Lately I’ve been thinking about the expression a racehorse chained to a plow. It’s a vivid picture of a gifted actor performing inauthentic work. From the farmer’s perspective, he’s got a misused or underutilized resource. From the horse’s perspective, it’s got unrealized potential. These are fair metaphoric interpretations, answering a fair what? question.
A more interesting question may be why this should matter. If a farmer needs a plowhorse, then any horse with the capacity to pull a plow suffices. Pulling a plow is no easy job, and should offer a strong animal a fair challenge and a long life. But from the perspective matrix of natural intelligence and system complexity, it’s an utter failure.
To establish the vocabulary, I’ll state that Natural Intelligence defines one’s capacity to internalize operational information — information that one may hold and act on. It’s a static resource, not dependent on education, or specific application.
Some people have more natural intelligence than others.
System Complexity measures how much information or action is required to keep a system running. A button that’s pressed whenever it lights up is a simple system. A household is a complex system.
Again, why does this matter? If this perspective holds water, then higher natural intelligence requires one to be in control of a more complex system in order to operate authentically. This is not to be confused with capability — it’s not that actors with high natural intelligence are capable of managing more complex systems, it’s that they must manage more complex systems in order to operate authentically at all.
Unpredictable elements, like people, or other racehorses, are complexity-dense and use a high degree of natural intelligence. Same with rigid systems, like formal languages, mathematics or music. Predictable or fluid elements, like washing dishes, add effort but not complexity to systems, use no natural intelligence, and are therefore less satisfying (but still need to get done).
This interests me because when I turn this perspective matrix on myself, I see a great many of my actions motivated not by laziness or obstinacy (as originally suspected) but by a sub- or semi-conscious effort to make the systems I manage more complex. Linux instead of Windows or Mac, pushing deadlines to their limit, taking on new or additional responsibilities, learning new things, are all about adding system complexity to make use of as much natural intelligence as possible.
Some framing questions for the comments: How complex is your system? How actively do you manage it? What’s your ratio of unpredictable to predictable elements? What do you do to make your system more or less complex? What’s your natural reaction to complex vs. simple challenges? How much natural intelligence are you using? How much are you not using? How often are you bored? Thoughts?
Coming up, Part II: Downsides
