Slashdot Mirror
Why Being Wrong Makes Humans So Smart
Hugh Pickens sends in an excerpt in last week's Boston Globe from Kathryn Schulz's book Being Wrong: Adventures in the Margin of Error. "The more scientists understand about cognitive functioning, the more it becomes clear that our capacity to make mistakes is utterly inextricable from what makes the human brain so swift, adaptable, and intelligent. Rather than treating errors like the bedbugs of the intellect — an appalling and embarrassing nuisance we try to pretend out of existence — we need to recognize that human fallibility is part and parcel of human brilliance. Neuroscientists increasingly think that inductive reasoning undergirds virtually all of human cognition. Humans use inductive reasoning to learn language, organize the world into meaningful categories, and grasp the relationship between cause and effect. Thanks to inductive reasoning, we are able to form nearly instantaneous beliefs and take action accordingly. However, Schulz writes, 'The distinctive thing about inductive reasoning is that it generates conclusions that aren't necessarily true. They are, instead, probabilistically true — which means they are possibly false.' Schulz recommends that we respond to the mistakes (or putative mistakes) of those around us with empathy and generosity and demand that our business and political leaders acknowledge and redress their errors rather than ignoring or denying them. 'Once we recognize that we do not err out of laziness, stupidity, or evil intent, we can liberate ourselves from the impossible burden of trying to be permanently right. We can take seriously the proposition that we could be in error, without deeming ourselves idiotic or unworthy.'"
Interesting way of looking at our failures. So... let's see if BP uses this to prove their genius.
I'm never wrong.
I thought I was once, but it turns out I wasn't.
I'm sure we've all noticed that the people who make the biggest mistakes get promoted the fastest.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
The funny thing about that is your post wasn't all that funny. So you're even more wrong than you think.
I have known this for most of my life. The name reflects the idea. I'm not afraid of being wrong... at least not as much as others seem to be.
The depth of the value of errors goes much further than the topic describes. The animal brain itself is a noisy collection of errors. The reason correct processing happens at all is because nearly all possibilities are explored in neural pathways to get to the correct responses. Once correct responses are identified, neural pathways to the correct response are established. This is what we call learning in the lowest level sense of the word.
I have always found it amusing and interesting that computers work the way they do. They work in ways that are the complete opposite of the animal neuromechanism. Computers, originally derived from numerical processing devices, rely on accuracy and seek to prevent errors in every way possible. Memory is storage rather than a path. In a way, computers are our biggest hangups about being wrong put into mechanical practice.
I find it to be far from ironic that we are now trying to get computers to "learn" under these conditions. The fact that it doesn't work particularly well. When every measure is taken to always be right, how can a machine learn? It is also far from surprising to me to see that people who are so afraid of being wrong are also the least capable of learning anything new or useful or being able to adapt to new circumstances. It all fits neatly within my own observations about mistakes and learning.
Mistakes can cost us time and money, expose us to danger or inflict harm on others, and erode the trust extended to us by our community.
Or being ridiculed and humiliated by assholes who gain a false sense of superiority by belittling people over mistakes - many times trivial ones. Which then leads the other person to dig their heals in, argue pedantic points to stay "right" which then leads to counter pedantic arguments from the other, and round and round we go!
But hey! That's what you get when you post on Slashdot or work in IT.
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
While it might be true that "we do not err out of laziness, stupidity, or evil intent", it is definitely also the case that laziness can and does lead to ignoring procedural correctness that would have caught error, stupidity can and does delay the recognition of error until it has had time to balloon into something more serious, and evil intent can cause the willfull application of anything that laziness or stupidity would lead to; but carried on much more intelligently(and thus dangerously). Not to mention, of course, that little class of statements we know as "lies", which are essentially calculated to cause errors in those receiving them.
Obviously, in a trivial sense, nobody wakes up in the morning and says "Gosh, I sure do feel like really fucking up today!"; but some people take measures that reduce the probability of error(and, where possible, measure it) and others do not. Just because virtually all human reasoning, outside of (some) math and syllogisms, is inductive does not imply that all human reasoning is on equally firm ground. In fact, given that deductive logic is useful pretty much only in certain types of math and in carefully controlled toy situations, the ability to distinguish various statements of inductive logic by quality or probability is probably the most vital aspect of epistemology as an applied science...
It's pretty obvious that BP didn't intend to cause a spill. But when you get to be as big as BP, the size of the potential mistakes grows. If the point of the article is that we're going to make mistakes no matter what, then the logical conclusion is that nobody should be permitted to get big enough where their mistakes could cause more than xxx of damage, where xxx could be monetary, human lives, ecological impact, or whatever.
I don't think that will be the answer, however.
John
that we could be in error, without deeming ourselves idiotic or unworthy."
i guess Schulz has never read a comment board
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
None of these conclusions make sense in an Eastern shame culture/honor culture. These conclusions, do, however, dovetail nicely with Western guilt culture. Correctly pointing out the mistakes of others can result in massive loss of face for the correctee. This will have real consequences for the finger-pointer. Publically admitting that you were wrong and redressing your errors is career suicide in many places throughout the world. I see it all the time, Westerners are shocked that their culture of "it's OK to make mistakes and it's a positive thing to admit when you are wrong" doesn't apply everywhere.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
This isn't talking about overlooking things. It's talking about the human ability to make decisions without being able to know all of the necessary facts, the ability to reach a conclusion that could be incorrect... but is still probably correct. That's something that computers cannot do (at least not yet).
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Look at what happens in Japan when a major mistake is make and in the west. Has anyone from BP taken accountability? Has anyone from Boeing ever laid down their jobs because they killed a couple of hundred people with their bad decision? Has any airline director every left? No.
But in Japan the higher ups DO feel that they are at fault for mistakes.
Your explenation of western attitude often becomes: A fault is nobodies fault.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
The problem is most of the time people on some level know that it's a bad idea. I'm sure somebody had lingering doubts that cutting corners on safety equipment was a bad idea. Some people definitely realized that the absence of WMDs detected by the weapons inspector could be indicative of them not being there.
As for the poor voting to cut the taxes of the rich, some people are just so damned stupid and stubborn that they probably shouldn't be allowed to vote. Not because they get it wrong, but because they refuse to actually learn anything from it. It's like those morons that keep pushing for fewer and fewer regulations, then use the inevitable catastrophe as evidence that they didn't go far enough.
"There is no such thing as an absolute truth."
Is the above statement absolutely true?
Or deliberately ignoring your own engineers saying, "This is a bad idea. The wellhead will blow out." Then try to act all surprised to discover the engineers knew what they were talking about, and blame the engineers instead of your own stupidity Mr. BP Manager.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
I think the potential benefit isn't for those who are confidently intelligent. They see mistakes as a means of learning. The real benefit is for people who are tremendously insecure. They see mistakes and try to explain them away, or blame them on something else, negating the possible positive benefit of seeing why the mistake happened. For instance, they may have overlooked something. Instead of noticing that and learning to look for it the next time, they shy away from looking at the fault in detail.
I see this kind of thing all the time with my students. They misread something, and if I comment on it, no matter how nicely, the shut down because they don't like to be wrong because they think it makes them seem stupid. When in reality, they are trying to use inductive reasoning, which is a huge part of my goal. But...they miss the learning opportunity when they close down.
This article will make its way into my introductory lessons now. It will supplement the big sign on my door that says, "There is nothing wrong with being wrong."
An important change for education.
David Hume pointed all of this out hundreds of years ago. And he backed up all his claims with plenty of evidence that was readily available at the time.
I wonder if Kathryn Schulz's is aware of this?
90% of income taxes are paid by the 1% richest earners. 99% are paid by the 10% richest. Yes I know - an inconvenient fact but also happens to be true (came direct from the IRS).
The simple truth is that they should pay much more. If you want to hold all the wealth, why shouldn't you pay all the taxes? The idea that a few can make almost all the money and yet accept less than their share of the stewardship (through various tax dodges including ye olde capital gains) is ridiculous no matter how you examine it. The top 10 taxpayers in the year 2000 paid taxes on only 50% of their income, another fact straight from the IRS. Typical wageearners who work for some corporation have to pay taxes on nearly 100% of their income. Now what's fair?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Due process, or some other such legal technicality.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Why is the "BP manager" currently out on a yacht at some annual event instead of sat in court, desperately defending himself
Same reason the Union Carbide guy, who killed tens of thousands of people in Bohpal, is living off his life in luxury in the U.S: The system is made by the rich. for the rich.
You can't take the sky from me...
As an engineer, I would honestly rather upper management to be as far away as possible, that's how the real work gets done. Show me an engineer that wants a CEO breathing down their neck and I'll show you an average engineer that wants to brown nose with management. Also what is a CEO supposed to do? What in his background would leave you to believe that other than signing 20 BILLION dollars into escrow for repairs/claims that he would be more effective at the scene? I'm not a fan of big business, but people are just looking for a reason to crucify him. I don't go to BP, that's what I do to show my disapproval.
You told me, but you didn't convince me.
Actually, had they told anybody, the job would stop. Every employee has the authority to stop a job - any job. There aren't some jobs that some people can stop and some jobs that other people can stop, anybody can stop a job for safety on a BP rig (or any BP facility). That gets pounded into your head day from day 1 - if you see something that you think is unsafe, you stop it, and everybody gets together and double-checks the plan and makes sure they haven't missed anything that would make it unsafe.
There are practical limits, of course. For example, if I'm not involved in a job and I have no idea if it's safe or not because I'm not qualified enough to know the difference, then I have no business stopping a job. I still have the authority to stop it, but I won't stop a job because I have no idea what's involved. However if I'm involved in a job and I feel unsafe, I will absolutely stop the job.
By the same token, management may be pushing to get a job done a certain way (they always want to use the low cost option), but if they aren't qualified to know what is safe and what isn't they obviously aren't going to stop the job for safety. However, if you are qualified to know if it's safe, and you think it is not safe, you MUST stop the job. If you're working on a job and you feel unsafe, you MUST stop the job.
All it took was for one person to say "This doesn't seem safe, we need to stop the job" and the job would have stopped right then and there. The fact that it didn't means either nobody said to stop the job, or there was a serious breach of BP policy.
In other words, all of this "If they had just listened to the engineers" stuff is either complete bullshit (as in, never happened), or criminal mis-management at the rig level. This is not the kind of decision that happens further up the chain. There is a very real possibility that there was a local culture to ignore safety concerns in spite of BP policy, in which case the ones responsible actually are the people on the rig. Not Tony Hayward, not the President of BP Americas, but the rig management and possibly one level above them (if only for putting such people in a position of authority).
I do think there is a real problem with BP's management culture which makes accidents more likely. They have a tendancy to move managers around from position to position, and they tend to stay at one place for no more than two years. The idea is to get a "broad understanding" of oil field operations as well as the corporate side. This means if they are ever going to get a top-level manager, they can't keep them in one place for very long. This leads to serious inconsistencies in management of a particular facility/rig. They also tie bonuses directly to how much of your budget was left over each year. This creates a perfect storm for accidents due to poor maintenance, as the easiest place to cut is the maintenance budget (safety & compliance and production always gets funded). I believe this is why BP has the worst record for environmental accidents in the industry by a huge margin. How that directly relates to this spill is going to be subtle, though. I would definitely name it as a contributing factor.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
Or deliberately ignoring your own engineers saying, "This is a bad idea. The wellhead will blow out."
If there were engineers who believed the wellhead would blow out because of the course they were taking, they should be held liable for the deaths of their coworkers, because it was their job to stop it, especially if management thought the job was safe.
Hold it. It was management who was pushing pushing pushing to get that well pumping ASAP, and management who told operators that 2 instead of 3 concrete plugs would be sufficient. It as also management who did not ensure both batteries in the BOP were functional/charged. For you to throw this all on engineers when there are numerous reports of management forcing an unsafely accelerated schedule is ludicrous and shows that you are less than impartial on the topic.
To be clear, blow outs happen.
To be clear: blow outs can be prevented if standard safety procedures are not bypassed.
That is where I take issue with the claims in the parent article. It assumes all humans are interested in being intelligent and learning from mistakes. That is far too optimistic a view. The article actually says 'Once we recognize that we do not err out of laziness, stupidity, or evil intent...' But people DO err out of those reasons (I equate greed with 'evil intent' when the person knows their actions has a significant likelihood to harm/kill others, which is exactly what happened in BP's case.) It would be a major mistake to assume nobody in the future will put greed ahead of safety and make a mistake via that incorrect choice. This repeating pattern is not a sign of intelligence.
"We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007