Doctrine of the Mean

If we wikipedia "Doctrine of the Mean", we will find some information related to the wisdom of doing things in a median manner in our daily life.

\* sleep too little --> too tired the next day; too much --> wasting time.

\* eat too little --> malnutrition; too much --> harming our digestive systems.

\* relationship-wise, too close --> breeding contempt; too far --> drifting away.

Question: Are we able to identify an attribute that indeed convincingly absolutely violates Doctrine of the Mean?

Constraints: Only this real world today on Earth is considered, not the Utopia where no law is needed (hence zero law is the best), nor on a planet where no hurricanes nor earthquakes take place (hence zero hurricane/earthquake is the best)

me? all three! also, how about:

work too much '-->drink too much-->hang over

I follow the maxim
"All things in Moderation" and that includes "moderation". I think that I am entitled to the occasional fling!

And obviously we do not live in an ideal world. We have "mere reality" intruding far too often into the important realm of "cardboard and counters" :-)

I'm 67 now and I've had my share of "too much" and "too little" in quite a number of areas. Barring coffee and marihuana, I've learned that, generally speaking, moderation works for me. I'm no longer particularly inclined to pay the price for excessive behaviour.

As for the question, I'd be surprised if such attributes would fail to emerge (I'm not intrigued quite enough to find one off the top of my head). Life is complicated and no strategy fits all occasions every time. I fear this holds for the doctrine of the mean as well.

In any game with partial information, for which there is Nash equilibrium, you lose some value if you prevent yourself to do some possible moves like "min-betting", "limping" or "showing".

So there are situations where not going "all-in" is a mistake...

Is life such a game? Biology tells us that evolution is such a game (if you believe in it).

Dr. S. - You need the alcoholics' gene. All the drinking you want, no hangovers the next day. Ever[*]. (So no negative feedback, and no incentive not to do the same thing night after night after night...)

Oh, and then you need to move to Eastern Europe where alcohol is really cheap.

I have no idea what makes me an expert in such things, I must have heard it on the radio. ;-)

[\* Not quite true, I did have a headache in the morning once in the last 10 years, but that may have been because Anna was trying to either wake me up or put me to sleep by hitting me over the head with a frying pan. I'm not sure, I wasn't there at the time.]

And David - "*everything* in moderation" demands that one does extremes in moderation too, as well as moderation.

What does it mean to be too tired? To do what? What does it mean to waste time? Laying in the bed usually is not wasted time. The question is _why_ you did not go to bed early: Because you had a very interesting talk in a bar? Congratulation, that is called 'life'!

Life, loathe it or ignore it, you can't like it!

Thank you all, Doctor_Strange, David, Christian, Carroll, and Fatphil.

So, we may think that too much happiness or too much success is not beneficial to us? If it is not, why do many of us pursue these two attributes all the way without stopping?

Thank you two, too, for your comments, richyfourtytwo and Mirko Rahn. :)

Wasn't it Lucy in Peanuts who once put the question in her own particular way?

'Why has there to be ups and downs! Why can't we have all ups? Why isn't there an up and then a upper-up, and then . . . ?' (Charlie Brown walks away sighing).

Dear Christian,

Let us tell Lucy that assume that we are able to have one wife, one house, and one Mercedes today, 2 of each in 2015, and so on. Very soon, however, we will realize that our lives will not sustain too long to enjoy them all. So, we will start feeling depressed. This mentality was exactly what happened to the First Emperor of China. He sent 400 boys and girls to an eastern island in search of immortal herbs. Did anybody know if he found those herbs?

Of course he did, Tim! And he now controls the world through his associates in Illuminati and the Freemasons, you know.

Personally, I'd say knowledge. I really don't see how too much of that can be a bad thing, although I know others would disagree. Or maybe even ACCESS to knowledge is sufficient, actually.

Speaking of Freemasons, religious people may deems that faith could be an attribute, which it is beneficial for them to maximize?

Regarding knowledge, hmmmm..., did Bill Gates receive his Ph. D. degree? Had he done that, he might have thought: Microsoft? Nah, too risky. The market is not ready for it yet. It is safer for me to be a professor teaching computer science.  :)

And the world would have had to pass a few years without Windows and embrace Linux earlier.

Dear ypercube,

  I had a hunch that somebody would complain about Windows and exalt Linux. And my hunch came true.

  If everybody is as knowledgeable as you are, your employer may not need you any more. Isn't that bad? So, here we declare that "knowledge" also obeys Doctrine of the Mean. :)

I disagree, Tim. Primarily because I was talking about knowledge for ME. Knowledge for OTHERS may, I admit, sometimes be negative for me.

As for the Microsoft example: Suppose you were right about your statement that it had a really small chance of success. Then yes, I think knowing that would indeed be an advantage. Just because someone wins the lottery, doesn't mean that it's a bad idea to know that on average you'll end up losing.

Case A:  knowledgeable Marius, knowing that the probability of winning the lottery jackpot is 10^-7. At the lottery stand, he shakes his head, and leaves.

Case B: ignorant Tim, thinking that the probability is 10^-2. At the lottery stand, he buys a ticket, and leaves. Later, that ticket wins the jackpot (Microsoft equivalently) .

My comment: Can't we assume that Tim's ignorance does benefit him? ypercube carried on by stating that Tim's jackpot winning is not beneficial to the society. I tend to agree with his statement.

But according to Marius, in case A the protagonist is Marius, not the society. In case B the protagonist is Tim, not the society, either.

Therefore, I agree with YOU, too, Marius. Actually, I am a nice guy (or a yesman), agreeing with YOU and ypercube both.

It is ypercube whom you do not agree with, not me. :)

Why do I feel that I have become Seinfeld in his TV sitcom?

I don't think ignorance can ever be a good thing. Not for Tim (as he will lose/gamble the lottery money in no time due to his ignorance, and on the long term he will actually be much sadder after winning the lottery than before) and not for me (since ignorant people generally make poor choices, which may impact me). Ignorance makes the world worse, and I guess this may be the attribute you're looking for. ;)

To optimize means to give away freedom.

"Doctrine of the Mean"

Isn't that what the "Trickle Down Theory" is? The rich man's potty is the poor man's bowl of stew. Now that is a mean doctrine. :-(

Thank you for your responses, jytou, Mirko, and David.

It seems to me that ignorance (I) is roughly the reciprocal of knowledge (K). i. e. I = c1/K.  So, it is sufficient to discuss about one of the two.

K seems to obey Doctrine of the Mean when it is subject to the constraint that we live on earth (please refer to my 1st post). There are 24 hours a day and 365 days a year for all of us. Hence, if we strive to gain knowledge, inevitably we will sacrifice time to exercise our brains for deep, independent thinking. Many of graduate students around me spend too much of their time in reading literature papers and learning others' concepts and techniques. They end up becoming like a knowledgeable copying machine. It is difficult for their research work to be published in tier-one journals.

In short, if I were able to live for 2000 years, I would spend much time in gaining knowledge. Because I am not able to, I prefer to remain half ignorant and half knowledgeable. :)

Ah, entropy of our universe may defy Doctrine of the Mean. It increases all the time.

I think that having more knowledge is always a good thing. But spending more time to gain knowledge is not necessarily a good thing. I thought you were asking if there is something that it would always be better to have more of, since the latter is rather trivial. Spend time on only one thing, and you can't spend time on eating or sleeping - and you'll soon end up dead.

Marius, how do we achieve "having more knowledge" without spending more time? If you know how, please kindly teach me. :)

Ah, you think that "spending more time to gain knowledge is not necessarily a good thing" is rather trivial? When many of graduate students around me encounter questions or difficulties, the very first thing they do is to search the literature. It did not seem to occur to them that, instead, "trying to think first" might be more beneficial to them.

Regardless, you did make a valid point.