Evolution

This post is very confusing because it has nearly no structure; it is the jotting down of a few thoughts. Please be warned.

In my opinion, evolution is the most powerful framework for understanding the world – and what works. Evolution is the way the universe works.

I will go so far as to say: Anything that does not adhere to the precepts of evolution will either fail or stagnate.

Now, I don’t mean (just) biological evolution, the kind Charles Darwin wrote about. In fact, I know relatively little about the modern synthesis and molecular biology. Evolution, though, is not restricted to biology.

Evolution is simple. The entire theory can be explained with three words: Variation, Selection, Heredity. Make a change, see how well it works, and then do it again.

The change does not have to be random (and some modern evidence suggests that genetic change is not random), the selection criteria do not have to be immutable, and inheritance just means “repeat, because it worked.”

There is a tendency for people, such as (some) evolutionary psychologists, to attempt to reduce behavior to biology. This is not an evolutionary explanation; it is a reduction from one level of explanation to another level of explanation. They are very different things.

An increasingly popular approach in business is called “iteration.” While most noticeable in web startups (e.g. Basecamp), businesses everywhere are adopting it. The approach comes down to: Make something fast, show it to the customer, see what they think; fix problems, make more changes, see what they think.

Iteration is evolution by another name. Vary your product, measure it against the selection criteria (customers), then change what doesn’t work and improve what does.

On a side note, the concept of “iteration” is incomplete. It largely ignores the selection criteria – it takes that on faith. A more rigorous examination of the selection criteria makes obvious the similarities (and differences) between real customers, focus groups, surveys, etc. People should pay more attention to selection criteria.

The consequence of accepting evolution is that “designed” becomes a dirty word. Centrally managed, independently created, committee-verified… are all models bound to fail, compared with an evolutionary approach. Certainly, they may succeed; in fact, it’s inevitable that some will succeed. But success is far from inevitable.

If you want a system or a process to succeed, design it in an evolutionary fashion.

Economists like to claim that the market system is the most efficient allocation system. That may be true, given the highly idealized assumptions one must grant them before they will say that.

However, a market system is a two-dimensional reflection of an evolutionary system. Sellers in a market subject an array of similar but different goods to the selection criteria of buyers. Successful products are purchased in larger numbers; the adaptations which made them successful are then copied.

A traditional market analysis lacks the notion of hereditary, or of change between products over time. Once you add the notion of time in, the concept of a market is functionally identical to (but less flexible than) an evolutionary explanation of economics.

I’m obsessed with evolution, right now. I’m sure you can tell.

The biggest reason is that evolution is arational. It is not irrational, or against reason; it simply has nothing to do with reason. It functions independently of both truth and God. It is a system which progresses – changes, at the very least – without any component of the system (or the system itself) having (i) access to the truth, (ii) direction or intent, or (iii) awareness of the system. It changes endogenously, and requires very few assumptions to work.

It’s beautiful.