Normalization "is any process that makes something more normal," which begs the question, "What constitutes normality?" an endlessly debatable (and debated) topic. Nevertheless, normalization "typically means conforming to some regularity or rule, or returning from some state of abnormality. It has specific meanings in various fields," including quantum mechanics, probability theory, economics, sociology, statistics, and many others.
In the specialized field of investment risk/reward strategy, there are at least four very basic concepts: asset allocation, diversification, cost averaging, and rebalancing. The latter simply refers to the periodic reversion of a portfolio to a predefined set of asset allocations, something like 65% stocks, 30% bonds, and 5% money market funds. Thus, rebalancing is a form of normalization, a process of buying and selling various assets in a portfolio that brings it back to its prescribed allocation rule, 65/30/5 in the forgoing example. The advantage of this particular application of the normalization concept is that, on average, one ends up buying low and selling high, the very essence of successful investing.
It is well known that normalization has important applications in many technical disciplines. But what about those human activities that do not easily conform to various organizational principles? For example, what about that morass of human emotions known as relationships? One could spend a lifetime of failed relationships reading the literature, both fiction and that which purports to be non-fiction, and never really get one's arms around the problem (so to speak). Could a technical concept like normalization yield beneficial results in this realm of human endeavor that has proven so elusive to attempts at formalization? Perhaps.
Let me state at the outset that I am not so presumptuous as to suggest I have a solution to a problem that has vexed humanity forever. My objective is very modest and somewhat subtle. I hope to outline an application of the principle of normalization that could render workable an otherwise unworkable situation.
First and foremost, one must recognize that at the heart of every troubled relationship is a disparity of interest in it. This is, unfortunately, the prevailing state of affairs in virtually all relationships, for the simple reason that nature abhors perfection, a colloquial restatement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Complete bliss in a relationship would require, at the very least, complete parity of interest in a relationship of two individuals, which even in that never never land of Holyshitwood movies would still correspond to unstable equilibrium. That is to say, even if complete parity could be achieved, it could not last very long --- life gets in the way, and disparity sets in almost immediately.
Perhaps it becomes apparent where I am going with this. Normalization of interest in the relationship, with parity as the ideal objective, is my proposed strategy for making a relationship last at some level of intimacy acceptable to both participants. But there is a complication, naturally. The two individuals can not both be actively attempting to normalize their relationship. One must be active; the other must be passive. Otherwise, they will most likely act at cross purposes (another consequence of the Second Law).
The key to overcoming the complication is identifying which partner's interest in their relationship exceeds the other's. Ordinarily, this is intuitively obvious to both. That partner must assume the role of active normalizer, because that individual, the one whose interest exceeds his partner's, can not force his partner's interest to increase. But he (or she, of course) may (timshel) take normalization measures to reduce his own interest to a level that is on par with his partner's.
So, what I propose as a reasonable strategy for a successful two-person relationship is: an awareness by both individuals of the dynamic nature of their relationship; a cyclical (at some reasonable time period) assessment of the disparity of interest between them (the disparity will continue to fluctuate because the equilibrium is unstable); and corrective action by the designated normalizer within a given cycle. It's not perfect, by any means. But perhaps it can be termed "a living." Finally, I caution you not to attempt a generalization to more than two people (i.e., "do not try this at home" if more than two people are involved). The addition of just one more individual makes it a 3-body problem, as it is known in the trade, which is orders of magnitude more complex (read "chaotic"). For a more comprehensive disclaimer, read my "Ass Coverage", below.
In the specialized field of investment risk/reward strategy, there are at least four very basic concepts: asset allocation, diversification, cost averaging, and rebalancing. The latter simply refers to the periodic reversion of a portfolio to a predefined set of asset allocations, something like 65% stocks, 30% bonds, and 5% money market funds. Thus, rebalancing is a form of normalization, a process of buying and selling various assets in a portfolio that brings it back to its prescribed allocation rule, 65/30/5 in the forgoing example. The advantage of this particular application of the normalization concept is that, on average, one ends up buying low and selling high, the very essence of successful investing.
It is well known that normalization has important applications in many technical disciplines. But what about those human activities that do not easily conform to various organizational principles? For example, what about that morass of human emotions known as relationships? One could spend a lifetime of failed relationships reading the literature, both fiction and that which purports to be non-fiction, and never really get one's arms around the problem (so to speak). Could a technical concept like normalization yield beneficial results in this realm of human endeavor that has proven so elusive to attempts at formalization? Perhaps.
Let me state at the outset that I am not so presumptuous as to suggest I have a solution to a problem that has vexed humanity forever. My objective is very modest and somewhat subtle. I hope to outline an application of the principle of normalization that could render workable an otherwise unworkable situation.
First and foremost, one must recognize that at the heart of every troubled relationship is a disparity of interest in it. This is, unfortunately, the prevailing state of affairs in virtually all relationships, for the simple reason that nature abhors perfection, a colloquial restatement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Complete bliss in a relationship would require, at the very least, complete parity of interest in a relationship of two individuals, which even in that never never land of Holyshitwood movies would still correspond to unstable equilibrium. That is to say, even if complete parity could be achieved, it could not last very long --- life gets in the way, and disparity sets in almost immediately.
Perhaps it becomes apparent where I am going with this. Normalization of interest in the relationship, with parity as the ideal objective, is my proposed strategy for making a relationship last at some level of intimacy acceptable to both participants. But there is a complication, naturally. The two individuals can not both be actively attempting to normalize their relationship. One must be active; the other must be passive. Otherwise, they will most likely act at cross purposes (another consequence of the Second Law).
The key to overcoming the complication is identifying which partner's interest in their relationship exceeds the other's. Ordinarily, this is intuitively obvious to both. That partner must assume the role of active normalizer, because that individual, the one whose interest exceeds his partner's, can not force his partner's interest to increase. But he (or she, of course) may (timshel) take normalization measures to reduce his own interest to a level that is on par with his partner's.
So, what I propose as a reasonable strategy for a successful two-person relationship is: an awareness by both individuals of the dynamic nature of their relationship; a cyclical (at some reasonable time period) assessment of the disparity of interest between them (the disparity will continue to fluctuate because the equilibrium is unstable); and corrective action by the designated normalizer within a given cycle. It's not perfect, by any means. But perhaps it can be termed "a living." Finally, I caution you not to attempt a generalization to more than two people (i.e., "do not try this at home" if more than two people are involved). The addition of just one more individual makes it a 3-body problem, as it is known in the trade, which is orders of magnitude more complex (read "chaotic"). For a more comprehensive disclaimer, read my "Ass Coverage", below.
No comments:
Post a Comment