I’m guessing that mentally healthy people seek success. However, many of us fail. Should we give up trying? As a geek, I love to explore theory and engage in thought experiments. Here’s one: can success be attained through brute force? I think so, yes.

In any scenario where the chance has a non-zero probability of occurring, it must be attainable through brute force. It’s this fact that makes books like Malcolm Gladwell’s “Blink” (buy it on Amazon.com) valuable–it realizes the truth in the statement “success and failure come from action, nothing comes from inaction.” Scott Adams suggests choosing actions for Complicated Decisions by not trying to choose the right decision but at least the knowably rational one. Again, this helps avoid analysis paralysis which often leads to inaction. You’re almost no longer interested in making the decision that leads to success but rather just making some rational decision that leads to learning, which iteratively enables you to make different rational decisions in the future.

The key is to avoid insanity (“repeating the same action expecting different results”). Brute force success doesn’t come from repeating the same decisions or actions–it depends on trying every possible input until the desired output occurs. Just as theoretically unbreakable encryption must be defeatable through brute force in theory (although, in practice it could be infeasibe due to time, cost or other constraints), success must be achievable by brute force, in theory.

Of course, as a pragmatist, I have to ask myself, “How does this theory help us, in practice?” I believe the answer lies in the necessary traits involved in achieving brute force success: rationality, tenacity, resiliency and skepticism. Rationality and skepticism are critical because they will prevent insanity and yield the best next actions. Tenacity and resiliency are critical because they are necessary in order to sustain the process. Does this mean that everyone who exhibits these traits will eventually succeed? No, because there are other practical limits to brute force (time, cost, etc.) as well. But, I’m guessing, these people are statistically more likely to succeed where others have failed in cases where the brute force approach is the optimal path to success.

What then does this mean for people who lack these traits? Are these innate or genetic, are they environmentally formed, or can they be taught and learned? I have no answer, but my instinct tells me they are indeed learned but through both genetics and environment, some learn them as a side-effect of other processes. (I’d appreciate citations of any affirming or contradicting scientific evidence, if you have it.)

What do you think? Can some successes be achieved through simple brute force methods? Could all successes fundamentally be the product of what is essentially a brute force method, even if externally they appear to be skill-based or even luck-based successes? When you have succeeded at something, to what do you generally attribute your ability to succeed? How do you isolate and identify your failures in order to avoid making them again?

Go ahead and share your thoughts in the comments below!

Tags:
philosophy,
psychology,
success,
failure,
rationality,
skepticism,
tenacity,
resiliency

I’ve had a Dell Latitude C840 for the past 4+ years now. It’s big and heavy, but I absolutely love the 15″ UXGA display at 1600×1200 resolution. It’s crisp and readable and bright. Until, of course, this past Thanksgiving weekend, when it went dead.

At first, I didn’t know what broke and in opening up the laptop, I managed to break a few of the delicate traces on the flex cable that connects the display to the video card on the laptop. A quick search of eBay turned up a replacement for $15. That arrived yesterday and replacing it was easy. Reconnecting the display, I discovered that there was an image on the LCD, but it was completely dim–no backlight, at all. In a sense, this is good news: an entirely new display assembly goes for $150-$200 on eBay, but the display itself is okay. The problem could either be in the CCFL (lamp) or in the power inverter.

How is this good news? The specific display I have is the Samsung LTN150U2-L02, and according to lcdpart.com, the suitable replacement CCFL is model MS20305, $9.99 (plus $9.99 shipping). Of course, the lamp could be just fine and it could be the backlight inverter that’s busted, which could be replaced by Ambit J07.027.P.00 for $39.99 (plus $9.99 shipping). (Note: The inverter that’s currently on the display is labeled “AMBIT REV:2 K02I051.00” and “LTN150U2-B”.) Both amount to less than the replacement of the display assembly, of course.

The downside here is that there’s no easy way (that I can think of) to test whether it’s the CCFL or the inverter that’s gone bad–or, worst case, both. Laptop Freak had a similar idea, trying to test the inverter with a multimeter, but the output from an inverter is typically in the range of 1,500 VAC which is both dangerous and outside the range of the average multimeter. The folks at Endicott Research Group published a great whitepaper on backlight inverters: Design Issues in the Selection of Backlight Inverters (PDF). In it, they explain how CCF’s work and how they test backlight inverters and how sensitive the tolerances are for proper operation. I’m guessing it’ll be cheaper to buy a replacement CCFL and hook it up to the inverter to see if it works than it would be to fiddle with the inverter and risk breaking it in the process.

Throughout all of this, I kept trying to think of people I knew who were hardware geeks who could help me troubleshoot this and I realized: as many online communities that I’m a part of and as many people I know, I don’t know any hardcore hardware geeks. I mean, I know plenty of folks who fiddle around and delve deeper than your average “I’ll just buy it at (insert electronics chain store name)” consumer, but that’s about it. In the upcoming year, I think I know what kind of new friends I want to make. :-)

Tags:
Dell C840,
LCD,
repair,
CCFL,
backlight inverter