Witch Doctor

I started seeing a chiropractor a couple months ago who uses a method called the Bio-Energetic Synchronization Method (BEST). It's weird.

I had never been to a chiropractor before, but several things prompted me to try him. The folks who had recommended the herbal cleanse to me also recommended this guy. Following the cleanse, my dandruff and my allergies started to come back and at the end of my cleanse, I was congested for weeks. It was far too long for a virus and it was extremely frustrating because none of my medications were able to do much about it. Some of them helped a little, but nothing cleared me up completely.

So I went to see this guy, once again with the thought that, having tried everything modern medicine can offer except allergy shots, any kind of natural/alternative treatment was worth a try. Funny how I equate natural with alternative ...

He has me lay down on an adjusting bench and for the next hour or so, I hear a lot more preaching than physical treatment. He's a really nice older gentleman with an infectious smile and a personality that I really enjoy. His method makes no sense to me, so I affectionately call him the witch doctor. But, scientist that I am, though I would really like to understand his methodology, after a few experiences with him, I'm convinced that it works. So when I visit him, I lay aside my need to analyze everything to some extent and just put my faith in him and his method.

The BEST method, as far as I can tell, lays on a philosophical foundation similar to ancient Chinese medicine. It assumes the existence of energy in the human body that seems to be indiscernible to any kind of measurement system we have available. I don't think I've heard the witch doctor use this word, but I equate it with the concept of qi or chi (pronounced 'chee'). It consists in strength testing to determine what is wrong with my body/energy/mind/spirit/whatever and then some really weird treatments. Some of the treatments seem like traditional chiropractic adjustments of joints to help things flow better in the body. Some of them include him finding and touching two points on my body simultaneously while I hold my breath. Some of them are so weird, I don't even know how to describe them.

Within two days after my first appointment with the witch doctor, my congestion was completely gone. It started breaking up during my appointment and accelerated over the next two days. After about six weeks of congestion, the timing seemed to be a bit more than just coincidental. One time I went to see him and was feeling off balance inside. I don't know how else to explain it, but it was like there was a hole inside me and everything felt wrong. At the end of the appointment, I felt great. I think I've seen him four times now and after each session, I feel better overall.

At my last appointment, we talked about dandruff. It was still bothering me even though I had started using dandruff shampoo and had been using it for a couple of weeks. During my herbal cleanse, I had stopped using it and the dandruff only came back after the cleanse was over. He did his voodoo on me and told me my liver was weak and suggested I cleanse that first followed by the kidneys. He knew about the herbal cleanse I had done, so he knew I had something that was supposed to cleanse those organs. I started using the herbs about a week ago, stopped using dandruff shampoo, and the dandruff appears to be completely gone. Weird.

I'm not sure if I'll ever really understand the BEST method, but based on the empirical data, I'm going to keep seeing the witch doctor and see if I can get my body into shape to be able to heal itself and function properly. As a scientist who's always obsessed with understanding the model connecting the observations with the physical phenomena, it's kind of refreshing to simply put my faith in the method without really having a clue as to how it works.

Expert Witness

I recently had the opportunity to serve as an expert witness in a criminal case and it was a VERY interesting experience! I was able to share some of my expertise with the attorney who retained me, but the best part for me was that I learned a little more about the history and philosophy behind common law and got a feel for the judicial process. I won't give too many details of the case in a publicly available blog, but I'll share some high level points here for anyone who might be interested.

The defendant was being charged with a crime based on a specific statute. His attorney thought the statute could be challenged and asked me to help him look at the law, define some terms, explain some technical details of how certain systems work, and help him develop a case to challenge the law. In doing this, I came to learn a little more about the litmus test that a law must pass for a court of law to uphold the law. The attorney I worked with seemed to enjoy explaining the details, which was great because I had lots of questions.

The most important thing I took away from that discussion was the need for the law to clearly and consistently define what is legal and what is not. If the statute is easily misinterpreted, it can be struck down because it can be seen as reaching too far or trampling on constitutional rights. The value of common law, or law based on judicial precedent, seems to be a certain consistency throughout the laws over time.

Apparently, the history of common law is quite extensive. He gave me a notional example of a law against breaking and entering that may have had terms in the law challenged and defined by courts back in the 12th century. This was notional; I have no idea how I would trace the history of a law against breaking and entering. But the example he gave was a law against breaking and entering after dark with the intent to steal ... and then someone charged with a violation of the law questioning whether "dark" applied to sunset. And maybe that guy was acquitted, but in acquitting him, the court would be taking a step in defining what that term means in the law so it's more clear the next time the law is used in court.

I'm a total novice when it comes to law, so take what I've said above with a grain of salt. I looked into going to law school many years ago with the idea that I could become a patent attorney. I could make a heck of a lot more money that way, but it didn't take me long to realize I wouldn't enjoy that field. I'd rather be happy than rich.

But lately, philosophy of law has been more interesting to me. I still don't think I would enjoy practicing law, but I'm interested in proper methods of governance. I'm interested in the healthy tension between order and freedom. I'm interested in finding the sweet spot in a system of law that discourages behaviors in individuals that trample on others' freedoms without taking away too much individual freedom by force of law. As an engineer, I solve a lot of optimization problems and seeking to maximize freedom in a system of law seems like an optimization problem to me. It just doesn't seem like one I'm really capable of completely solving because of the complexity of human nature. But even if I can't find a 'best' solution, maybe I can find some principles that govern what makes a really good solution.

I'm also interested in optimizing success in commercial organizations. I've been thinking a lot about corporate governance lately and trying to figure out what kind of organizational and incentive structures would maximize the probability of success in a place of business. The answer to that organizational design question will depend on the nature of the business, the collective values of the employees, the values of the customers, etc. But the first thing to do in this problem is define what we mean by success. That's a philosophical question that must be answered before any kind of organizational engineering takes place. For me, 'freedom' is about the closest definition of success I can think of for a legal system, but for other organizations, while freedom is probably an essential element of success, it probably isn't sufficient unto itself.

When I have the answers to all these questions, I'll let you know. :) I don't expect to completely solve those problems before I die, but that's what makes them so interesting to me.

In the case I described above, the defendant was offered a pretty nice plea bargain deal at the last minute, so the case never went to trial. In a way, it was satisfying to have helped create a case that rattled the confidence of the prosecution enough that they offered a plea bargain, but it was also a bit disappointing, after having geared up for a fight, to be let down like that. If I were in the defendant's position, I would have done the same thing, but it was frustrating that he had to accept any kind of sentence. In my mind, he really didn't do anything wrong. Of course, I've learned that law and justice aren't necessarily the same thing, but it's still disappointing to see something like that.

So we didn't get to really challenge the law, which is a shame because I think the law, which had good intention, really should be struck down and rewritten. But this man finally has some resolution on this issue and I think he got a pretty good deal. So I'm happy for him.