I actually thought it was going to be very good out there because the wind was so offshore and there were still some waves. However, it turns out that the waves were much weaker than I had expected as it had fallen off overnight dramatically and the offshore wind was a lot stronger than expected so the two combined made it almost impossible to get into a good wave. Anyway I struggled to get about six waves during a full session. It wasn't all that fun it was pretty painful but in the end I'm really glad I got out there, not just for the streak, it just starts the day off right. Now, I'm about to miss the bus and I got a get to it. I'll see if I can take a picture from my phone on when the bus.
It is really hard to practice my fundamentals when I cannot catch a lot of waves. In hindsight, I should have gone out there on my long board or the fun gun. At the last second, I reached for the compressor (6'2" ultra concave, double winged swallow - see picture from El Sal below). This happens a lot when I feel like I'm surfing better... I don't think it is smart though. I'm going to call this one "Olson's Folly", which is overestimating your surf skill and the effect your equipment has on your surfing. It can be summarized by a few examples such as: buying a board that is 1/2 inch thinner because you think you'll be able to turn better (and the kid in the surf shop tells you "Dude you'll rip on this one") or going with a super thin "Comp" leash because you think you'll notice the decreased drag. I also fell victim to what I'll call, "Olson's Dilemma". Olson's Dilemma refers to a thought process that is governed by the Jinx Framework*. So, Olson's Dilemma refers to the fact that in order to jinx something you have to believe it, which restricts the ability for the surfer to manipulate a situation**. Olson's Dilemma works in conjunction with Olson's Folly as a sister theory, because once you decide to go with certain equipment contingent upon what the conditions require (to perform immeasurably better), you unwittingly put the Jinx Framework into motion. The reason for this is that by making a conscious decision (by choosing what you think is the correct equipment), you automatically jinx the conditions because you truly "believe" it. So to to walk through the whole scenario in terms of this morning's example: I was thinking about riding my long board (10'0") but then I thought, "well, I'll just surf my fun gun (7'2") so that I can get some turns in" - Olson's Folly #1. I then proceeded to see a wave breaking as the dawn light gave me just enough to see the whitewash crumble. As I was heading out the door, based on my single observation (albeit bad observation), I decided to grab my 6'2" since I'm beginning to surf well again - Olson's Folly #2 - setting the Jinx Framework in motion. Olson's Dilemma refers to the inability to make a choice of equipment (based on unconfirmed conditions) as it set's the Jinx Framework in motion and will certainly cause the conditions to be suboptimal for the equipment you choose. How do you get around this? And why does it still happen, since we know it exists? The answer to the first question is to simply decide which equipment you will ride for the following day and do so based on an arbitrary decision like: "I'll ride that board tomorrow for no other reason than, I just like that board" and then stick with your decision no matter what. Why does it still happen? Because there is a great deal of "buyer's remorse" that occurs when you chose the wrong equipment (and it happens a lot). I really remember those sessions where I have chosen the wrong wetsuit and froze. The reason for choosing the wrong wetsuit is, invariably a result of Olson's Dilemma, which is then recursive in nature resulting in the dilemma happening again and again. The Jinx Framework also works exceptionally well in the field of investing (which, I observe every day). All of this is intertwined with my theory on "free lunches". I'll put that in an entry at a later date.
Just a final note: so that if somebody (besides me) ends up reading this someday: I have recently completed the reading of "A Short History of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson. It is a great book. I'm making light of how all kinds of discoveries are attributed to the supposed discoverer by utilizing the name of the discoverer to describe whatever it is. After reading that book, it is clear to me that many of the discoveries that bare an individuals name actually had been discovered by another previously and credit was give to the wrong person. Also, giving a ones name to a discovery, well I guess find it to be a bit pretentious. Darwin, is one example that comes to mind...
*The Jinx Framework discovered by early surfers refers to the fact that you can jinx a surf session by saying, "Wow, I have never seen this place so good! Today is going be perfect all day!". Under this scenario, by the time you get out in the water, either the wind will have shifted causing deterioration in the surf, a crowd of people will have arrived (mostly frothing teenagers or a pro longboard team of women-which has happened to me) or a meteor will hit earth that dwarfs the one that ended the Cretaceous period and the existence of dinosaurs. The Jinx Frameworks exists everywhere in life, not just surfing.
**It is believed that surfers have long traveled to the East, to search for an understanding of the meditation practices (or just good ganja-I've heard it works the same as meditation) in order to try to utilize the jinx framework against itself. The thought process is that through meditation it is possible to change what you truly believe allowing for the existence of the coveted "Opposite Jinx", which allows one to control the future. If we are able to control this at some point, it will dwarf the theory of relativity and as well as all other scientific discovery up to this point combined. This has been replicated in labs but we are yet to verify its existence in practice.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
First, I’d like to say that I’m a long time reader, first time commenter. I’m a big fan. What makes philosophy so great is that there is always someone out there ready to question your theorems, ideas, and frameworks. I’ll start by saying that I haven't bought in entirely to Olson’s Jinx Framework. That said, I’d still like to discuss why I don’t believe that you can get around Olson’s Dilemma by jinxing the Jinx Framework (i.e. arbitrarily choosing equipment the day before just because you like that certain board), assuming the Jinx Framework is valid. There are associations that our mind makes subconsciously that we can not control, such as considering the weather when deciding to wear flip flops vs. Uggs. You can not disassociate these thoughts in your subconscious. You can not “jinx the Jinx Framework” because there is no such thing as “arbitrary” in these circumstances. You can tell yourself that you are “arbitrarily” choosing a board, but can you be certain that you are not simultaneously thinking about the perfect wave for that board? Therefore, by “arbitrarily” choosing a board, you are subconsciously choosing how you believe the waves will be, and you’ve in turn, found yourself back at Olson’s Dilemma. I call this the Farmer’s Chicken or the Egg Dilemma.
ReplyDelete"I'll ride that board tomorrow for no other reason than, I just like that board."
ReplyDeleteThat's me.
Anonymous, I prefer Olson's dilemma... you can understand why, because it is an entirely original thought (of mine). Yes, separating the conscious and unconscious is difficult for even next level power thinkers like myself, so I wouldn't expect a white belt jinxologist (or one who vehemently disagrees with the Jinx Framework) to understand, but then that isn’t even the point. I would go as far as to say generally the two cannot be separated, except by only the most skilled jinxologist (me on rare occasions). You clearly do not understand the Jinx Framework (which, I like to point out bares the name of on Randolph Jinx and is of no association with wryneck birds) and this is certainly not the forum to discuss all of its properties*. Olson's Dilemma, builds on this framework and is proven, but its manipulation, while not impossible, is very difficult. Furthermore, I have very complex mathematical proofs** for Olson’s Dilemma on my white board in the lab and they far beyond anything that could be conveyed in this blog, so I'll translate into layperson language. The reason I say this is that you make the statement "jinxing the Jinx Framework", which is in fact the first law of the Jinx, IT CAN NEVER BE MANIPULATED through conscious thought. If you truly believe something, then at least you give yourself the opportunity to benefit from random events unfolding in front of you – you make your decision based on a level of understanding for the facts that exist at the time of the event. Thus, the Jinx Framework is not set into motion from a decision when it is based on calm rational thoughts in the absence of a heightened state of emotion that occurs during a Jinx. However, you CANNOT change events in the future by saying one thing and thinking another (both conscious thought anyway). An example is the conscious decision of surfing on my 6’2” board at the last second because of my fear of seeing a certain type of condition that would have me feel “Buyers Remorse”, which would be the result of conditions not panning out the way I had hoped. Why? Because, one of the conditions was met, A HEIGHTENED STATE OF EMOTION as I reflect on times where I had chosen errantly in the past as well as the thrill of riding the perfect equipment for the conditions and surfing as well as possible***. This brings me to another property of the law of the jinx. The law of the Jinx, which governs the Jinx Framework, is inversely and exponentially correlated with the time remaining until the event occurs. So, for example, if I make the decision seconds before the actual event in an emotionally excited state, the chance that the jinx will play out are extraordinarily high. If I were to make the statement a year ago, that I’m going to ride my 6’2” surfboard on March 25, 2009, there would be very little effect on the actual conditions on that day. Why? Because, as a rational human being, I know that I don’t know what the conditions will be like as they are completely unpredictable at the time of the decision and thus I’m not in a heightened state of emotion with a very limited temporal effect, so the likelihood that a Jinx will occur is exceedingly small. I hope it helps!
ReplyDelete*I recommend the following readings for a better understanding: "Empowering Your Life Through Effective Avoidance of the Jinx", by PortoSurfer22 (Olson’s pen name, you may not have figured that out yet), “A Beginners Guide to Understanding the Jinx, by PortoSurfer22, "The Inner Workings of Jinxology - an in depth analysis of the empirical evidence that supports the existence and acceptance of the Jinx", also by PortoSurfer22.
**The government leased time on IBM's Roadrunner (at LANL) to test my theories - it turns out the government takes Jinx theory very seriously (time was taken from complex simulations of a prototype SSTAR). What I'm saying is that while based on my proofs, I know that the Jinx Theory is not a theory, but the complexity of this problem makes nearly impossible for all but the most elite thinkers to understand, as such the government has taken it a step further and empirically validated my theories - thus they are now laws (I know, I use the theory term loosely - My bad). What I'm really saying is that when I refer to my proof, I'm not talking about the rapper from D-12.
**Such surf sessions have only been known to occur when the surfer is not actually planning to have a “magical” session.