FIT: Fatigue, Interloper, Thrive

Most people experience technology change as a blur: a new gadget appears, a job changes, something feels harder or less secure, and we move on. My career in computing, which began in 1968, taught me to see these shifts as part of a repeatable pattern. I call that pattern FIT: Fatigue – Interloper – Thrive.

FIT is a simple way to understand how systems change—people, organizations, technologies, even our daily habits. It describes how something new crosses a boundary, exhausts what used to work, and forces us either to adapt or decline.

In this article, I’ll explain the FIT pattern, show how it appeared in real industrial transitions I lived through, and then broaden it to everyday life.

The FIT Pattern

FIT stands for:

·       Fatigue – The system is under strain. The old way still operates, but it is costly, brittle, or falling behind.

·       Interloper – Something crosses a boundary and takes over part of the system’s work: a technology, a process, a rule, a habit, even a person.

·       Thrive – The system either reorganizes around the interloper and becomes stronger, or fails to adapt and loses its ability to thrive.

The key move in FIT is the interloper. Interlopers are boundary‑crossers. They insert themselves where some group once had exclusive competence, control, or identity. The result is fatigue on the old side of the boundary and a chance—though not a guarantee—to reorganize and thrive in a new way.

Case 1: Wang and the Legal Secretaries

In the 1970s, law firms needed exact, flawless copies of contracts. That work belonged to highly skilled legal secretaries using IBM typewriters and carbon paper. Legal secretary was a professional occupation, with real expertise and predictable job security.

Then came dedicated word processors such as the Wang systems installed in many legal offices.

·       Fatigue – As firms demanded more documents, revisions, and speed, the traditional typing workflow became a bottleneck. The labor and time cost were high, and the market was pushing for more throughput and flexibility.

·       Interloper – The word processor entered the office as a “tool,” but it didn’t just assist the secretaries; it replaced the core skill: precise creation and duplication of contracts. The system, not the person, now held the authority over formatting, correction, and storage.

·       Thrive (or not) – The business thrived: faster documents, easier revisions, new possibilities. But the labor segment built around the old craft fatigued and, for many, failed to thrive. The interloper didn’t just help them; it hollowed out the economic value of their particular skill.

In FIT terms, the interloper was the replacement. The secretaries didn’t simply gain a new tool; the core of their work migrated into silicon.

Case 2: GM, Saturn, and Robotics

In the 1980s, General Motors faced fierce competition from Japanese automakers who offered reliable, high‑quality small cars. The traditional GM plants were struggling to match that quality and efficiency under existing processes and labor relations.

GM’s answer included the Saturn project: a new car line, a new plant, and a new manufacturing philosophy built around robotics and rethought labor agreements. In 1984, IBM hired me to work with GM research to help design the robotics data networks for this new environment.

Seen through FIT:

·       Fatigue – The existing plants and labor models were under pressure. Quality and productivity were lagging, and the global market was making that pain visible.

·       Interloper – Robotics and tightly integrated automated systems were introduced as the new core of production. They crossed into work that had long been the domain of line workers and traditional job classifications.

·       Thrive (contested) – The Saturn idea was to pair automation with new forms of cooperation and skill, so workers and machines together could thrive. The longer history is complicated, but the pattern is clear: robotics acted as an interloper into a protected domain of human work. Some roles were upgraded, many were displaced, and the system never fully stabilized in the “thrive” state that had been promised.

Again, the interloper was not a person but a system—a coordinated technology and process that claimed core productive functions.

Interloper Phenomena

These stories led me to what I call the Interloper Phenomenon: the recurring way an external system crosses into a human domain, exhausts the old pattern, and forces a choice between adaptation and decline.

In the Wang story, the interloper is word processing.
In the Saturn story, the interloper is robotics.

In both, the interloper:

·       Crossed a boundary (from “tool at the edge” to “center of production”).

·       Took over the core value‑producing activity.

·       Reshaped or erased existing skill‑based roles.

Once you see this structure, you can see FIT everywhere.

When FIT Enables Thriving

Not every interloper destroys a role. Many interlopers arrive as repair technicians of a sort: they fix fatigue and restore thrive.

Consider two common examples:

·       Doctors treating injuries
The interloper is the injury or disease—a disruption of the body’s normal homeostasis. The doctor’s job is to detect the interloper, manage the fatigue (pain, functional loss, risk), and help the patient’s system reorganize so they can thrive again. The interloper never stops existing as a possibility, but the person becomes more knowledgeable and sometimes more resilient.

·       Auto mechanics fixing brake problems
Here the interlopers are wear, heat, contamination, and misuse. Mechanics diagnose these interlopers, remove or mitigate them, and tune the braking system so the car can thrive—stop safely, predictably, and with less stress on components.

In these cases, technicians are specialists in FIT: they understand what “thrive” looks like, they know how fatigue shows up in their domain, and they are trained to spot and neutralize interlopers.

Research and Engineering as FIT Disciplines

The FIT pattern also illuminates how research and engineering behave.

·       Research often begins with a puzzle: Why is this system fatigued? What keeps it from thriving? Research hunts for hidden interlopers—viruses, misalignments, feedback loops, stressors—and documents how they operate. Good research enhances thrive by revealing the interlopers that cause or prevent fatigue.

·       Engineering usually begins with a use case: What do we want this system to do, reliably, under stress? Engineering anticipates interlopers (load, wear, noise, mistakes), designs how they will be handled, and tunes the system so it can maintain or regain thrive. A robust design assumes interlopers are inevitable and arranges for fatigue to be monitored and managed.

Seen this way, research maps the landscape of interlopers; engineering designs paths through that landscape that keep systems in a thriving region rather than a failing one.

Daily Life as FIT Practice

Most daily life skills are quiet FIT routines.

·       Time management: noticing task overload (fatigue), spotting the interlopers (distractions, unrealistic commitments), and restructuring your schedule to reclaim the ability to thrive.

·       Relationships: recognizing emotional fatigue, identifying interlopers (resentment, miscommunication, third‑party pressure), and practicing repair to restore trust and joy.

·       Health habits: detecting early signs of fatigue (sleep, mood, energy), identifying interlopers (diet, stress, inactivity), and making adjustments that restore vitality.

We typically call this “coping,” “maintenance,” or “self‑improvement,” but structurally it is the same FIT loop: detect interlopers, manage fatigue, cultivate thrive.

Why FIT Matters Now

We are living through a period of dense interlopers: AI systems, automation, platform economics, and social changes that repeatedly cross boundaries once guarded by human skills and institutions. The Wang and Saturn stories were early signals of something much larger.

The FIT model gives a language for asking sharper questions:

·       Where is fatigue showing up in this system?

·       What, exactly, is the interloper? A technology? A policy? A habit?

·       Who or what gets to thrive after the interloper arrives? Who doesn’t?

·       How can we design roles, tools, and institutions so that people, not just technologies, are able to thrive?

I developed FIT out of lived experience—the feeling of watching tools I helped build “hack” jobs and reorganize lives. It is not an abstract theory; it’s a way to make sense of the trade‑speak, shop‑floor stories, and personal histories that surround technological change.

Psychology: 5 Principal Game Types

 5 Principle Game Types

These 5 principal game types are the basis for game design and play.  Any game will include one or more principles to create engaging gameplay.

1. Tokens (money, weapons, identity)
2. Challenge (question, conflict, test)
3. Skill (talent, science, ability)
4. Risk (dice, adventure, threat)
5. Maze (puzzle, labyrinth, web)

A game is any contest with rules to determine a winner. The place, time, scope, field, size, player, or other contest constraints are part of a game's profile. Any player who engages in the game's play has skill enrichment. 

The game master mixes the types to create gameplay. 

Note: The 5 Principle Game Types describe how games are built, whereas Game Theory explains why game strategies work. The Principle Game Types are game creation methods; Game Theory analyzes game play. Principles types define a game's framework; theory strategies are player tactics within the framework.  Game design employs game principles, whereas game engagement utilizes game theory strategies. 

Types of Designs

Quantitative Games: Tokens and challenges can provide measurable game resources. This quantitative approach allows for explicit progression tracking and objective victory conditions:

• In poker, chips represent monetary value ($100 in poker chips)
• In educational contexts, a 10-question math test uses questions as both tokens and challenges
• Other examples might include:
  • Resource management games where players track specific quantities (wood, stone, gold)
  • Sports with point-scoring systems
  • Card games where numerical values determine outcomes

Qualitative Games:  These games tend to focus on:

• Positional advantage rather than numerical superiority
• Strategic thinking and pattern recognition
• Quality of moves rather than quantity of resources
• Victory through skill application rather than accumulation

Mystery Games: These might incorporate:

• Information discovery mechanics
• Deduction and logical reasoning
• Hidden information that players must uncover
• Narrative elements that require interpretation

Narrative/Storytelling:

• Role-playing games where players develop characters within a story
• Legacy games where decisions affect future gameplay sessions
• Interactive fiction, where choices branch the narrative
• Games with rich lore that unfolds through play (Arkham Horror, Gloomhaven)

Cooperation/Alliance:

• Team-based games require coordination among players
• Games with shared goals but limited resources
• Partial cooperation games with both collaborative and competitive elements
• Communication-restricted cooperation (like Hanabi or The Mind)

Simulation:

• Games that model real-world systems (economic, political, ecological)
• City-builders and management games
• Historical reenactment games
• Games that teach through an accurate representation of processes

Social Deduction:

• Games centered on identifying roles or intentions
• Bluffing and deception mechanics
• Trust-building and betrayal dynamics
• Games requiring psychological insight (Werewolf, Among Us)

Time Pressure:

• Real-time gameplay versus turn-based
• Timed challenges or rounds
• Games where speed affects outcomes
• Reaction-based gameplay

Territory Control:

• Area majority/influence games
• Map-based conquest games
• Games about claiming and defending space
• Territorial development (like Carcassonne)

Engine Building:

• Games where players create increasingly efficient systems
• Mechanisms that compound advantages over time
• Games focused on optimization and synergy
• Building interconnected resources and abilities

Sports as Gameplay:

Combination of Core Principles:

• Tokens: Points, yards gained, possession time, players as resources
• Challenge: Opponents, time constraints, physical obstacles
• Skill: Athletic abilities, tactical knowledge, teamwork
• Risk: Strategic gambles, unpredictable outcomes, injury potential
• Maze: Defensive formations to navigate, play patterns, court/field spaces

Quantitative Elements:

• Scoring systems (points, goals, runs)
• Statistics tracking (batting averages, completion percentages)
• Time management (shot clocks, game periods, time of possession)
• Physical measurements (distance, height, speed)

Qualitative Elements:

• Style and form evaluation (gymnastics, figure skating)
• Strategy development and adaptation
• Team chemistry and cohesion
• Momentum shifts and psychological advantages

Physical Dominance:

• Direct competition for space/position (basketball, football)
• Strength contests (wrestling, weightlifting)
• Endurance challenges (marathons, cycling)

Precision/Accuracy:

• Target-focused sports (archery, golf, darts)
• Placement-oriented games (billiards, curling)
• Technique-based scoring (diving, gymnastics)

Rhythm and Timing:

• Sports requiring synchronized actions (rowing, relay races)
• Timing-critical sports (baseball batting, tennis serving)
• Flow-state activities (surfing, skateboarding)
  

Sport's social aspects form a crucial dimension of sports gameplay:

Social Elements in Sports:

Team Dynamics:

• Communication systems (verbal calls, hand signals)
• Role specialization and position-specific responsibilities
• Leadership hierarchies and decision-making structures
• Trust development between teammates

Community Building:

• Fan cultures and supporter identities
• Shared experiences create social bonds
• Traditions and rituals surrounding participation
• Team or club affiliations forming community anchors

Status and Recognition:

• Achievement recognition through medals, trophies, and records
• Social prestige is associated with skill demonstration
• Fame and celebrity aspects for elite performers
• Cultural heroes and role models emerging from sports

Conflict and Cooperation:

• Rivalries between teams/individuals create narrative tension
• Sportsmanship and respect codes governing behavior
• Negotiation of competitive boundaries (fair play vs. gamesmanship)
• Alliance formation in multi-team competitions

Cultural Expression:

• Sports as vehicles for cultural identity and values
• National pride and representation in international competition
• Cultural traditions embodied in sport-specific practices
• Symbolic meaning attached to sporting achievements

This social dimension interacts with all five original principles, adding depth to the gameplay experience. For example, the social context might determine which tokens (achievements, statistics) are most valued or how maze elements (strategies, formations) evolve through collective innovation and shared knowledge.

The game master's role in sports extends beyond the rulebook to include coaches, officials, and even the collective social norms that shape how games are played and experienced.

Sports beautifully demonstrate how the game master (in this case, the sport's inventors and rule-makers) mix different gameplay types to create engaging experiences that physically, mentally, and sometimes socially challenge participants.

A collection of Joseph Flanigan's drawings

 

A collection of Joseph Flanigan's drawings.

Psyc: Efficient Thinking

Efficient Thinking

Efficient generally refers to performance with the least amount of waste or sometimes the ability to avoid waste. The term efficient is very subjective to context and observations regarding use.  Two of the subjective measurements are the consumption of resources and the use of resources to meet a goal. Each are perceptions on the same consideration, one view is from the producer and the other from the customer.  Efficient thinking in mind and the brain is similar. The neurobiology of the brain produces thoughts, and the neurocognition of the mind consumes the thoughts.

Waste has some negative connotations, e.g. trash, but a wastebasket is very efficient for collecting trash. In production companies, the consumption of resources manufactures a product. In manufacturing, quality is an efficiency statement that appears to be a perception measurement about resource depilation that occurred to make the finished goods. Customers who purchase the goods make a quality assessment to buy based on their judgment the goods meet the perceived use of their personal resources,

Illumination is the waste of electric power applied to a light bulb. A 10 Watt light bulb is more efficient than 100 Watt light bulb regarding power consumption. However, from a different perspective, the illumination produced by 100 Watt bulb may be more efficient to reduce the darkness. In energy consumption,  watts is a measurement of the waste cost associated with the power to produce electricity. Energy company uses waste consumption to make money. The more waste, the more money

MS: Think Outside the Box

Think Outside the Box

HERO:

The word hero is an acronym that means, Help Everyone, Respect Others. You show respect by giving your time, your talent, your treasure, and most importantly, your tenacity. Never quit until we find the cure for MS. Thank you for coming, each of you is my hero.

The current dialog on MS has two principal author perspectives. The clinical view and the MSer self-view, or the "them" or the "me" perspective. When I talk about MS From the Insider-Out, I try to have the "us" perspective.  I just look at MS magazines, the principal authors were from the clinical view. Sometimes, the magazine will have an MSer personal story as the me-too story.  The them pronoun can be a logical context syllogism when referring to people with MS as the object of the article. Them, you, us and me are just perspectives of the MS box. The clinical views, them and you, see the MS box from the outside. The MSer views, us and me, is from inside looking to see out. The MS box does not have walls, rather, the clinical perspective is looking at a pool of water, and MSer perspective is living in the pool. The water is not water, it is MS.

The idea of "MS From the Inside-Out" is different than other dialogs. It is a cross between the clinical and the personal.  

Before MS forced me into disability, a big part of my career was working on international standards for electrical engineering. The job was to architect information models. Everybody is an information molder. Every profession has sets of information models that become the rules of the job. An MD diagnosis of illness. A CPA reconciles charts of accounts. Parents, children, artist, CEO, researcher, pastor, politician, gas station attendant, hermits, blue-collar, white-collar, gray-collar, everybody operates within tribe information models. Characteristics, personality, craft, relationships, and awareness emit from information models.  This email is an information model.

Think of “MS From the Inside-Out” as the middle-ground information architecture of MS life.

Here is a challenging information model question I asked many doctors and others, some of whom were at the meeting.

a. What not is fatigue is ___________?

b. What is not fatigue is ___________?

These are information architect style questions. 

The answer for a. is the opposite. 

The answer for b. is a description. 

My Inside-Out journey began with another question, “What did MS steal from me?” While looking for what MS stole, I discovered the MS thief left fatigue tracks. You may think everybody knows MS causes fatigue. That is true, the difference is my discovery personified MS as thief and fatigue is evidence not a symptom.

The challenge question makes a case statement where the fatigue evidence may find what the thief stole..

All the "pros" answered with descriptions of fatigue. Never the opposite.

A survey using the challenge questions. While not necessary, add one more question.

c. What is your connection to MS. Answer One or more.
___MSer.         How long since diagnosis? ______
___Care giver. How long providing care? __________
___ Medical doctor.
___ Ph.D. not medical.
___ Medical or Ph.D. staff
___ Therapy. What type? ________
___ Community Provider?  What type ________
___ Trainer. What type? _______
___ MS Support Organization.
___ Other connection. ___________
___ No connection.

As an experiment, read the InfoMS "Focusing on Fatigue"  to look for an answer to the challenge question.

I did find an answer. I am a fan of letting others seek their answers. My answer took me two years working on and off to find.

CPA Hint. What not is a net asset is ________
               What is not a net asset is  ________
               😀The answer is not a not for profit

The MS Society Communications Editor and some Society staff rejected MS From the Inside Out. Not everyone is in favor of a new MS box. 

A box has 4 observer perspectives. 

 - The outside perspective sees the box. 

 - The inside perspective sees the box. 

 - The outside-in perspective is a guess about what is on the inside. 

  - The inside-out perspective can see both sides. 

Hence, the expression, thinking outside box. Some people think MSers belong in a box. Open a box the lid to discover a music box.

In 1989, at 40, I was diagnosed with MS. I worked as an advisory engineer at IBM. Then in 1995, MS forced me to surrender my career. In 2005, I started to change my relationship with MS. The process took a few years, eventually, I invented a training program called Connection Toning. All of my MS education was a clinical perspective. (Most of the Brain Hearth  program was from the clinician perspective.) This perspective is absolutely necessary. As time passed, I realized as an MSer, I have a different perspective. I called my perspective, "MS From the Inside Out" and the clinical perspective, "MS From the Outside In."

However, both perspectives are about MS.  I needed a model that includes both. This blog explains:

https://ideas.resipso.com/2019/10/multiple-sclerosis-ms-from-inside-out.html

The Outside-In MS dialog is lesion, inflammation, and scar.  However, I know something is wrong before going to a neurologist. I gave that knowledge a name, irritation. I know the lesion will cause neuro-psych damage I called stigma.  I named the Inside-Out dialog lesion, irritation, and stigma.

https://ideas.resipso.com/2019/11/multiple-sclerosis-ms-attack-zones.html