my theories and ideologies

the butterfly effect

i don't think people actually ever take into account just how powerful the butterfly effect is. the speed and intensity one emotion can bounce from one human to another fully leaves me shocked. the butterfly effect is an idea that is more commonly used in chaos theory. a small change can make much bigger changes happen; one small incident can have a big impact on the future.

this theory really goes into detail about the consequences of the smallest actions leading into the biggest things. this is portrayed in movies, tv shows, reality tv, and people's lives just in general.

news article explains, 'in the 1990 movie Havana, in which Robert Redford, playing the role of Jack Weil, a gambler with a knack for math, proclaims to his costar, Lena Olin, that "a butterfly can flutter its wings over a flower in China and cause a hurricane in the Caribbean."' 

i do genuinely think the butterfly effect is the reason a lot of things happen. for example, someone has a bad day at work because their boss shouted at them, and it made them sad. and then, that person then goes home to their partner and is in a bad mood so it bounces onto them. the partner goes out for a drive out of anger, and is so upset that they crash. the smallest things can cause so many other events that happen, it's mind blowing. which is how some people have perceived this concept, but actually, the same news article explains, Lorenz, the mild-mannered Massachusetts Institute of Technology meteorology professor who developed the concept, never intended for it to be applied in this way. he meant to convey the opposite point. the  purpose of his provocative question, he said, was to illustrate the idea that some complex dynamical systems exhibit unpredictable behaviors such that small variances in the initial conditions could have profound and widely divergent effects on the system's outcomes. because of the sensitivity of these systems, outcomes are unpredictable. i think the general idea actually communicates the idea that the smaller bits of a situation could contribute to the outcome as the development of situations are so complex and exhibit unpredictable behaviours that it's great analysing to be able to refer back to smaller variances prior to the outcome could have had an effect on the outcome. that might sound really confusing, but i believe the original theory to be much more true, and if people see it as the bounce of each situation to another that's fine of course but i believe the original theory much more. 

lorenz was actually saying that even if we could account for every skipper and swallowtail along the Yellow Sea, it wouldn't do much to improve weather forecasts. the complexity is so intense and there is no predictable outcomes.

'lorenz was skeptical of this idea. He argued that the atmosphere is so complex that it never repeats itself, so it would be impossible to find a day in history when conditions were precisely the same. And, as he discovered, even small differences in the initial conditions can lead to vastly different outcomes.' the washington post explains. unpredictability really is emphasised in this theory and it's just so incredibly fascinating

i think the different interpretations people can come up with from the original theory is so interesting.

for clarification, the theory doesn't excuse the behaviours of extreme outcomes of situations whatsoever, but the smaller variances may have somewhat of a contribution to the situation and helps people understand it better and explain it.