Well my thesis of this continuing onward and upward at least until earnings shows it hand, is still in tact. Now, whether it's true or not...
SO.....the week that was:
I included back to the 5th to show the beginning of this most recent leg-up and how for the most part it's just been walking up a trend line. Whereas the last two weeks we finished below the weekly pivots, we knew that couldn't last. IWM was hemmed in by the Weekly R1. The SPY got hung up on a fibonacci extension I'm tracking and finished the week on the Weekly R2 to the penny. The finnies finished the week basically oscillating around yesterday's pivot, touching support at the swing high of 3/15-old resistance becomes new support. The VXX finished at the monthly S1-there is no fear in this market (repeat after me). The central banks will keep printing. As a matter of fact, they likely can't stop printing....ever.
Regarding earnings...so far they haven't been stellar. I'm not tracking stats per se, but not hearing alot good so far, and of course it is early, but the market isn't selling and as I said...no fear. BIG pomo day on Monday, big two weeks in earnings coming up, so unless N Korea does something drastic, no reason not to expect new highs on Monday. Oh, call me paranoid, but keep your accounts small...Cypress was the beginning.
Anyway, the week that is:
Confirmation Bias...I've been seeing a bit written about that lately, which made me think of something I have written for the next book on which I am working. Well the second next book on which I am working, the first next book is much further along, and a bit more esoteric....but, I digress. So, in killing two birds with one stone (maybe 3 actually) I get to: 1. stroke my ego, 2. Provide a very old, eastern view on confirmation bias, and 3....well, maybe it was just two.
SO.....the week that was:
I included back to the 5th to show the beginning of this most recent leg-up and how for the most part it's just been walking up a trend line. Whereas the last two weeks we finished below the weekly pivots, we knew that couldn't last. IWM was hemmed in by the Weekly R1. The SPY got hung up on a fibonacci extension I'm tracking and finished the week on the Weekly R2 to the penny. The finnies finished the week basically oscillating around yesterday's pivot, touching support at the swing high of 3/15-old resistance becomes new support. The VXX finished at the monthly S1-there is no fear in this market (repeat after me). The central banks will keep printing. As a matter of fact, they likely can't stop printing....ever.
Regarding earnings...so far they haven't been stellar. I'm not tracking stats per se, but not hearing alot good so far, and of course it is early, but the market isn't selling and as I said...no fear. BIG pomo day on Monday, big two weeks in earnings coming up, so unless N Korea does something drastic, no reason not to expect new highs on Monday. Oh, call me paranoid, but keep your accounts small...Cypress was the beginning.
Anyway, the week that is:
Confirmation Bias...I've been seeing a bit written about that lately, which made me think of something I have written for the next book on which I am working. Well the second next book on which I am working, the first next book is much further along, and a bit more esoteric....but, I digress. So, in killing two birds with one stone (maybe 3 actually) I get to: 1. stroke my ego, 2. Provide a very old, eastern view on confirmation bias, and 3....well, maybe it was just two.
Anyway, some of you may know that I have a formal, lineage background in the Taoist disciplines-20+ years of continuing study under a master. The following, as it stands will be the first chapter in the logical follow-up to Essence of Tao, and it's brother text Truth of Tao.
I realize it says "81" at the top, but just go with it. Now, this chapter is a larger look at confirmation bias in life, and literally how it has played out even in the translations of The Tao Te Ching. Because it is of a philosophical nature, the discourse can be a bit on the academically dense side. Of course, "dense" is a commonly applied adjective to describe me, and I'm not sure it's meant in a flattering light.
I realize it says "81" at the top, but just go with it. Now, this chapter is a larger look at confirmation bias in life, and literally how it has played out even in the translations of The Tao Te Ching. Because it is of a philosophical nature, the discourse can be a bit on the academically dense side. Of course, "dense" is a commonly applied adjective to describe me, and I'm not sure it's meant in a flattering light.
By the way, Vad's course A Taoist Trader is based on the aforementioned texts. He didn't just go off and make it up as he went along because he liked the material he read. I spent many an hour busting his balls about it all along the way so that he understood the source material around which he developed the course...now THAT, was fun ;-).
One more thing, you will notice that I talk about verse 5 in the following text. When you read that verse, think of which translation most represents the environment in which a trader operates... ;-)
One more thing, you will notice that I talk about verse 5 in the following text. When you read that verse, think of which translation most represents the environment in which a trader operates... ;-)
81.
True
words are not fine-sounding;
Fine-sounding words are not true.
A good man does not argue;
he who argues is not a good man.
the wise one does not know many things;
He who knows many things is not wise.
Fine-sounding words are not true.
A good man does not argue;
he who argues is not a good man.
the wise one does not know many things;
He who knows many things is not wise.
The
Sage does not accumulate (for himself).
He lives for other people,
And grows richer himself;
He gives to other people,
And has greater abundance.
He lives for other people,
And grows richer himself;
He gives to other people,
And has greater abundance.
The
Tao of Heaven
Blesses, but does not harm.
The Way of the Sage
Accomplishes, but does not contend.
Blesses, but does not harm.
The Way of the Sage
Accomplishes, but does not contend.
In the introduction
to this book we stated that we would break with the “conventional”
approach in the hopes of better demonstrating the integrated nature,
the oneness, of the Taoist philosophical system. To begin the
journey through the Diamond of the Tao, we shall begin at the end.
Conventional numbering finds the aforementioned verse last. Then
again the end of a thing is just the beginning of something else.
Archeologists have unearthed other copies of the Tao Te Ching where
this verse was first. It truly matters not. However, as an
introduction to the Tao, it's a fine place to start.
True words are
not fine-sounding;
Fine-sounding words are not true.
Remember
those words. There may not be two more important lines to help you
separate fact from fiction when it comes to the Tao Te Ching, or in
life, which is what the Tao Te Ching is all about. Much of what is
written and said about the subject is wrong, dangerously wrong. The
words written and the pictures painted by these pseudo-sources create
beautiful, appealing images in the mind of the reader. The
purveyors of those words sell us on their perspective and point of
view. Of course, this applies to phenomena in any walk of life.
Irrespective of their intent and most importantly for the individual,
why do their words necessarily sound good to you? Why, in a caveat
emptor
world, do you buy what they are selling?
Simply...it
resonates with what we believe, would like to believe, the picture we
hold of ourselves, the life philosophy we've developed, and how we
see or would like to see, the world around us.
As
we discussed in Essence
when writing about verse 12: The
Senses, as
well as many other verses, throughout
our lives we develop a series of internal, psychological programs as
a result of the messages from the social structures in which we live,
that form our beliefs. Through these programs we process the data we
absorb through our senses. As passionate beings with the potential
for rationality, we become emotionally invested in those beliefs. Look at the following translations of
verse 5:
Heaven
and earth are ruthless;
They
see the ten thousand things as dummies
The
wise are ruthless;
They
see the people as dummies
Gia-Fu
Feng and Jane English
Random
House, 1972
Heaven and earth are impartial
They see the ten thousand things as strawdogs
The wise are impartial
They see the people as strawdogs
Gia
Fu Feng & Jane English
Vintage,
1989
Heaven and Earth does not love mankind
and allows everyone to live there own life
The sage also does not love mankind
and allows everyone to live there own life
Yan
Hin Shun
Heaven and Earth are not humane
Regards the ten thousand things as straw dogs
The Sage is not humane
He regards the common people as straw dogs
Robert
G. Henricks
Ballantine,
1989
Heaven and earth are sentimental
They see the ten thousand things as straw dogs
The wise are sentimental
They see the people as straw dogs
John
C.H. Wu
Heaven and earth are inhumane
they view the myriad creatures as straw dogs
The Sage is inhumane
He views the common people as straw dogs
Victor
H. Mair
Bantam
Books, 1990
So,
which one is correct? If you've read Essence
of Tao, or
Truth
of Tao,
you know which one(s) would be more accurate, so try to remember how
you would have judged it had you not read them. Perhaps the better
question, exemplifying the aforementioned point, which one do you
like? Which one appeals to the programming in your brain? Which one
to you is fine
sounding? Depending
on your political or philosophical orientation, you will likely
choose the one you like best, that which is more in keeping with your
world view and your personal philosophy, and you will likely
interpret based on that view regardless of it's validity. The
translators and other untrained interpreters of Taoism, as humans
more or less like you, will produce their translations the same way.
In Essence of Tao, we referenced Paul Carus' 1913 translation, The
Teachings of Lao-Tzu and, in his own words, how he imbued his beliefs
on the translation of “Nature is unkind,” or alternatively,
“Nature is ruthless,” from verse 5:
The
question is whether Lao-Tzu did or did not believe that
heaven and earth and the Tao were endowed with sentiment. An
answer
would be difficult, if not impossible. However, I am now
inclined to
think that he was more of a mystic than a
philosopher, and thus he
recognized in the dispensation of the
world a paternal and loving
providence.*
~Essence of Tao,
Pg. 250
Here Carus, a philosopher/theologian, not a Taoist, decided he knew what Lao Tzu meant almost 2000 years before, as opposed to what was written, even though he said, “An answer would be difficult, if not impossible.” Yet, in pursuit of academic integrity we quote from the text The Guodian Laozi, which was a book detailing the findings of a conference held at Dartmouth College in 1998:
the
transcription itself is not the place to include decisions as to
what the editor thinks the “intended” character or word might be
for a
non-standard, rare, or anomalous character, or what the
correct”
character or word is for those characters that the
transcriber deems
“wrong.”
Carus read the character. He knew what it meant. He just couldn't believe that Lao Tzu actually meant what the character said, so he ignored the proper translation and gave it his own in accordance with his belief system. But it gets even more complicated. Returning to The Guodian Laozi:
The
Texts, which more than lived up to our expectations,
included three
bamboo-slip texts with material corresponding
to that now found in
the Laozi but in a different order and
containing
many variations
The Guodian
Laozi, pg. 3
The underlining is added for emphasis, but notice even the texts found had “variations.” So, even back then they had similar issues that could range from transcription errors, limited subject matter knowledge, or individuals coloring their work with their beliefs. Therefore even the “source” documents from which the translations have been written may have been tainted by the foibles of individuals' belief systems. What's worse, we don't know if the people who copied the texts were Taoists, or just people who were supposedly adept at copying.
So,our personal
belief structure determines whether words are “fine-sounding.”
Which then brings us to why, “Fine-sounding words are not true.”
The greatest
enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of
knowledge.”
~ Stephen Hawking
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
~
Aristotle
Therefore
the Sage: He gives them life, but does not take possession of them;
~verse 2
As
we can see, the Taoists were not the only philosophers to consider
this issue. Aristotle understood the need not to become so invested
in an idea that it became a prison from which an otherwise rational
mind could not escape. As we grow older, we become wedded to our
beliefs (thus the saying, "you can't teach an old dog new tricks"), and
frankly, this process starts with birth. Day by day they grow
stronger at the core of our being. It becomes harder to question
them, because we build our lives around them. To question them is to
question how you've spent your life. When we hear words or ideas
that threaten those models, those that are not fine-sounding to
our ears,
we often repel from them. The words grate against us emotionally and
intellectually, much as fingernails across a chalkboard make our skin
crawl, attacking beliefs we've held dear for many years, but that
doesn't make them false. Of course in life, there are words that
represent ideas, methods, and commitments, and there are actions that
prove them. Some are relatively simple to verify, some are so large
it is relatively impossible for us to understand or comprehend them
completely, and others still, we are told, won't be verified until
after death. Therein lies a problem. We can test those things which
are easily tested, but how do we test the larger philosophical and
metaphysical questions of life upon which we base our beliefs?
It's much easier to
believe what we like. To think the way we want to think. To just
look at our side of the story, but to do so is to violate one of the
primary principles of Taoism: Yin/Yang. All phenomena are made up
of a pairing of polar opposites. Therefore, to understand completely
a given phenomenon we must study and understand it's underlying
components, both the Yin and the Yang, otherwise our understanding is
incomplete.
We
are often told to think positively, that to think negatively is bad,
and true, a bad attitude can negatively affect your ability to
execute. So, does that mean when we plan a large project or complex
activity we shouldn't study what could go wrong (negative/yin), or
what scenarios could result beyond that which we consider the
optimum(positive/yang) outcome? Of course not. We must constantly
study the negative to understand what could happen and practice how
we would handle it. It also sensitizes us to changes in metrics or
parameters that indicate a less than optimum path giving us the
chance, as Lao Tzu said, to “Deal
with the difficult while yet it is easy; Deal
with the big while yet it is small...Therefore the Sage by never
dealing with great (problems)Accomplishes greatness.” So we have
to think about what bad could happen.
So
you have to decide, are you seeking truth and reality, or are you
content living within the comfortable confines of your beliefs-in
the illusion of reality in which we all live? That is, as we said in
Essence
“the
border
between what we know and what we think we know,”
-the illusion of knowledge. If the latter is your goal, then read no
further. If the former, then you must constantly challenge and test
your beliefs and listen to the harsh words that make us question what
we hold dear from the time you enter this life, until you cross the
threshold into the next. Simply....honestly ask the question “Why?”
Seems simple enough, but it is the relatively rare individual that
can consistently, and with brutal honesty, question their most
closely held beliefs. How many of us play devil's advocate to our
beliefs? How many of us truly and honestly make the time and the
effort required to understand opponent point of views and arguments.
Lets face it,
handling the “good” in life is relatively easy. Getting up when
it has knocked you down, and it will knock you down...repeatedly...is
what it's all about. Understanding both the positive and negative
aspects of a phenomenon can be vital to contentment, because
ignorance of half the phenomena is only to give yourself half a
chance. Remember, upon entering an authentic Taoist temple the
visitor is greeted by a rack of weapons and battle standards,
symbolic of the war, or if that word is not fine sounding enough for
you, the struggle that is life. The greatest struggle, and definitely
the most constant we are likely to face is with ourselves, to have
the courage, perseverance and fortitude to seek clarity and reality
throughout our lives. As Lao Tzu said:
Those
who dream of the banquet, wake to lamentation and sorrow.
Those
who dream of lamentation and sorrow wake to join the hunt.
—The
Wisdom of Laotse, 236
A good man does
not argue;
he who argues is not a good man.
The most savage
controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good
evidence
either way.
~Bertrand Russell
People
think differently. One need only look to the eternal paradox
represented by the relationship between a man and a woman to
understand this. If you find yourself laughing under your breath,
then the point is made. Tomes have been written about the difference
in the way the sexes think about a given subject, and if there is
that much difference between two individuals that know each other and
“accept” each other, how much greater can the divide be between
strangers. In
The Truth of Tao
there is an entire section, led by the stanza above, which addresses
the issue of argument, and as the quote by Bertrand Russell
intimates, as the subject matter becomes more abstruse, arcane, or
shrouded in the fog of uncertainty, the more vehement the
disagreement. Chuang Tzu wrote concisely on the subject in his
essay, The
Futility of Argument:
Granting that you and I argue. If you get the better of
me, and not I of
you, are you necessarily right and I wrong? Or if I
get the better of you
and not you of me, am I necessarily right and
you wrong? Or are we
both partly right and partly wrong? Or are we
both wholly right and
wholly wrong? Since
you and I cannot know, we all live in darkness.
Whom shall I ask to
judge between us? If I ask someone who takes your
view, he will side
with you. How can such a one arbitrate between us? If
I ask someone
who takes my view, he will side with me. How can such a
one
arbitrate between us? If I ask someone who differs from both of us,
he will be equally unable to decide between us, since he differs from
both of us. And if I ask someone who agrees with both of us, he will
be
equally unable to decide between us, since he agrees with both of
us.
Since you and I and other men cannot decide, how can we depend
upon
another? The words of arguments are all relative;...The right
may not be
really right. What appears so may not be really so. Even
if what is right is
really right, wherein it differs from wrong
cannot be made plain by
argument. Even if what appears so is really
so, wherein it differs from
what is not so also cannot be made plain
by argument....
~The Wisdom of Laotse, pg. 54-55
Take
the time to read and digest it slowly. When asking those bigger
questions about life, or trying to make correct decisions about
ambiguous problems or situations about which all may not be
understood, these dynamics often come into play. One need only look
at the problems of the day, be they political, legal, environmental,
or... to see this dynamic in action. One of the clearest examples
brings us back to the Greeks. Socrates to be specific, about whom we
said in Essence:
Socrates
was told by the oracle at Delphi that he was the wisest
man in
all Athens. By following an exhaustive process of questioning
other
great thinkers of supposedly profound knowledge, he found
displays of
vanity and ignorance instead of genuine wisdom. Socrates
finally
concluded that the oracle meant he was wise because he
understood that
he lacked knowledge and was willing to honestly test
his beliefs, not
because of the knowledge he actually possessed.
~Essence of
Tao, pg. 42
Unfortunately
for Socrates things went downhill from there, which, as a result,
gave us the literary and philosophical classic,
The Death of Socrates.
After Socrates spent all that time with the philosophical elite
demonstrating their ignorance for all to see, they decided, after all
that insult and damage to their egos, Socrates was a danger to
society. He was tried, convicted, and sentenced to death. So much
for the elite mind's ability to enact and accept dispassionate
logical discourse. So, that begs the question, do you think the
relatively uneducated mass of humanity can do better? Argument can
be fatal.
At
it's core argument is a conflict. It can be a relatively cordial
exchange of ideas between friends, or it can escalate, depending on
the parties involved, all the way to full-fledged war. There is a
reason for the saying, “There are two subjects one does not discuss
in polite company. One is politics, the other religion.” They
tend to be lightning rods for passion. Any idea that is passionately
held is generally off limits to debate within the mind that holds
them, especially in subjects “where there is no good evidence
either way.”
Therefore, you
have to decide, in any given argument, discussion, dialogue, you are
entering, are you teaching or are you learning? Can you play both
roles? Can the other person play both roles? Are they in the
discussion to teach you? What may be the end result of a positive
and negative disposition vis a vis your relationship with your
argument partner, be it a romantic partner, friend, colleague, etc.?
Since we are
passion-driven beings with the potential for rational behavior, as
opposed to rational beings with the potential for passion-driven
behavior it is better not to engage in argument. As we can see from
Socrates' pyrrhic victory, the cost, although rarely that extreme in
daily life, can be a source of discord that plants its own malignant
seeds with which the individual may have to deal over time. So why
engage in argument unless absolutely necessary.
the wise one
does not know many things;
He who knows many things
is not wise.
First, what
does it mean to be wise? That is, to possess wisdom? From the
Oxford Dictionaries we derive the following meaning:
the quality of having
experience, knowledge, and good judgment; thequality of being wise. the soundness of an action or decision with regard to the
application of experience,
As
we reach adulthood we must decide on a profession to pursue.
Becoming profoundly skilled in any profession requires innate talent,
proper teaching, passionate practice, and the ability to continually
refine the practice of the discipline to
the point where it becomes an organic, self-propagating component of
our being, so that we may continue
to improve the outcomes of our target activities. As a rule it takes
many years to become profoundly skilled in a given discipline.
Whether it be as a doctor, lawyer, musician, carpenter, plumber, or
Taoist priest, the years of training and then the additional years in
the vocation required to reach mastery, can be significant. To
become a Taoist priest, it usually takes 20 years of devoted training
across multiple disciplines. This process of training-to-mastery
gives us a method of learning to continually improve and make
ourselves better, which we can then apply to other activities in our
lives as well. Unfortunately, the ability to master a discipline
can be a two-edged sword.
Whereas
we may, in our lifetimes, become profound in a given skill or
profession, we likely only have the time and ability to truly master
that one discipline, to know one thing, and frankly, we should be
quite grateful if we can. True polymaths are few and far between.
Time and time again, pride and arrogance rear their ugly heads as the
universal human affliction they are, causing us to reach in the
belief we possess knowledge that is unknowingly beyond our grasp. In
this case, they lead us to believe that we can master, or become
expert in other disciplines, to think we know more than we actually
do. Looking again to the example of Socrates, he literally debunked
the supposed single
area of knowledge
other great thinkers and teachers of Athens believed they possessed.
Of
course there are exceptions that prove the rule, but in the vast
majority of cases, which likely means you, it doesn't work.
Unfortunately, true
words are not fine-sounding.
What
then happens? We proceed into these other areas under the assumption our
applied skills elsewhere allow us to succeed in our new endeavors, or
render us able to speak intelligently and with great confidence about
other subjects. Unfortunately, the results are often less than
optimal. Which explains why
the wise one does not know many things.
Or, returning to the quote regarding Socrates, “Socrates finally
concluded that the oracle meant he was wise because he understood
that he lacked knowledge.” In other words, the antithesis of
“He who knows many things ...” Socrates understood the
limitation of his knowledge. That all important demarcation between
the fantasy and reality of our perceived knowledge and abilities,
which Lao Tzu echoes when he says...
Who
knows that he does not know is the highest;
Who (pretends to)
know what he does not know is
sick-minded. And who recognizes
sick-mindedness as
sick-mindedness is
not sick-minded.
However,
he takes the analogy even further describing the mind that does not
understand the demarcation between what it knows and does not know as
“sick.” Which then brings us back to what we said about fine
sounding words. “So, you have to decide, are you seeking truth and
reality, or are you content living within the comfortable confines
of your beliefs-in the illusion of reality in which we all live?
That is, as we said in Essence "the
border between what we know and what we think we know.'”
The Sage does not
accumulate (for himself)
The Sage understands
the power of emotion to bind him not only to things, but also ideas.
As Aristotle said, “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able
to entertain a thought without accepting it.“ As we've been
saying, the ability to seek reality is limited by one's ability to
question one's beliefs. As for material things, there isn't a
philosophical/spiritual doctrine that doesn't warn of the
antithetical trap the pursuit of material gains can be to personal
contentment. Lao Tzu says this often, and perhaps most eloquently
when he said:
If peace, order, and the pursuit of happiness are
invisible things,
obviously they can not be really obtained by visible
means.
~The
Wisdom of Laotse,
157
So whereas the Sage, and Taoism in general, is not adverse to the ownership and use of material things, placing faith or emotional energy in their ability to provide contentment in life is a fools errand. Everything is temporary, you can't take it with you, not even your body. History is replete with jarring incidents that tear apart the world to which individuals have become accustomed. Then what do you do? How do you carry on, when all you have is what you carry inside your heart and soul and perhaps the clothes on your back? He therefore strives to understand the difference between material necessity and material desire. What is the difference between needs and wants? Does what I possess serve me, or do I serve it?
He lives for
other people,
And grows richer himself;
The
character translated here as “for” can also be translated as
“among,” or even “off of.” Our life is governed by
self-interest. We strive in life to lead as personally content a
life as possible. We may do things for other people, especially
those close to us such as family, and dear friends, but what we do
for them is in the context of making our life better, in that helping
them brings us joy and reward, or at least less pain. As we stated
in Essence,
Contrary
to some interpretations, this does not imply that Taoism
seeks a
return to a mythical prehistoric world of idyllic bliss. It
does not promote
living in caves without heat, hunting for our
dinner, and fighting off
predators. Instead, the purpose of Taoist
philosophy is to help us
maximize contentment within the conditions
in which we live.
~(Essence, Pg.
167)
Taoism is a
model of reality that looks at the interrelationships between the
individual, the social structures (society) in which they live, and
Nature. We look to Nature to understand the underlying principles
that govern the Universe and therefore the world around us. We study
societal structures to understand where the values of society diverge
from those principles of Nature, to better understand the conflicts
that arise within ourselves in pursuit of contentment within the
society in which we live and
grow richer.
He gives to other people,
And has greater abundance.
When we see the word
“abundance” we think of a great amount of something, but
remember, the abundance for which the Taoist strives is contentment.
He gives to those within his circle, because relationships are
exchanges in accordance with the principle of Yin/Yang. You must
give to receive, there must be harmony of exchange between the
individual and those with whom he has a relationship. It can't be
one-sided, else the relationships will die, which, obviously, is the
opposite of abundance. Now what we give or receive does not have to
be material, but it must provide value to the exchange between
individuals to maintain the virtuous circle.
The Tao of Heaven
Blesses, but does not harm.
The Way of the Sage
Accomplishes, but does not contend.
Whereas
the first line is somewhat allegorical, the second line describes the
result of a Taoist adept's life. He accomplishes maximizing
contentment in life. He does not contend, in that he does not
interfere in the lives of others, in violation of the principle of Wu
Wei. Knowing
his values may be contrary to those around him, he does not flaunt
them, living quietly and peaceably among neighbors who may not share
his values.
His
actions are optimized for the trials and tribulations with which he
must deal throughout his life. Looking back on the definition of
wisdom:
the quality of having
experience, knowledge, and good judgment; the quality of being wise.the soundness of an action or decision with regard to the
application of experience,
In
other words, the right actions in the right time. Wu
Wei is
the principle best described as non-interference, but it can also be
described as right
action in the right time.
To contend is to be in conflict, therefore, to minimize contention,
the Sage must make the right decision as often as possible throughout
life.
