Transferability between knowledge domains

There are many ways in which our bodies and health seem maladapted to our current conditions. We usually dismiss these as simply natural way points on the long evolutionary path. We are prone to lower back pains because we are still in the process of adapting from locomotion on all fours versus bipedal locomotion. We are prone to poor eyesight because we are using our eyes so much more intensively than we were evolved to do. We still have an appendix because we have not fully evolved into our new dietary conditions. Give these things time.

But in Maladaptation and Natural Selection by Randolph M. Nesse, Nesse suggests that we should be looking at sub-optimization more rigorously. Why do these sub-optimizations occur? How do they get resolved? Which direction is pertinent. From the abstract:

The challenge of finding evolutionary explanations for apparent maladaptations has been overlooked with casualness akin to that once typical for group selection. Suboptimal traits tend to be dismissed as illustrations of the weakness and stochastic nature of selection compared with mutation and drift. A closer look suggests that such constraints are only one of six possible kinds of explanations for apparently suboptimal designs: mismatch, coevolution, tradeoffs, constraints, reproductive advantage at the expense of the individual, and defenses that are aversive but useful. Medicine has asked proximate questions at every possible level but has only begun to ask evolutionary questions about why bodies are vulnerable to disease. Considering all six possible evolutionary reasons for apparently suboptimal traits will spur progress not only in medicine but also more generally in biology. “Williams Vision” may not yield a net benefit to the possessor, but it is invaluable for the species.

Nesse suggests that there are six structural causes of sub-optimal adaptation which fall into three broad categories.

Selection is slow
• Mismatch between design and environment
• Competition with a pathogen or other organism

Selection cannot solve some problems irrespective of time
• Tradeoffs
• Constraints peculiar to living systems, e.g. path-dependence

We misunderstand what selection shapes
• Traits that increase RS at the cost of disease vulnerability
• Aversive defenses are readily mistaken for diseases

Since all complex systems evolve (not just biological systems), I suspect there is value in examining these a little more closely as they likely provide insight into other maladaptive systems (economics, human relationships, sports, etc.).

Mismatch between design and environment - This is pretty straight-forward, the mean time of adaptation is greater than the meantime of change. Change is occurring faster than we can adapt. This biological issue is manifest in the field of technology over the past forty years. Our intellectual property laws, our privacy laws, our social norms, all are changing more slowly than the technology itself. Waves of technology are creating an adaptation log jam which in turn is driving lawsuits, controversy and inefficencies.

Competition with a pathogen or other organism - As long as there is a competitive element to the system (pathogens, business competitors, desirability of power, etc., no system can be stable. See The Red Queen Hypothesis. The relative advantage of the competitor not only drives constant adaptation but it also potentially drives adaptation in directions incompatible with already existing survival strategies.

Tradeoffs - All constrained systems (time, energy, resources) entail optimization rather than maximization. "Any change that improves the performance of one trait is sure to harm another. Such tradeoffs are intrinsic to all designs, natural or human made. A car that gets 40 miles per gallon will not reach 60 miles per hour in 6 seconds. The thin distal ends of the human radius and ulna are fragile and prone to fracture. If they were thicker, however, we would not be able to rotate our wrists with such adaptive felicity."

Constraints peculiar to living systems, e.g. path-dependence - The scope of action is constrained by existing structures, resources, and context. You can build with what you have, you cannot conjure non-existent circumstances.

Traits that increase RS at the cost of disease vulnerability - In economics this is referred to as revealed preference. If you have goals X, Y, and Z, your ordinal ranking might actually be Z, Y, and X. You might undertake a change to foster a better Z even though it might handicap or retard achievement of X, simply because Z has greater priority. If the ordinal ranking is X, Y, and Z, the respective weighting is also important. A change to increase X by 20% might result in a fall in Z of 10% and still be worthwhile because X is so much more heavily weighted than Z.

Aversive defenses are readily mistaken for diseases - Some aversive reaction (fever when fighting an infection) are mistaken as maladaptations when in fact they are simply the manifested cost of an appropriate strategy against a greater danger.

Translating all this into more generally applicable language, when we face a problem or maladaptation in whatever field (business, sports, health, innovation, education, etc.) it is worth considering:

Does this arise because of differentials in speed of change and speed of adaptation? - Can you accelerate the pace of adaptation? Can you slow the pace of change?

To what extent is the problem due to the disruption of the status quo by a competitor? - The more the problem is sourced to competition, the more you have to focus on the strategic and tactical nature of the competition rather than on the context or internal proceses.

To what extent is the problem a result of distasteful trade-off decisions? - Everyone wants their cake and to eat it too. Sometimes we simply have to decide which takes precedence.

To what extent is the problem a function of path-dependence and uncontrollable exogenous circumstances? - If the environment can't be changed, sometimes you have to simply start again or change the rules of the game.

What does this problem say about our understanding of goal definitions and priorities? - Particularly where there are multiple stakeholders within the system, goal clarity and priority are the root issue and resolution becomes an internal matter.

To what extent is the problem a function of adapting to a changed environment? - If you are experiencing high employee turnover, that might be a function of bad management. It also might be a function of employees' reluctance to acquire new skills or responsibilities in a changed operating environment. If it is the former, then you need to look at changing management practices. If it is the latter, then it likely a sign of necessary changes in a changed environment. Distinguishing one from the other is an important factor in survival.

An interesting exercise in trying to transfer knowledge from one domain to another.