3 ms·

Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.[0] What else would you have done in their position? If you were the health authorities? Do nothing?

Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.[0] What else would you have done in their position? If you were the health authorities? Do nothing? At its heart, I think this issue is the same one as social science experiments being replicated with lower strength results: We naturally want to handle information as if the truth value is binary, as in mathematical logic and and IF ... THEN statements, true or false. Wouldn't that be wonderful and easy? When the information is imperfect, it seems like we feel justified in targeting our emotions at the offender, but they are doing the only thing they can - acting under uncertainty. Was telling people to eat onions a bad choice, given their choices, and in foresight? As everyone knows from personal experience, if you are giving medical advice, doing scientific research, or making a decision for your startup, the information and possible conclusions are not like in the textbook - they are unclear and messy. You can't wait for the perfect stuff. [0] Attributed to Voltaire

whatshisface 8y ago
There's a big difference between thinking or saying "I know what I'm doing and there is no risk," when you're clueless, and saying "We are facing a known unknown and have to take a risk." For one thing, if the blowhard eventually comes across the real answer he'll ignore it because he thinks he already understands the situation.
- afarrell 8y ago
  The problem is that sometimes you don’t have the luxury of being honest with people. Sometimes if you try to give the honest, nuanced picture of the situation, then you just end up making them nervous or you’ll sound ridiculous or flip-floppy in one of the ways that normal honest people often sound ridiculous. At the next election, voters’ll dump you for a Real Man who will ‘talk straight’ to them. I would never want to be a politician.
  - whatshisface 8y ago
    Facing the ethical reality, if your team doesn't want to take a certain risk (based on their estimation of their own risk-tolerance), you're not lying for their own good if you convince them that the risk isn't there. If they do want to take the risk, then you can inspire a pretty cool culture by making the importance of the task at hand clear to everybody.
    - afarrell 8y ago
      If you are able to build a team, then you often have the ability to judge your hires based on their ability to accept that: - we live in a world of tradeoffs - we live in a world of uncertainty - order and trust are far more fragile than chaos and discord This is not so when working with a constituency.
  - forapurpose 8y ago
    > I would never want to be a politician. For similar reasons I look at 'politician' as a real, honorable professional with its own set of professional skills. First, you need to understand any issue that might cross your desk. Then, amidst the insanity of the political environment, you need to maintain your own clear vision, maintain a nuanced, up-to-date feel for your constituency's opinions and for the forces in the halls of power, triangulate and anticipate all of it in order to judge what is possible, and then have the skills to lead/nudge/guide/push/negotiate all those forces simultaneously in order to execute what you think is possible. The trend of hiring outsiders for the job is absurd, IMO. Few things impress me more than a skilled politician at work (i.e., one who uses their skills to accomplish things).

whatshisface 8y ago

There's a big difference between thinking or saying "I know what I'm doing and there is no risk," when you're clueless, and saying "We are facing a known unknown and have to take a risk." For one thing, if the blowhard eventually comes across the real answer he'll ignore it because he thinks he already understands the situation.

afarrell 8y ago
The problem is that sometimes you don’t have the luxury of being honest with people. Sometimes if you try to give the honest, nuanced picture of the situation, then you just end up making them nervous or you’ll sound ridiculous or flip-floppy in one of the ways that normal honest people often sound ridiculous. At the next election, voters’ll dump you for a Real Man who will ‘talk straight’ to them. I would never want to be a politician.
- whatshisface 8y ago
  Facing the ethical reality, if your team doesn't want to take a certain risk (based on their estimation of their own risk-tolerance), you're not lying for their own good if you convince them that the risk isn't there. If they do want to take the risk, then you can inspire a pretty cool culture by making the importance of the task at hand clear to everybody.
  - afarrell 8y ago
    If you are able to build a team, then you often have the ability to judge your hires based on their ability to accept that: - we live in a world of tradeoffs - we live in a world of uncertainty - order and trust are far more fragile than chaos and discord This is not so when working with a constituency.
- forapurpose 8y ago
  > I would never want to be a politician. For similar reasons I look at 'politician' as a real, honorable professional with its own set of professional skills. First, you need to understand any issue that might cross your desk. Then, amidst the insanity of the political environment, you need to maintain your own clear vision, maintain a nuanced, up-to-date feel for your constituency's opinions and for the forces in the halls of power, triangulate and anticipate all of it in order to judge what is possible, and then have the skills to lead/nudge/guide/push/negotiate all those forces simultaneously in order to execute what you think is possible. The trend of hiring outsiders for the job is absurd, IMO. Few things impress me more than a skilled politician at work (i.e., one who uses their skills to accomplish things).