fuel consumption to overcome friction forces. Attracted by the elegance of Newton’s laws, scientists shy away from the inelegance of empirical knowledge about specific friction forces, but engineers must use this knowledge to design reliable cars because no surprise on the road is elegant.

Another example of idealised science is the theory that all carbon atoms obey the same general laws of physics and chemistry. If this were true, we would be able to grow perfect diamond jewels by utilising these laws. In reality, every diamond grain has its own distribution of inevitable defects in the crystal order, and every carbon atom exhibits unique jiggling of its electrons, protons, and neutrons. When we grow artificial diamonds, all we can do is set the growth condition by supplying a gas with carbon atoms at a certain pressures in a heated furnace. The gas molecules fluctuate randomly and the first structures they make on the surface of the growing crystal are worthless. Ernest Hemingway famously once remarked “the first draft of anything is shit” and it’s an analogy that applies to this chemical process of diamond making. The atomic structures that do not fit in the crystal order are short lived, and it takes many short-lived attempts before the random shuffling of carbon atoms locks most of them into the stable structure of the growing crystal.

Therefore, whether we think of crystals or Hemingway’s writing, the conclusion is the same, the beauty of the finished product is not made by elegant processes but by a messy trial-and-error method. That’s because nature is not governed by perfect laws of physics, it evolves by trial-and-error processes.

The implication of this realistic knowledge for decision making is that you shouldn’t rely on the scientific certainty of idealised knowledge. When someone claims knowledge of proven science—or proven track record from the past—you shouldn’t hear “proven success in the future”. The certainty of facts is in the past, not in the future. Yes, doing more of the same does work, but only as long as the relevant conditions remain stable. However, differences become the key when the conditions change. Any rigid knowledge—no matter how complex and detailed—will fail us in the future, even if it worked well in the past.

Thinking Intelligence

If a trial and error method is best suited to deal with uncertainty, then we need to consider how we think about differences. Often, we tend to take the easy way out and act according to similarities with known scenarios from the past. These fast decisions and actions often miss or ignore differences in new scenarios, and frequently turn into avoidable errors and, sometimes, missed opportunities.

Describing his discovery of penicillin, Alexander Fleming provides an historic example of a missed opportunity. According to Fleming, he was not the first to stumble upon the effect of destructed bacterial colonies by Penicillium mould (this happened when one of his culture plates accidentally grew mould while Fleming was on a summer vacation). He makes the following statement in a paper recounting his discovery:

“It is certain that every bacteriologist has not once but many times had culture plates contaminated with moulds”.

For Fleming, this made it probable that some bacteriologists had noticed suppressed bacterial growth around contaminating mould well before he observed this phenomenon on September 28, 1928. However, in the absence of knowledge that mould could kill bacteria, these bacteriologists did not analyse the unexpected observations. If they did, it would’ve been the first step of a thinking process. They would’ve looked at this unexpected effect differently, and perhaps realised that it could potentially prevent death from common bacterial infections. Instead, they discarded the contaminated cultures as failed experiments.

Paying attention to the differences in a new situation distinguishes thinking intelligence from the fast but often flawed application of established knowledge.

Emotional Intelligence

Fleming was fortunate because he was on the lookout for new bacterial inhibitors, and he studied and published his discovery. However, he did not develop it into a clinical antibiotic. This happened a couple of decades later, following a focused and persistent effort by Howard Florey, a pathology professor at Oxford University. Florey managed to convince an international and diverse group of people, academic institutions, and companies to work on the development of a process for large-scale penicillin production. This approach was holistic in the sense of its ability to integrate diverse knowledge and to create more than the sum of individual contributions. However, he had to tap into the self-interest of Merck, a large pharmaceutical company, for the eventual success.

The constituting units of a holistic group look after their own interest, but in a way that serves the interests of others in the group as well. This is the concept of enlightened self-interest, which is the core element of emotional intelligence. Contemporary scholarship considers emotional intelligence as the ability to observe the feelings of others and, accordingly, to control one’s own emotions and actions. However, this doesn’t exclude the ability to manipulate people for self-interest that is detrimental to others in the group. The ability to play on what is called “the dark side of emotional intelligence” is not emotionally intelligent because it’s guided by shortsightedness and, in the long term, destructive self-interest.

Google’s Executive Chairman and former CEO, Eric Schmidt, was alluding to enlightened self-interest when he said that “managers serve the team”. As a manager, you have to serve both the superiors and your team but—let’s be honest—you wouldn’t do it without some personal interest. And it doesn’t help to hide your own interests, pretending a kind of pure altruistic service. Nobody will believe it. If the people in your team have to guess your interests, you cannot allay their cynicism. On the other hand, if they see that your interests are aligned with theirs, you will receive much more than lean responses to your requests. They will trust you and will feel safe to ask questions and will be motivated to communicate ideas. This type of emotional intelligence is critical in workplaces and teams that find themselves in a constantly changing environment and facing an uncertain future.

If we can avoid relying on what’s worked in the past, learn how to spot and understand difference and deploy emotional intelligence, the end result will be achievements beyond the limits of our plans, and the teams we manage and work in will be more than the sum of its members.

Sima Dimitrijev is a Professor in the School of Engineering and Built Environment at Griffith University, and the Deputy Director of Queensland Micro- and Nanotechnology Centre. He is the lead author of Trial, Error, and Success: 10 Insight into Realistic Knowledge, Thinking, and Emotional Intelligence and also the author of two textbooks on semiconductor devices. As a researcher, he has led many research and development projects, funded by industry, governments, and venture-capital investors. He has published more than 190 research papers in more than 40 different journals.

Visit Sima's Griffith Experts page here