3 ms·

This was pretty ramble-y and pulled in some pretty unrelated examples. * We never get a clear answer for why the Civic Center Engineers got the inputs wrong, s

This was pretty ramble-y and pulled in some pretty unrelated examples. * We never get a clear answer for why the Civic Center Engineers got the inputs wrong, so we can't conclude that it was because of their expertise. * With the firefighters, there's a pretty easy proximal explanation, which again is not their expertise misleading them: panic. If anything, the solution to the problem shows that expertise was the solution to the problem, not the cause of it: by adding running without packs to their expertise in a concrete way, they were able to override panic. * With the priming examples, I can see how this might be related, but the only example which actually involves expertise leading them astray is the baseball example. But this priming research, contrary to what's claimed in the article, isn't reproduce-able. And even if it were, these sorts of lateral thinking exercises have pretty limited applicability: detectives or theoretical physicists use a high degree of lateral thinking, but many careers don't, and I didn't get those examples from the article, I had to come up with them myself: that hardly speaks to this being an insightful article. And ultimately, it's unclear whether expertise leads detectives or theoretical physicists astray: surely part of gaining expertise in a field that requires a lot of lateral thinking involves building the skill of putting aside preconceptions. Again, I don't think we can conclude that expertise is the problem: it may be the solution. Overall, this topic could be interesting, but this isn't an insightful article on it.

quindecagon 7y ago
Re point 1: > This was the early 1970s, he said, why were these engineers so confident in their calculations? As guessed by many in the audience, the reason for that was "computers". In fact, when they won the bid, they told the city of Hartford that they could save half a million dollars in construction costs "if you buy us this new, whiz-bang thing called a computer". It turned out that the computer worked fine, but it was given the wrong inputs. There was an emotional investment that the engineers had made in the new technology, so it was inconceivable to them that it could be giving them the wrong answers.
- kerkeslager 7y ago
  Yes but we don't ever find out why they got the inputs wrong. Does this sound like expertise to you?
  - mjw1007 7y ago
    I think "wrong inputs" here is an odd way of saying that the model was bad (presumably to distinguish that problem from outright bugs in the design software or computer hardware failure). https://eng-resources.uncc.edu/failurecasestudies/building-failure-cases/hartford-civic-center/ https://eng-resources.uncc.edu/failurecasestudies/building-f... says « The roof design was extremely susceptible to buckling which was a mode of failure not considered by in that particular computer analysis and, therefore, left undiscovered. »
    - kerkeslager 7y ago
      Okay but again: was this failure because their expertise misled them?
      - mjw1007 7y ago
        Not as far as I can see, no. That article contains the following claim: « Computers, however, are only as good as their programmer and tend to offer engineers a false sense of security. » which matches the "dark side of expertise" talk's bit about « There was an emotional investment that the engineers had made in the new technology, so it was inconceivable to them that it could be giving them the wrong answers. » That seems to me to be a different issue to being misled by one's own expertise, and in any case neither source bothers to give any evidence that it's true (that is, that the computer's involvement was the cause for the unreasonable trust in the model's results).
      - bryanrasmussen 7y ago
        No. In fact if they were misled by computers and they were not software engineers, which I had assumed they were not from them being called "Design Engineers" in the anecdote, it follows that they were not misled by their expertise but their assumptions of expertise from this unknown mysterious powerful new thing that a lot of money had been poured into.
svnpenn 7y ago
> With the firefighters, there's a pretty easy proximal explanation, which again is not their expertise misleading them: panic. Exactly, plus while his idea was fascinating, its understandable that the others didnt follow suit; he essentially invented the idea: > Similar types of escape fires had been used by the plains Indians to escape the fast-moving, brief duration grass fires of the plains, and the method had been written about by James Fenimore Cooper (1827) in The Prairie, but in this case Foreman Dodge appears to have invented it on the spot, as the only means available to him to save his crew. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mann_Gulch_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mann_Gulch_fire
kbenson 7y ago
> We never get a clear answer for why the Civic Center Engineers got the inputs wrong, so we can't conclude that it was because of their expertise. I think that's because you're focusing on a component, and not the whole. The construction project had a problem, and part of that is because they trusted the expertise of designers. Various people in charge of aspects of the project should have pushed back harder, noting that the expertise they were relying on was obviously false, since it didn't match reality. The problem is not the computers, but the designers, and the expertise in question is that of "trust your designers". The story and moral plays out the same whether it's a computer, or some bad math, or even purposeful sabotage. Funnily enough, it might be possible to attribute your focus on the engineers as an aspect of priming itself. Even if you aren't an engineer or in a related discipline, this forum is very heavily frequented by such people and often focuses on such issues. As such, focusing so much on the engineers themselves and what they did or didn't do to the point if missing the whole can be expected. Well, it can be expected if you accept that priming plays a role, at least to some degree.
mcguire 7y ago
You are entirely missing the point in your first two points: * The issue here isn't that the inputs were wrong, it's that the experts could not (or would not, if you don't want to be generous) accept that the structure was under-strength in spite of multiple reports; the believed their calculations rather than their lying eyes. * There is no particular evidence that the firefighters panicked. Whether or not they did, though, they did what their training led them to believe was their only choice: keep their equipment and try to reach the top of the ridge. The foreman was the only one to realize either that the training wasn't going to work or that they had another option. Do you have a great deal of expertise in this area?
- kerkeslager 7y ago
  > The issue here isn't that the inputs were wrong, it's that the experts could not (or would not, if you don't want to be generous) accept that the structure was under-strength in spite of multiple reports; the believed their calculations rather than their lying eyes. How does this support the conclusion that they were misled by their expertise? There are many possible explanations here. > There is no particular evidence that the firefighters panicked. Whether or not they did, though, they did what their training led them to believe was their only choice: keep their equipment and try to reach the top of the ridge. The foreman was the only one to realize either that the training wasn't going to work or that they had another option. There is no particular evidence that the firefighters were misled by their expertise, either. If anything wasn't the foreman's realization arguably due to his superior expertise? > Do you have a great deal of expertise in this area? In the area of basic logic, such as figuring out whether evidence supports conclusions? I suppose you could say I do, although I wouldn't claim anything special.

quindecagon 7y ago

Re point 1: > This was the early 1970s, he said, why were these engineers so confident in their calculations? As guessed by many in the audience, the reason for that was "computers". In fact, when they won the bid, they told the city of Hartford that they could save half a million dollars in construction costs "if you buy us this new, whiz-bang thing called a computer". It turned out that the computer worked fine, but it was given the wrong inputs. There was an emotional investment that the engineers had made in the new technology, so it was inconceivable to them that it could be giving them the wrong answers.

kerkeslager 7y ago
Yes but we don't ever find out why they got the inputs wrong. Does this sound like expertise to you?
- mjw1007 7y ago
  I think "wrong inputs" here is an odd way of saying that the model was bad (presumably to distinguish that problem from outright bugs in the design software or computer hardware failure). https://eng-resources.uncc.edu/failurecasestudies/building-failure-cases/hartford-civic-center/ https://eng-resources.uncc.edu/failurecasestudies/building-f... says « The roof design was extremely susceptible to buckling which was a mode of failure not considered by in that particular computer analysis and, therefore, left undiscovered. »
  - kerkeslager 7y ago
    Okay but again: was this failure because their expertise misled them?
    - mjw1007 7y ago
      Not as far as I can see, no. That article contains the following claim: « Computers, however, are only as good as their programmer and tend to offer engineers a false sense of security. » which matches the "dark side of expertise" talk's bit about « There was an emotional investment that the engineers had made in the new technology, so it was inconceivable to them that it could be giving them the wrong answers. » That seems to me to be a different issue to being misled by one's own expertise, and in any case neither source bothers to give any evidence that it's true (that is, that the computer's involvement was the cause for the unreasonable trust in the model's results).
    - bryanrasmussen 7y ago
      No. In fact if they were misled by computers and they were not software engineers, which I had assumed they were not from them being called "Design Engineers" in the anecdote, it follows that they were not misled by their expertise but their assumptions of expertise from this unknown mysterious powerful new thing that a lot of money had been poured into.

svnpenn 7y ago

> With the firefighters, there's a pretty easy proximal explanation, which again is not their expertise misleading them: panic. Exactly, plus while his idea was fascinating, its understandable that the others didnt follow suit; he essentially invented the idea: > Similar types of escape fires had been used by the plains Indians to escape the fast-moving, brief duration grass fires of the plains, and the method had been written about by James Fenimore Cooper (1827) in The Prairie, but in this case Foreman Dodge appears to have invented it on the spot, as the only means available to him to save his crew. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mann_Gulch_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mann_Gulch_fire

kbenson 7y ago

> We never get a clear answer for why the Civic Center Engineers got the inputs wrong, so we can't conclude that it was because of their expertise. I think that's because you're focusing on a component, and not the whole. The construction project had a problem, and part of that is because they trusted the expertise of designers. Various people in charge of aspects of the project should have pushed back harder, noting that the expertise they were relying on was obviously false, since it didn't match reality. The problem is not the computers, but the designers, and the expertise in question is that of "trust your designers". The story and moral plays out the same whether it's a computer, or some bad math, or even purposeful sabotage. Funnily enough, it might be possible to attribute your focus on the engineers as an aspect of priming itself. Even if you aren't an engineer or in a related discipline, this forum is very heavily frequented by such people and often focuses on such issues. As such, focusing so much on the engineers themselves and what they did or didn't do to the point if missing the whole can be expected. Well, it can be expected if you accept that priming plays a role, at least to some degree.

mcguire 7y ago

You are entirely missing the point in your first two points: * The issue here isn't that the inputs were wrong, it's that the experts could not (or would not, if you don't want to be generous) accept that the structure was under-strength in spite of multiple reports; the believed their calculations rather than their lying eyes. * There is no particular evidence that the firefighters panicked. Whether or not they did, though, they did what their training led them to believe was their only choice: keep their equipment and try to reach the top of the ridge. The foreman was the only one to realize either that the training wasn't going to work or that they had another option. Do you have a great deal of expertise in this area?

kerkeslager 7y ago
> The issue here isn't that the inputs were wrong, it's that the experts could not (or would not, if you don't want to be generous) accept that the structure was under-strength in spite of multiple reports; the believed their calculations rather than their lying eyes. How does this support the conclusion that they were misled by their expertise? There are many possible explanations here. > There is no particular evidence that the firefighters panicked. Whether or not they did, though, they did what their training led them to believe was their only choice: keep their equipment and try to reach the top of the ridge. The foreman was the only one to realize either that the training wasn't going to work or that they had another option. There is no particular evidence that the firefighters were misled by their expertise, either. If anything wasn't the foreman's realization arguably due to his superior expertise? > Do you have a great deal of expertise in this area? In the area of basic logic, such as figuring out whether evidence supports conclusions? I suppose you could say I do, although I wouldn't claim anything special.