Effect of mass and reverse effect of mass - Science of goal achieving and how it applies to religion

"More is always better" is 

a popular, yet often false, idea, challenged by concepts like diminishing returns(too much of a good thing becomes bad, like overeating), positional goods (where relative status matters more than absolute wealth), and the Mean Girls musical, which explores how chasing "more" can lead to losing oneself, highlighting that less of something negative (stress, clutter) is better, while true fulfillment often comes from balance, not excess. 

Why "more" isn't always better:

1. Diminishing Marginal Utility: Each additional unit of something provides less satisfaction than the one before it; a first slice of pizza is great, the tenth is not.
2. Positional Concerns: People often care more about being better off relative to others than simply having more in an absolute sense (e.g., a bigger house in a poor neighborhood vs. a smaller one in a rich one).
3. Overwhelm & Clutter: Too many possessions can lead to stress and a cluttered environment, while too many social obligations can leave no time for oneself.
4. Loss of Self: In Mean Girls, the character Cady learns that constantly seeking "more" (popularity, possessions) makes her lose touch with who she truly is, finding more peace and stars (literal and metaphorical) in solitude. 

When "more" might seem better (and why it's still complex):

1. Basic Needs: More money, food, or security is generally better until basic needs are met.
2. Experiences: More travel or learning can be enriching, but quality and balance matter. 

Ultimately, the idea that "more is better" often collapses under scrutiny, with quality, balance, and personal well-being proving more valuable than sheer quantity. 

"More is always better" is 

a popular, yet often false, idea

that depends on what goal is. Also, effect of mass isnt using all resources for one single goal, just an overuse of different good resources to make sure top priority goal is achieved. If something doesnt achieve a goal, no point in adding more of it.

The phrase "sometimes more is a solution" plays on the common adage "less is more." It challenges the conventional wisdom that simplicity is always best, suggesting that in certain situations, a more complex, multi-faceted, or substantial approach is necessary to solve a problem effectively

. 

This idea can be understood in several contexts:

1. Complexity Requires Complexity: For genuinely complex or deeply rooted issues, a simple, "neat" solution is often inadequate and might even create new, unforeseen problems. The quote attributed to Thomas Sowell captures this well: "On closer scrutiny, it turns out that many of today's problems are a result of yesterday's solutions". This implies that a more comprehensive approach is needed to address all variables.
2. Going Beyond the Obvious: Sometimes the immediate, simple answer avoids the real underlying issue. As some sources suggest, you might need to lean into discomfort or shift your perspective to find a more robust solution that fosters genuine growth, rather than a quick fix.
3. Thoroughness Over Shortcuts: The idea of "more" can also refer to a more thorough process. For example, spending more time defining a problem can make the eventual solution much clearer and more effective.
4. Context is Key: While Occam's Razor suggests the simplest solution should be considered first, there are exceptions. Sometimes, the more complicated answer is the right one because it fully addresses the nuances of the situation. 

In essence, the phrase advocates for a thoughtful approach to problem-solving, recognizing that a superficial fix is not always the best path and a more involved solution may be required for a lasting result.

less is more

Less is never more, unless you find way to achieve goal with less resources. You can never use less resources than necessary to achieve a goal and still achieve a goal. Effect of mass is just using more resources than needed to achieve a goal and having some variety of equally good things to achieve it, to prevent accidentally failing to achieve a goal, because getting resources to exactly just enough is often impossible because it is often unknown what enough is. However, using less resources than necessary to achieve a goal is a guaranteed failure in achieving a goal.

Military strategies are always using the strong and concentrated mass to attack the crucial part of enemy forces, and that part must be weaker than the attacking force or attack fails. this is why in military warfare, picking targets is more important than merely having some great power.

So how come with all the great military power, America has not won a war yet. America had to withdraw in disgrace from Vietnam, N Korea, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Modern warfare ain't so easy.

Russians also find this.

Though the Americans did find that nuclear weapons are an effective deterrent.

That is why America picks wars against non nuclear countries. Eg. Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam etc.

Obviously true.

Will Venezuela be the next phoney U.S. escapade.

Not weapons of mass destruction but narcotics of mass intoxication.

Not that The U.S. isn't a nation of prescription drug addicts anyway.

Though the Orange man will want to sort out a few Syrians first.

Trump has picked a strange path to the Nobel Peace Prize.

Yep. One got the impression, that he assumed his dynamic charisma alone could save the World.

Realising his mistake, he has since reverted to the U.S. default setting of tough guy bombing the fuck out of soft targets.

America has always picked on weaker targets. Eg Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan and Iraq.