Rider and the Group Dynamics

Once, a fellow motorcyclist asked, pointing at my ride, "What do you call her?" I responded — "nothing!". Casually explained how it's just a machine. She wasn't impressed but remained jovial — "You called her a machine, now she'll breakdown!" This reminded me of a David Hume's quote from 'A Treatise of Human Nature' – "There is a very remarkable inclination in human nature, to bestow on external objects the same emotions, which it observes in itself; and to find everywhere those ideas, which are most present to it." Hume goes on to attribute these inclinations to mostly children, poets, and ancient philosophers. Maybe the lady was a poet. My own instincts tend to go the other way; I'd rather bestow on humans the characteristics of inanimate objects. We are also machines – but with immensely complex circuits. Guess this would mean I am no child, a poet, or that ancient philosopher.

Hume's insight is probably more prevalent and often a cause of serious mischief. Recently, on a ride to Orcas Island, I stayed overnight at Anacortes to catch that early morning ferry. Motorcycle parking in a motel lot is always risky, so to minimize attention, the bike was draped in a dull two-wheeler cover. The next morning, I noticed this feral cat sitting and staring at it. In a parking lot filled with cars, this draped bike might have piqued his curiosity. We can actually never know. If I say the cat was curious, it just means that if I were a cat, then I'd be curious. For all you know, that cat might have been a fan of Triumph motorcycles, and it was simply gazing in admiration. Or maybe it was just daydreaming. Possibilities are endless. Unless we place sensors in his brain, we can't truly understand the meaning behind his actions.

Not just in animals, we have this propensity to assume intent based on the actions of our fellow humans, too. Sometimes it's related to the curious actions of our spouse, parents, or relatives. Our subject of scrutiny can also be the distant actions of some movie star or politician, as seen through YouTube or TV. A lengthy, contentious discussion about the behavior of such a celebrity is not uncommon. But whenever we assume intent from actions, it only tells us more about our own mind and assumptions, which may or may not be relevant to the actual object, animal, or person being scrutinized. Not surprising that Hayek once said, "We are studying mental and not physical events, and much that we believe to know about the external world is, in fact, knowledge about ourselves."

Extending this beyond cats and motorcycles, we can state that perception is inherently contextual. This applies to the conversations we have, the emails we send, the photos we capture, or, for that matter, any creation. It does not imply that perception needs to always align with the "true" context of the object. For instance, movies need not be perceived based on the director's intent; it only needs to make sense to the observer's mind. Hence, a work of art with mass appeal will typically be layered. So, even if the director intended horror, it could get an award for comedy. But the application of scientific theories is rarely subjective – imagine using chemotherapy for the common cold! In that sense, we can afford to live in a subjective reality until we cannot. Our creations do add value, but it may not be for the reasons we perceive. Life is a bit about realizing all this and calibrating for that divergence. It's also about understanding the larger implications of the mind's contextual nature on individual identities and social fragmentation.

I was on a ferry the other day and ran into that quintessential Harley-Davidson motorcyclist. On a bagger with a half helmet, Harley Davidson boots, and a Harley jacket with that round emblem on the back – slightly wider than Captain America's shield. The unmistakable cross-country rider to Sturgis. It is among the biggest motorcycle gatherings on the planet. Absolutely a cheerful guy to converse with, but then also signaling a clear identity.

Not just in motorcycling, adopting identities wholesale is a human trait. Whether it's politics, art, culture, or even technology — we seek to belong. We signal identity not just through clothing, but through gadgets, accessories, and through expressed opinions. Especially in politics or economics, we tend to state beliefs primarily to signal who we are, not because we believe they are absolute truths.

Often, we become liberal, conservative, or libertarian not through extensive research but through instinct. Research and study are expensive, while ideological signaling is entertaining and cheap. So, it's only human to pick where we want to belong and then adopt ideas wholesale. In fact, actual research would evolve our own thoughts in unique ways, making it difficult to fit in. It also tends to make life lonelier.

Evidently, it's not the truth that we seek – but it's that identity. It's common for all political factions to have quite a bit of infighting as well. Internal tussles over who is the true torchbearer are well-known. Our instincts will simply not allow that group identity to get corrupted. It seems like identity is an essential driving force in all our pursuits.

Viewed through that lens, all contentious social convulsions are related to identity. Even the trivial ones. Recently came across this band Deafheaven — it triggers an identity crisis among black metal fans. The band channeled several black metal influences without their aesthetics. Sounds like black metal, but fails to reflect the genre's artistic roots. Essentially corrupting a pristine identity — wreaking havoc in a black metal-head's otherwise serene existence.

The world is constantly in this state of disruption, plunging from one crisis of personal identity to another. Each such crisis spawns new groups and personas. Whether it's 'true Norwegian Black Metal', capital (L)ibertarian vs small (l)ibertarian, or convolutions like 'democratic socialist liberal' or 'MAGA conservative'. Reasons for the fractious factions could be many – tribal instincts, cognitive affinity to ideologies, packaging by intellectuals and influencers, or a combination of them all. Eventually, an ecosystem that thrives on fragmentation will fuel the divisions. But like most things, there is also a flipside to this.

The fragmented mosaic also functions as an essential pillar in Federalism. Madison eloquently stated — "the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority." The gridlock and quarrels prevent the concentration of power and concerted action at scale. In the long run, this becomes a favorable bias against transient emotions, prejudices, and fears of the masses from causing permanent damage to a republic. But the trade-off is — meaningful policy change at scale becomes harder. This fragmentation also implies that we need some shared norms and emergent structure for social coordination.

When on the road, motorcyclists are known to wave at each other. It's one of those informal norms that create and maintain a sense of fellowship among riders. Building that fellowship leads to a relatively cooperative culture; the consequence is on-road and off-road cooperation, not competition. This is quite the opposite of how motorcycle gangs operate. You do not typically wave at these outlaws because they have their own code and purpose. Their code enforces inward tribal identity, while others are outward-looking and inclusive. Outlaws prioritize hostile competition while others just seek coexistence.

Like how hand-waving reinforces a cooperative framework, the consequences of all cultural norms cascade across society. Such norms can also be more abstract — like building blocks of a social order. For example, the preference for obedience over individual responsibility is such an abstract norm. This will then determine what is considered just or acceptable within all formal and informal social spheres – becoming a part of the underlying genetic code of society.

Respect for seniority, class, and gender over merit is another such norm; they emphasize the rule of the collective over the merit of the individual. These are some of the characteristics of static hierarchies. In that sense, they resemble feudal or aristocratic systems. They tend to prioritize the rule of status over the impartial rule of law.

The other end of the spectrum would be individual responsibility over obedience and emphasis on perceived merit over everything else – these are the essential characteristics of dynamic hierarchies. So, hierarchy itself is inevitable; the only difference is the underlying norm. Like how the properties of a genome shape the nature of an organism, norms determine the qualities of the social order.

Norms that form the genetic code of a civilization get repeatedly applied in different political, social, and economic contexts to create higher-level structures. Legislative bodies and institutions will account for that code when framing laws of the land or even when designing bureaucracies. For example, paternalistic laws or institutions signal that obedience is considered a higher virtue than responsibility. These will be seen as oppressive in an individualistic world. At all levels, social order begins to exhibit these patterns derived from its genetic code.

Reality tends to be more complex because there are always conflicting norms and codes. In short, no society is absolutely static or dynamic; it's just a matter of degree. But there are real implications for static and dynamic hierarchies. A changing world requires us to adapt, which is at odds with a purely static structure. But often these static structures can also embed implicit wisdom from the past. While purely dynamic hierarchies enable quick adaptation, without the inherited wisdom of the past, those adaptations may not be sustainable.

The challenge is optimal reconciliation – enhancing the stability of the old with the adaptiveness of the new. This requires a precise understanding of the norms that should not be compromised and a conscious prioritization of them based on context. Eventually, the groups that do this tend to survive the selection process better. But efficient collective outcomes mandate coordination through higher-level rules, the rules structured on top of prioritized norms.

Spring poses interesting opportunities, especially if you can manage to ride up to the mountains. It's not every day you ride through icy roads on a bright day, at near-zero temperatures, and with a backdrop of snow-covered mountains! Not to mention occasional water streams gently crossing the freeway, and a highway shoulder precariously stacked with freshly removed snow, one of the many reasons why motorcycling is called sensory overload. As usual, the fuel tank was running low; the two-gallon tank has been a bit difficult to handle, especially when you go exploring. But, like every other time, when it was close to being empty, providence manifested in the form of a Shell gas station.

Group riding on this motorcycle is going to be a tad annoying for others. You don't want to ride with someone who is constantly on the lookout for a gas station — it introduces unnecessary friction, especially if someone is ahead with a five-gallon tank. In that sense, groups do pose different trade-offs. We all prefer different riding patterns, stop frequencies, speeds, routes, etc. Essentially, a 2-gallon cafe racer will find it hard to get along with a bagger.

Not just in group riding, even general social order demands a certain degree of shared, compatible rule-following. Without the commonly agreed code, large groups of people will not get along. For example, top-down hierarchical code is mandatory in the military. While role-based layering is common in private organizations. Government bureaucracies depend on documented processes and structure, where adherence to processes often becomes a primary objective. Achieving such goals at scale requires a rule-based coordination. These properties are often decomposed and applied at different layers of the system.

As evident above, the nature of this shared code also depends on the social sphere. The military has a specific purpose and, hence, a strictly enforced structure. Here, there is little room for malleability. While private organizations tend to have more abstract goals – selling products and services, and are therefore more open-ended, evolving based on contingent profitable circumstances. A family tends not to have any specific goals, except to treat each other well or maintain general cohesion. Hence, the rules are informal. Societies also have shared laws and norms, but in general, they are even more abstract and geared toward coexistence. For example, we don't need to be nice to our neighbors if we don't infringe on their rights.

The pattern is clear – group goals are mapped to some shared code, and effective compliance determines the outcomes. The goals of a free civil society differ from those of the military; hence, they have different codes. While peacetime goals target prosperous coexistence, military code demands predictable, disciplined behavior. While creativity and exercise of individual volition are peacetime virtues, a volatile wartime environment prioritizes disciplined execution under pressure. A soldier is forced to apply predefined rules of conduct to moral choices, while a free individual can exercise subjective ethical judgments. Soldier code has its purpose, just that it's unaligned with peacetime goals.

To go back to the original bagger vs cafe racer problem – their riding incompatibility is because their motorcycling goals and internal inclinations are different, and that same difference reflects in their machines and riding rules. Eventually, whether it's riding or life, we're always part of various groups – and what we seek is elusive harmony of goals, codes, and resulting outcomes through actions. Satisfaction in life relies on a fabric of alignment across time, constantly evolving to satisfy the changing needs. Such an outcome on a larger scale demands the use of a powerful multi-purpose instrument — the law.

2020 was the year of social distancing. But a lot of that was on a motorcycle – we all try to make the best out of the situation. There is this 50-mile stretch west of Olympic Forest, which always eluded me, but I managed to explore it this year. In that process, I also experienced a sunset at Ruby Beach – one of those moments that gets engraved in the mind. Stayed at this rather rustic lodge after a six-hour ride through the peninsula. It was well-furnished, lacked WiFi, and had erratic cell coverage — but cheap wine, decent fish n chips, and silence were enough.

There is definitely something inexplicable about riding. There are actual full-length documentaries and books providing explanations, but most of it resembles romanticism. Reasons have to be simpler because it's just one of those visceral impulses, and in that sense, quite similar to other recreational activities.

But more than the sights, with a motorcycle, we get to absorb the journey, not just the final destination. Such a journey often includes cold showers, gravel, dirt, unstable drivers, texting and driving, and anything else nature might decide to fling. The motivation for enduring all this is the same visceral impulse, to experience the delights and travails of a journey. It's something our ancestors endured every day before the comforts of modern civilization, but now we get a glimpse of that from riding a well-engineered machine.

In general, there must be something innate that prompts us to journey – it's likely that exploration aided survival in ancient primitive environments. A popular actor states in an apocalyptic movie — "People who moved survived… Movement is Life". Needless to say, in the current world, we cannot take it literally. But, in general, movement can enable survival through adaptation. Whether it's moving for work, learning a new skill, or reading a new theory to solve that problem. All qualify as movement, because they help us adapt in a changing world. Such an adaptation requires some planning, and that planning requires at least some stable factors. What differentiates modern civilization from the primitive past is simply the presence of some stable social factors in an otherwise unpredictable system.

A simple example would be contractual agreements. If you order groceries, there is a high probability that they will be delivered. On top of these simple and stable factors, we construct complex plans that enable adaptation to unexpected events. Essentially, that grocery might help us study for a test, run a marathon, or become a chef. In other words, the law and surrounding institutions provide stability in an unstable world. Not stability of outcomes — we actually don't know whether we will pass the test, win the marathon, or become a great chef. But the law provides us with tools to pursue elaborate goals constructed on simple, reliable factors. When applied equally to all, along with guns, the law also deserves to be termed 'the great equalizer'. Equality before law enables the best of the plans, best of the minds, and in that process, the most complex of civilizations to emerge.

"Of all multi-purpose instruments it is probably the one after language which assists the greatest variety of human purposes. It certainly has not been made for any one known purpose but rather has developed because it made people who operated under it more effective in the pursuit of their purposes." — Friedrich Hayek

In essence, that orderly framework of laws and norms enables an increasingly sophisticated order, where solving problems tests our higher levels of cognition. Here, survival typically does not demand that we embark on a primitive journey or exploration. Instead, our movements are largely metaphorical. Yet it also provides stable, well-engineered machines and recreational tools to relive a glimpse of that primitive past. Like toys fulfilling our last remaining primitive instincts. For all practical purposes, irrelevant and yet adding value to our existence. In a larger sense, the law is integral to life's events and for realizing our overall vision.

Stunning autumn hues aside, motorcycling in the Pacific Northwest is a lot about winding roads. It's about navigating curves at an optimal trajectory and speed, creating those lively moments when your foot pegs brush the tarmac. It's about discovering the thin line, the line which separates recklessness from precarious optimism, the belief that everything beyond your control is going just right! Discovering that trajectory requires a clear view and an understanding of the full turn ahead. That, along with instincts and skills, shapes the plan on how to approach the turn, how to maneuver, at what speed, etc.

High-level plan aside, how you cover every inch of this trajectory also matters because this determines the viable options ahead. In fact, at every point on that curve, along with basic physics, our own limitations and constraints of our machines determine possible trajectories. Beyond motorcycling — it's like working towards a long-term vision, while shaping the specifics of the execution as we go along. Reaching the long-term goal requires constant adaptation to what the road presents, not what was anticipated.

Quoting the Canadian death metal band Beyond Creation — "Every decision we take. Every step we make. Every word we use. And every rule we choose." – With every single step, we are shaping the details of our own trajectory, and at the same time influencing the lives of others connected to us. So, if you had a fortunate or an unfortunate accident, it might not be the immediately preceding step. It could be any action leading up to the accident, which actually set in motion that unfortunate trajectory.

The question is – what were those steps that maximized the probability of that incident? It could be that disturbing conversation with the neighbor or that reckless driver on the freeway. With an exhaustive set of variables, identifying and modeling those sequences is non-trivial. It requires omniscience and intractable computing power. Complex realities are nuanced but expensive too, so a civil society demands a practical approach – that of individual responsibility. A fair assumption is the existence of free will. In short, we shape our good and bad accidents by acting or not acting to compensate for external pressures.

To go back to the analogy of motorcycling PNW winding roads — there are always unforeseen factors affecting the specifics of the execution. Low probability but high impact variables like twigs on the road, those strategically placed potholes, or a deer gently crossing the path — all these and more impact a motorcyclist's vision of navigating curves with finesse. But that uncertainty is not a cost; it is the reason to feel alive, which is vital to motorcycling. It's also critical to know that, even with determinism provided by the law, uncertainty is an artifact of a highly interconnected system.

Recently, I went riding at the margins of the Olympic National Park. The plan was to loop through a couple of scenic forest roads, but eventually, I ran into a closed gate. So, had to turn around and ride back through the same bridge I had crossed earlier. And not just the same bridge; I crossed paths with the same hiker who was now walking back from the other end. Clearly, even he was amused at the coincidence. How often do paths of a motorcyclist and a hiker in the wilderness converge on a bridge — twice!

In a way, coincidences or accidents are just separate causal chains intersecting at some point. For instance, ferry times, riding patterns, and outdated GPS maps are all preceding links in my causal chain. If we go further back, there are other causal sequences that explain why ferry times are the way they are, or how I ended up riding in a specific way. But we can only speculate about the causal events related to the mysterious hiker.

All we can say is – every event has a causal chain with known and unknown preceding events. Even in my case, we can only speculate whether the map was incorrect and led to a private road or if someone just shut that gate on that particular day. Maybe my riding pattern was immaterial. That means if all the other factors remained the same, all types of riders would have faced the mysterious hiker twice! To estimate causal weight, we'd need to replay events and control for variables – practically impossible. That implausibility hints at the layered, multidimensional nature of the system.

Causal chains operate at multiple levels as well. For instance, the riding pattern could be attributed to upstream causes of motorcycle gear ratios. The engineering of gearboxes has its own causal chains. But a motorcycle spare part is an abstract, reusable node involved in multiple chains – linking several motorcycles, models, and riders. Such a part's functions are abstracted enough to serve multiple similar purposes. Eventually, the world itself can be interpreted as an interconnected network of abstract sub-systems, each with its own contextual functions. Larger sub-systems are composed of smaller systems and nodes with similar abstract qualities. Imagine building blocks with clear, logical, and physical boundaries, but operating without explicitly articulating their internal structure.

All kinds of systems — biological, chemical, or even social frameworks can be modeled through such a view. In the case of societies, components involved are individuals, families, organizations, and their workflows. For instance, the same individuals when at work serve a different contextual purpose than at home — becoming time-shared abstract nodes within different domain-specific workflows. The structural parallels between larger social institutions and a lonely motorcyclist in the wilderness illustrate the concept of organized complexity. They both function with a level of efficiency that hides the chaos of their own causal chains.

Within any such order — recurring patterns typically indicate underlying drivers. With complex systems, there is a difficulty in isolating them. There are even more challenges with designing optimal solutions for obvious problems. For instance, rising college tuition, health care costs, or government deficit spending are recurring and contentious phenomena. But there are also recurring beneficial patterns – like plummeting smartphones or fast-food prices! Rarely do we see political rallies about unaffordable fries.

The dominant agency causing these patterns can be a specific group of people, natural forces, or an incentive structure. But general discourse is rarely about correcting complex causal factors that led to a contentious pattern. This happens because it's expensive to dive deep, isolate causality, then arrive at a hypothesis that fits multiple contexts, and then propose and test a generic solution. The general tendency is to introduce new factors into the mix as workarounds — like price/licensing controls, a new tax, maybe a trade war, or even an actual war. There is also a strong political incentive not to do root cause analysis of social problems — often, they ruffle too many feathers. The benefit of a complex interconnected system is overall productivity, and there is even a romantic side to all this.

Over a decade ago, I shot this glistening sun-bathed view of a lighthouse. It happened during one of those long motorcycle rides, and in an obscure part of the globe. A few years ago, someone contacted me to request permission to create a postcard from that exact photo, and I agreed. Recently, just out of curiosity, I Googled for postcards based on that lighthouse and ran into an interesting WordPress link – Remembering Letters and Postcards. The card had visible paper wrinkles, a postal stamp watermark, and © Mahesh printed at the bottom!

Just another one of those motorcycle rides, and another one of those photos. But it caught the attention of a Lighthouse Thematic Philatelist who turned it into a postcard. Someone actually bought that card and mailed it to a distant part of the world. Whoever received the card scanned and uploaded it, and now I Googled to find my own photo! But now my memories of taking it are also perceived in a totally different context. Basically, that simple act now feels quite gilded and romantic. One of my favorite bands wrote this lyric — "with every single step we are progressively shaping our own trajectory, and at the same time influencing lives of others." In this case, my act of framing a lighthouse, in its tropical sunset splendor, ended up traveling the world!

The lady who got the postcard, or the person who sent it to her, will never know the backstory of that motorcyclist who captured it. They simply derived some value from the unknown motivations of a photographer. Just like how I derived value from those who engineered the Royal Enfield motorcycle and the Nokia camera. And how I derive value from the actions of the unknown actors sending postcards to each other. Several independent actions accidentally formed a virtuous loop surrounding an innocuous photo — something common yet rarely appreciated. To generalize all this, our ability to add distributed value without explicit top-down coordination creates unique value chains. It's probably the most romantic side of a market-based civilization.

The photograph incident just illustrates a general fact – as much as we add value to unknowns, we also get most of our help from them. This includes our groceries, the coffee we brew, the roads we travel, the clothes we wear – almost everything in our lives we owe to unknown actors. Leonard Reed's famous essay I-Pencil explained how impossible it is to create a simple pencil without the help of the unknowns. In short, we are always acting as part of collectives that are rarely visible, often transient, and constantly forming as a response to the unknown needs of the many. Quite like a complex organism — adapting to emerging selection pressures.

Rules enable cohesion across diverse, adaptive minds, and they tend to evolve together. Friction within the system indicates incompatibility between these layers. So, when groups are formed to accomplish specific purposes, they adopt rules to enable coordination, and typically also select members based on compatible cognitive signatures. Favorable group dynamics require alignment across all three dimensions — purposes, rules, and minds.

But there is also a need for a mechanism to drive coordination across groups. Higher-level institutions provide that framework, allowing structurally diverse groups to coexist and evolve together. Society itself is a layered system – from institutions to individuals – connected through rules. This higher-level order is explored in 'Layer 3: Rider and the Institutional Dynamics'.