On Premature Optimization

[sdi]

In the study of algorithms, one is always, always concerned with efficiency: is this algorithm the best possible? But, of course, the question is: "best at what?" And what we find over and over again is that it is impossible to be the best at everything.

Usually, one cares about how fast your algorithm is, or how short your algorithm is, or how easy to change your algorithm is, or how didactic your algorithm is. But, often, improvement at any of these comes at a cost to all of the others! So one must be very clear on what it is they care about, and why they pursue it.

Yesterday, temporaryreality made an offhand comment about pursuing a balanced life, which was a surprising goal to me: would not one rather pursue being optimal at something? But then I realize that, often, one who is designing an algorithm is not yet sure how it will be used, and it is extremely wasteful to try to make your program fast if it is only rarely run, or didactic if nobody is ever going to look at it. We call this kind of thing premature optimization. It's considered good to start by making your algorithm a jack-of-all-trades unless you're sure exactly how it's going to be used.

And so temporaryreality is quite right that pursuing balance is a valuable goal. Indeed, I think it should be the default goal, for most people, most of the time.

Comments

[temporaryreality]

I might also add that I come at this from a perspective influenced by Taoism and the Yijing and so I perceive balance not as a static moment but a poised equilibrium of potential and inevitable change/readjustment/reattainment.

Also, this notion is very much inspired by my assessment of my own "imbalances" - I tend toward air and get lost in the clouds, gravitate toward water and its connection with meaning, but am frequently befuddled by fire (hang back, am unsure of my desires, and flow downhill or disperse completely) which makes it hard for my meaning-making to be manifested through earth.

But perhaps my comment reflects my very imbalance (I struggle with "I want optimal, but optimal what?" and then turn to look at the big picture from air's height) and so this algorithm might mimic that.

[sdi]

I think you've hit the nail on the head. Normally I'd strive to use the appropriate energy for a situation—but what's appropriate for me isn't what's necessarily appropriate for you, as we have different assets, experiences, etc. And what's appropriate for me in one situation isn't necessarily what's appropriate for me in another!

Chuang Tzu said this one best, I think:

Chuang Tzu and Hui Tzu were walking together, when Hui Tzu pointed to a tree by the side of the road and said, “Here, look at this tree: it’s so twisted that you couldn’t cut a straight board from it, and so knotted that it would be impossible to work with. No carpenter would even give it a second look. Your teachings are like that tree: big and useless. That’s why everybody ignores them.”

Chuang Tzu replied, “What sort of things would you consider useful? How about a wildcat: brutally efficient at stalking its prey, leaping this way and that; but for all the ground it covers, it’s that much more likely to get caught in a trap and die. Perhaps a mighty yak, then: big and strong as a thundercloud, no trap could ever capture it; but if your house was infested with mice, you’d be wishing for the wildcat!

“As for that tree, it might not be useful to a carpenter, but I’d love to relax beside it and take a nap in it’s shade. Besides, no axe will ever shorten it’s life. If it’s ‘useless,’ then what can cause it harm?”

Be an ugly tree when you need to be an ugly tree. Be a wildcat when you need to be a wildcat. Be a yak when you need to be a yak. Good advice, but a difficult lesson to apply in the moment...

[deketemoisont]

From a Heraclitean, Daoist, or Darwinian standpoint, given that the only constant is change, you should be always ready to change where you stand, which is easier if your default stance is central; your elements should be usually balanced (as possible) so that you can have any imbalance of your preference when useful instead of being shackled to the inclinations usual (only sometimes "useful") to you.

I'll also mention Stephen "Edred Thorsson" Flowers, who described his research methods, and "Odian" behavior, as "bipolar": in research, a completely objective and a completely subjective phase, the results of which are then joined, and behaviors which can be either very traditional or very individualistic, as makes sense to someone with sufficient discernment. (And I think you *can* read this right in the myths about Odhinn without needing much modernist interpretation - unlike with myths about most other deities?)

I'll go ahead and assume loudly that jprussell would have useful stuff to say here as well.

[sdi]

It occurs to me that "adaptability", "centrality", and "Odin" are all Mercurial. But, of course, we are not all born with positive Mercuries—for example, mine is in very bad shape—and I have a hard time believing that divinity would condemn some people to be fundamentally incapable of improving themselves in the best way possible for them. (Plotinus talks about Providence quite a bit, for example.)

That is to say, as time has gone on, I'm not sure anything I said above is necessarily applicable. It is a nice ideal but I wonder how often it works out in practice. I think we should just trust in Providence and recognize that some people are good at adaptability and others are good as pursuing their track come hell or high water, or what have you.

[deketemoisont]

One might say that, if one uses 9-planet astrology (you don't, right?), Ódhinn is Uranian. But that's not the point - it occurs that, if the only constant is change, which planetary characteristics are favored should change with time too - so being Mercurial works best *sometimes*.

[sdi]

you don't [use 9-planet astrology], right?

Correct: on the theory side, I've been studying Hellenistic astrology (er, had been until Neoplatonism devoured me); and on the practice side, I've never seen or talked with any of the outer planets and so have no personal experience of them at all. For all I know, they might be an elaborate hoax by the Voyager project!


if the only constant is change, which planetary characteristics are favored should change with time too

This seems to me to be a nice, concise statement of why reincarnation gives you a new natal chart periodically!

[deketemoisont]

"(er, had been until Neoplatonism devoured me)" - from out here, it looks like being inside Neoplatonism's ample belly *will* make you better at Hellenistic astrology!

"For all I know, they might be an elaborate hoax by the Voyager project!" - kek!

The reincarnation comment makes *a lot* of sense - though it seems by no means guaranteed that it gives you the natal chart *best* adapated to the current circumstances!

[sdi]

from out here, it looks like being inside Neoplatonism's ample belly *will* make you better at Hellenistic astrology!

Ha! Thank you, I think that's both true and false—Plotinus, for example, was known for being a devoted student of the theory of astrology but not the practice: he had mastered the philosophical system (and if it didn't inform his philosophy it certainly dovetails with it nicely!)—but never, ever cast charts! He talks about why in the last section of this essay—if you level-up in the "mysticism" skill-tree far enough, you get to a point where you just stop caring what happens to your body. After all, it's not you and you're on to bigger and better things soon anyhow.


though it seems by no means guaranteed that it gives you the natal chart *best* adapated to the current circumstances!

Didn't I just link you to two long essays on Providence upthread? ;) For my own part, I am convinced that It is just.