The concept of any situation, component, or figment of our life or imagination being rational, increases based on a few factors:
a: An increase of factual, unbiased, and logical evidence for the truth of the concept in concern.
b: The general sensibility of the concept when applied for its purpose in real life (including basic testing of the idea).
c: All the possible emotional, pleasure, or goodness-based by-products of the concept or decision.
While there are more variables for this, the PUSA (Probabilities Utilizing Systematic Analysis) system only considers these few as it ensures ease of generalization across a spectrum of possibilities.
However, possibilities against the concept are, of course, also present regardless of the situation. Thus, it is ensured to include these as well in the equation.
d: Logical, factual, unbiased, and logical evidence against the concept in concern.
e: The negative emotional by-products of the decision or concept that could discourage the decision.
So, based upon all possible factors, the PUSA System’s basic formula is:
All variables are on a scale from 1 to 10, and the systems for scoring them are:
a: Every 1 piece of evidence counts as 1 point. So, 10 pieces of evidence is a 10.
b: Rate the concept out of 10. You can use a feasibility survey to do this.
c: Individual decisions on this are significantly better as this will tailor the equation’s result specifically to you, which works better.
d: Use the same system as a.
e: Use the same system as c.
Considering that there is always logical evidence against a concept, the highest possible genuine score is 55 (a=10, b=10, c=10, d=2, e=0). Low results are from 1-15, medium from 16-40, and high from 41-55.
Example: If I want to buy a Porsche Macan and I have been saving up for it for a while, I might want to splurge all at once. But being wise and having learned from my past, I make an informed decision. So, my factors for the PUSA System are:
a: 9, since most reviews (only the logical and technical aspects of them) say that this is an ideal decision.
b: 9, since the financial and other basic feasibilities, i.e. maintenance can be paid for, but a large enough garage is not available and the car ideally should remain in an air-conditioned space.
c: 10, due to all the love and care I put into saving up and dreaming of the car.
d: 2, since some reviews cite reliability issues and not-so-great fuel economy.
e: 0, since I can’t associate any mental issues that might come with this decision.
So, my rationality score is 45.5, which is relatively high.
Variation
If you come to a situation where you must make an emotional decision, you will have to prioritize a balance of sensibility and visceral satisfaction. However, emotional decisions, although not often affected by rationality, need some basis in fact, so that they last long.
Thus, this new equation contains the following variables:
a: An increase of factual, unbiased, and logical evidence for the truth of the concept in concern.
b: The general sensibility of the concept when applied for its purpose in real life (including basic testing of the idea).
c: All the possible emotional, pleasure, and goodness-based by-products of the concept or decision.
d: Logical, factual, unbiased, and logical evidence against the concept in concern.
e: The negative emotional by-products of the decision or concept that could discourage the decision.
v: The visceral gain that you will receive.
So, the platform of this equation is:
The systems for scoring them are:
a: Every 1 piece of evidence counts as 1 point. So, 10 pieces of evidence is a 10.
b: Rate the concept out of 10. You can use a feasibility survey to do this.
c: Individual decisions on this are significantly better as this will tailor the equation’s result specifically to you, which works better.
d: Use the same system as a.
e: Use the same system as c.
v: This represents the visceral gain you will have (or the emotional improvement from the decision). This goes from 0-10.
c1: The effect the decision will have on your conscience. This goes from -10 to 10.
c2: Cost of the decision (in monetary terms) rating of the expense of this decision. If there is no cost, then add the value as 0. Otherwise, use a scale of 1-10.
ce: This is the emotional cost or emotional tax of the decision upon you: if I make a decision in which some of my loved ones are not benefitting, I feel the emotional tax of the decision. This goes from 0-10.
The highest possible genuine score is 75. Low results are from 1-20, medium from 21-55, and high from 56-75.
Example: If I want to attend MIT and have received a complete scholarship, but my family does not want me to go to an entirely new nation it will cause them great separation anxiety. They are also worried that the culture of occasional substance abuse and irresponsibility might toll on me and change my identity. So, to see if my decision is emotionally and logically rational, I apply the Variation sequence.
For a: I set it at 10, as there’s plenty of evidence as to why I should go to MIT if offered as opposed to other schools.
For b: I rate it a 9, as my family’s concerns make sense, but I am not as irresponsible as it is.
For c: I rate it a 10.
For d: I set a 2 as my family’s concerns do make sense.
For e: I set a 0.
For v: The visceral gain I will experience is a 10.
For c1: The effect will be a -1, as my conscience will be weighed down by the guilt of not obeying my family.
For c2: 0.
For ce: 1.5, as the cost on my conscience, overall is the only tax on me.
So, according to the formula:
I plug in the values and find the result to be 39.3, which comes out to be a fairly rational decision.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the PUSA system is ultimately a mathematical system to improve the decision-making and the overall rationality of the things we do and confirm in our lives slightly more right and significantly less wrong. This system is not solely responsible for the outcome, as we humans generally have more parameters to decisions. It is important not to think in just one dimension of anything, and this covers a fair chunk of the logical areas of decision-making.
And so, the PUSA system is just another system made by us humans to better understand our logic and fix it. As we have continued to grow as a race, we have developed from the times when a select few were only ones with the mental capacity to develop such tools in a sea of illiteracy, to a world where the younger have started multi-million-dollar start-ups, the elder use artificial intelligence at work to make their lives easier, and most of the things we do have become dependant on technology that could pass off as science fiction just 20 years ago.
Along each step of the way, we have become better and more sophisticated, but have not hit perfection, as it is a finicky ideal that moves forward each time we get better. But in reaching perfection, we become better, less erring, and more focused on our path. This system is a testament to this- the pursuit of being less wrong; at the pinnacle of what we are capable of, and to strive to lead our lives by the thin line of excellence.
*
Acknowledgments
Many factors have brought this system to life. Some of these factors are people, who I will mention here.
Firstly, I would like to thank Mr. Arjun Gaurav and Sankarshan Haldar, both of whom have helped me along the way to improve my logic and rationality capabilities, and how to find the most ideal way to approach the decisions we make daily, and making me capable of making my own system in assisting us for day-to-day use. Their program SOLARIS facilitates those from Grades 8-12 in learning about rationality and the ways that it and its concepts can make our use and understanding of the universe.
Secondly, I would like to thank my mother for the inspiration. She is a person who is constantly in the pursuit of improving herself exponentially and becoming more logical every day. She has inspired me to develop this system for those who wish to become a more concise and clear version of themselves with less effort.
And finally, I would like to thank all those who came before me. Those who have paved the way for being sensible from being a high-class act to something that one can learn in a day, so one may make the treading of the line of peak performance a daily activity.
It seems there's just empty space where I believe the equations should be. You can use LaTeX on LessWrong though to add them: here's how https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/xWrihbjp2a46KBTDe/editor-mini-guide
Hello all!
Here is the repost of the PUSA system:
The PUSA System
The concept of any situation, component, or figment of our life or imagination being rational, increases based on a few factors:
While there are more variables for this, the PUSA (Probabilities Utilizing Systematic Analysis) system only considers these few as it ensures ease of generalization across a spectrum of possibilities.
However, possibilities against the concept are, of course, also present regardless of the situation. Thus, it is ensured to include these as well in the equation.
So, based upon all possible factors, the PUSA System’s basic formula is:
All variables are on a scale from 1 to 10, and the systems for scoring them are:
a: Every 1 piece of evidence counts as 1 point. So, 10 pieces of evidence is a 10.
b: Rate the concept out of 10. You can use a feasibility survey to do this.
c: Individual decisions on this are significantly better as this will tailor the equation’s result specifically to you, which works better.
d: Use the same system as a.
e: Use the same system as c.
Considering that there is always logical evidence against a concept, the highest possible genuine score is 55 (a=10, b=10, c=10, d=2, e=0). Low results are from 1-15, medium from 16-40, and high from 41-55.
Example: If I want to buy a Porsche Macan and I have been saving up for it for a while, I might want to splurge all at once. But being wise and having learned from my past, I make an informed decision. So, my factors for the PUSA System are:
a: 9, since most reviews (only the logical and technical aspects of them) say that this is an ideal decision.
b: 9, since the financial and other basic feasibilities, i.e. maintenance can be paid for, but a large enough garage is not available and the car ideally should remain in an air-conditioned space.
c: 10, due to all the love and care I put into saving up and dreaming of the car.
d: 2, since some reviews cite reliability issues and not-so-great fuel economy.
e: 0, since I can’t associate any mental issues that might come with this decision.
So, my rationality score is 45.5, which is relatively high.
Variation
If you come to a situation where you must make an emotional decision, you will have to prioritize a balance of sensibility and visceral satisfaction. However, emotional decisions, although not often affected by rationality, need some basis in fact, so that they last long.
Thus, this new equation contains the following variables:
So, the platform of this equation is:
The systems for scoring them are:
a: Every 1 piece of evidence counts as 1 point. So, 10 pieces of evidence is a 10.
b: Rate the concept out of 10. You can use a feasibility survey to do this.
c: Individual decisions on this are significantly better as this will tailor the equation’s result specifically to you, which works better.
d: Use the same system as a.
e: Use the same system as c.
v: This represents the visceral gain you will have (or the emotional improvement from the decision). This goes from 0-10.
c1: The effect the decision will have on your conscience. This goes from -10 to 10.
c2: Cost of the decision (in monetary terms) rating of the expense of this decision. If there is no cost, then add the value as 0. Otherwise, use a scale of 1-10.
ce: This is the emotional cost or emotional tax of the decision upon you: if I make a decision in which some of my loved ones are not benefitting, I feel the emotional tax of the decision. This goes from 0-10.
The highest possible genuine score is 75. Low results are from 1-20, medium from 21-55, and high from 56-75.
Example: If I want to attend MIT and have received a complete scholarship, but my family does not want me to go to an entirely new nation it will cause them great separation anxiety. They are also worried that the culture of occasional substance abuse and irresponsibility might toll on me and change my identity. So, to see if my decision is emotionally and logically rational, I apply the Variation sequence.
For a: I set it at 10, as there’s plenty of evidence as to why I should go to MIT if offered as opposed to other schools.
For b: I rate it a 9, as my family’s concerns make sense, but I am not as irresponsible as it is.
For c: I rate it a 10.
For d: I set a 2 as my family’s concerns do make sense.
For e: I set a 0.
For v: The visceral gain I will experience is a 10.
For c1: The effect will be a -1, as my conscience will be weighed down by the guilt of not obeying my family.
For c2: 0.
For ce: 1.5, as the cost on my conscience, overall is the only tax on me.
So, according to the formula:
I plug in the values and find the result to be 39.3, which comes out to be a fairly rational decision.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the PUSA system is ultimately a mathematical system to improve the decision-making and the overall rationality of the things we do and confirm in our lives slightly more right and significantly less wrong. This system is not solely responsible for the outcome, as we humans generally have more parameters to decisions. It is important not to think in just one dimension of anything, and this covers a fair chunk of the logical areas of decision-making.
And so, the PUSA system is just another system made by us humans to better understand our logic and fix it. As we have continued to grow as a race, we have developed from the times when a select few were only ones with the mental capacity to develop such tools in a sea of illiteracy, to a world where the younger have started multi-million-dollar start-ups, the elder use artificial intelligence at work to make their lives easier, and most of the things we do have become dependant on technology that could pass off as science fiction just 20 years ago.
Along each step of the way, we have become better and more sophisticated, but have not hit perfection, as it is a finicky ideal that moves forward each time we get better. But in reaching perfection, we become better, less erring, and more focused on our path. This system is a testament to this- the pursuit of being less wrong; at the pinnacle of what we are capable of, and to strive to lead our lives by the thin line of excellence.
*
Acknowledgments
Many factors have brought this system to life. Some of these factors are people, who I will mention here.
Firstly, I would like to thank Mr. Arjun Gaurav and Sankarshan Haldar, both of whom have helped me along the way to improve my logic and rationality capabilities, and how to find the most ideal way to approach the decisions we make daily, and making me capable of making my own system in assisting us for day-to-day use. Their program SOLARIS facilitates those from Grades 8-12 in learning about rationality and the ways that it and its concepts can make our use and understanding of the universe.
Secondly, I would like to thank my mother for the inspiration. She is a person who is constantly in the pursuit of improving herself exponentially and becoming more logical every day. She has inspired me to develop this system for those who wish to become a more concise and clear version of themselves with less effort.
And finally, I would like to thank all those who came before me. Those who have paved the way for being sensible from being a high-class act to something that one can learn in a day, so one may make the treading of the line of peak performance a daily activity.
*
With regards,
Jaivardhan Nawani.