The curse of one-sidedness

The line of least resistance is built on simplicity, which is most easily generated by one-sidedness. Doing as if is simple when you only consider one variant. However, even simplified circumstances have multiple leverage points – the involved people, things, influencing factors, and unpredictabilities. If we take two protagonists, we get two default positions. More participants also increase the potential relationships. The simplifying one-sidedness hides these manifold constellations and their consequences. A logical balancing of the exponentially growing relations is no longer possible. Like with the limited view on a billiard table through a telescope, the overview gets lost. Fine details of a billiard ball become visible. Still, all other balls, their positions to each other, and the hypothetical interaction remain hidden – not to mention the unpredictable variety of consequences.

What are the reasons that diversity cannot be perceived and processed?

  • The starting point determines the consequence
    Each ball’s position on the playing field determines the further course and the type and strength of the impact, and the involvement of the other balls and the cushion. To precisely determine these factors and to relate them to each other is hopeless. However, experienced players can perceive the current state so that they can find the best possible shot. Looking at one ball one-sidedly is likely to lead to random, unintended consequences.
  • The next point again becomes a starting point
    After the shot is before the shot, since each time a new situation evolves, which is just as open as the starting point. This makes the game a series of manifold circumstances, which can only be roughly anticipated. Every push is made based on the current state of affairs and the respective perspectives – for playing billiards, the participants circle the table to find intuitively the best place for the shot. The players would be one-sided if they always acted from the same location, which almost always forecloses the best possible shot.
  • The number of starting points depends on the number of circumstances
    The selected game type regulates which and how many balls are shot. This influences the constellations upon the table. The scope of action results from the size of the table and the reach of the players. Together this leads to the starting points that can be considered. One-sidedness limits this number from the outset – for example, if a player only plays from one side, only takes one ball into account, and ignores the interaction with the cushion and the other balls.
  • The number of possible outcomes increases exponentially
    The sequence of initial situations, the strength, and the spin of the shot lead to an infinite number of achievable results – the balls’ paths and twists, the following halts of each ball, the points made, etc. The longer the game lasts, the more possible results emerge. Low expectations can be seen by one-sidedness. Decisions based on simplified outcomes increase unintended consequences.
  • The best possible result needs intuition
    Evolving measurement technology allows ever finer positioning that could lead to better predictions. Unfortunately, the butterfly’s flapping has taught us that subtle differences in the initial situation can lead to unpredictable consequences. For this reason, Billiard players continuously move around the table observing, changing their point of view to grasp the current situation holistically. Their experience provides them intuitively with the best impact direction and intensity. Unimaginativeness relies on measured data, logic and needs comprehensible justifications. To one-sidedness, intuition remains hidden.

Bottom line: The simplifying one-sidedness limits the scope of action. The starting positions and the number of observable facts, as well as possible results, are excluded. Simultaneously, such a simplification prevents an intuitive approach by relying on a few logical arguments. The consequence is inadequate solutions for wicked problems. However, since solutions must always be adapted to the complexity of the difficulties to be reliably effective, one-sidedness is inevitably doomed to failure – unless coincidences help.