12 ms·

Author here. I'd love to get a list of errors and fallacies. I actively try to learn to think better, so it'll be great if you could point them out. You are mi

Author here. I'd love to get a list of errors and fallacies. I actively try to learn to think better, so it'll be great if you could point them out. You are missing the point of the article. The question isn't about tradeoffs, it is about knowledge (or lack of such tradeoffs). In engineering problems, tradeoffs are known and in human systems, tradeoffs aren't known. > On the other side, politics is full of examples of objectively bad policies where relevant experts know better ways to achieve the stated objectives. In reality many of the problems with politics stem from the fact that the stated objectives are not the real objectives behind policy decisions. If you read the notes (and the paper linked), that's the exact point I'm making in the article.

mattnewport 9y ago
I don't believe I'm missing the point of the article, I'm fundamentally disagreeing with it. You say "In engineering problems, tradeoffs are known and in human systems, tradeoffs aren't known.". I believe this is more false than true on both counts. I don't believe my second point is the one you make in the article. I'm saying that frequently policies are not the best known means to achieve the stated objectives of the policies. The problem there is not that people can't agree on the problem they are trying to solve (though that is frequently a problem, both in politics and engineering) but that the policy solutions are known to not be good ways to achieve the stated goals and that in part that is due to the real goals being different.
wilun 9y ago
> In engineering problems, tradeoffs are known Not really. In non trivial projects, you also have to "manage" the unknowns. Viewing engineering projects as completely controlled is a myth; even what we make with actual engineering practices (planes, etc.) fail every so often because of design issues. This is not because of known tradeoff, except if you twist the definition as far as pretending that the lack of infinite study and simulation is a tradeoff. Catastrophic failures often (always?) come from highly non-linear causes, you can think that kind of chaos also leads in other areas, especially among social interaction. Because of the non-linearity, even estimations of failure rates are only really estimations with absolutely no hard bounds. So said non trivial (real) engineering projects actually have to be inserted in the society as a whole, including for example insurances. The (real) engineer also have (a moral obligation) to consider the social impact of their work. In the end, both engineering work and leading a society is reducible to exercising reason to attempt to achieve a goal. The remaining differences are mere details.
mattnewport 9y ago
One example of fallacious reasoning is the comment that "This is why despite his IQ, Donald Trump got elected as the president of US.". In context it can be taken as a claim that Trump has an IQ below 120 but that his exceptional persuasion abilities more than compensate. This whole section is filled with fallacious reasoning but I'll just point out that Trump's IQ has been the topic of much debate but there is no reliable source for what it actually is. Any vaguely impartial attempt to estimate it however has to conclude that it is significantly above average, e.g. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41573846 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41573846 Unless you have special access to Trump's IQ test results (I'm sure the media would love you to share) this comment doesn't support your line of reasoning and probably undermines it.
valuearb 9y ago
“in human systems, tradeoffs aren't known.” You keep making this claim without any proof. It’s a gross simplification at best, and reduces your reasoning level to pop psychology drivel. Humans are predictable. If i slash the wages paid my engineers I can successfully predict that most will quit. Thats a known tradeoff of trying to reduce payroll costs.
bewo001 9y ago
Maybe you should look at historical examples. Are there successful companies founded or led by engineers? Daimler/Benz, Rolls Royce, Siemens, General Electric (successor of Edison General Electric), Amazon, Google,.. Not every good engineer is a good company leader, but those who are make history.

mattnewport 9y ago

I don't believe I'm missing the point of the article, I'm fundamentally disagreeing with it. You say "In engineering problems, tradeoffs are known and in human systems, tradeoffs aren't known.". I believe this is more false than true on both counts. I don't believe my second point is the one you make in the article. I'm saying that frequently policies are not the best known means to achieve the stated objectives of the policies. The problem there is not that people can't agree on the problem they are trying to solve (though that is frequently a problem, both in politics and engineering) but that the policy solutions are known to not be good ways to achieve the stated goals and that in part that is due to the real goals being different.

wilun 9y ago

> In engineering problems, tradeoffs are known Not really. In non trivial projects, you also have to "manage" the unknowns. Viewing engineering projects as completely controlled is a myth; even what we make with actual engineering practices (planes, etc.) fail every so often because of design issues. This is not because of known tradeoff, except if you twist the definition as far as pretending that the lack of infinite study and simulation is a tradeoff. Catastrophic failures often (always?) come from highly non-linear causes, you can think that kind of chaos also leads in other areas, especially among social interaction. Because of the non-linearity, even estimations of failure rates are only really estimations with absolutely no hard bounds. So said non trivial (real) engineering projects actually have to be inserted in the society as a whole, including for example insurances. The (real) engineer also have (a moral obligation) to consider the social impact of their work. In the end, both engineering work and leading a society is reducible to exercising reason to attempt to achieve a goal. The remaining differences are mere details.

mattnewport 9y ago

One example of fallacious reasoning is the comment that "This is why despite his IQ, Donald Trump got elected as the president of US.". In context it can be taken as a claim that Trump has an IQ below 120 but that his exceptional persuasion abilities more than compensate. This whole section is filled with fallacious reasoning but I'll just point out that Trump's IQ has been the topic of much debate but there is no reliable source for what it actually is. Any vaguely impartial attempt to estimate it however has to conclude that it is significantly above average, e.g. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41573846 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41573846 Unless you have special access to Trump's IQ test results (I'm sure the media would love you to share) this comment doesn't support your line of reasoning and probably undermines it.

valuearb 9y ago

“in human systems, tradeoffs aren't known.” You keep making this claim without any proof. It’s a gross simplification at best, and reduces your reasoning level to pop psychology drivel. Humans are predictable. If i slash the wages paid my engineers I can successfully predict that most will quit. Thats a known tradeoff of trying to reduce payroll costs.

bewo001 9y ago

Maybe you should look at historical examples. Are there successful companies founded or led by engineers? Daimler/Benz, Rolls Royce, Siemens, General Electric (successor of Edison General Electric), Amazon, Google,.. Not every good engineer is a good company leader, but those who are make history.