4 ms·

What strikes me is not a bunch of people keeping their ego in check -- that helps because it ensures that all points will be heard, but it doesn't ensure cohere

by dkarl 5y ago

What strikes me is not a bunch of people keeping their ego in check -- that helps because it ensures that all points will be heard, but it doesn't ensure coherent decision-making. What strikes me is that everybody was able to keep track of what were the major points and minor points, so they could talk through the whole range of possible objections and decide that they were all less valid or less important than the points in favor. This is how engineers talk, searching for flaws and weighing the ones they find. I think it's important for engineering decision-makers to be comfortable with this culture. It's disheartening when you have a great conversation like the one Feynman describes, the engineers are in agreement, and then the person in charge stands up and says, "Look, if everybody hates this idea, we can't be lazy and go forward with it just because we don't have a better one," or, "I guess we can't make a decision on this, because there's too much negativity and people are just going to nit-pick every idea to death!" No, no, talking through every possible objection to an idea is how you can tell that people are starting to zero in on it as the most likely best solution. The closer an idea gets to acceptance, the more thoroughly you vet it. The more it becomes clear that an idea is the best way forward, the more you start to prepare for dealing with the reality of it. This makes practical sense, but not political sense, so it seems weird and unnatural to a lot of outside observers, who expect respect to be communicated by agreement, and emerging consensus around an idea to be expressed by a shared avoidance of mentioning the downsides.

Datenstrom 5y ago
> talking through every possible objection to an idea is how you can tell that people are starting to zero in on it as the most likely best solution. The closer an idea gets to acceptance, the more thoroughly you vet it. The more it becomes clear that an idea is the best way forward, the more you start to prepare for dealing with the reality of it. Sounds a lot like the Braintrust described in the book "Creativity, Inc." which was accredited with a large portion of the credit for Pixar's success. > This makes practical sense, but not political sense The book says that to create the kind of environment that a Braintrust can function in takes a deal of care and one thing was all politics needed to be removed. Great book though highly recommend it.
- jjoonathan 5y ago
  Not just politics, everyone has to be actively engaged with the process because it runs contrary to instincts. One time I saw a room full of zoned out world-class scientists do this exact thing: reject the heavily vetted good option and accept the bad alternative because in the back of their heads they were just counting up positive attention and negative attention. The leader of the group realized what was going on, swung the conversation around again, re-framed things on more even footing, and people came to their senses. Still, it was a pretty stark reminder that we're all human and prone to misusing the "attention survey" shortcut if the group is even slightly disengaged.
  - texuf 5y ago
    Put a lawyer in the mix and everyone loses their minds. No offense to lawyers, they’re just doing their job, but I’ve seen the group pick the absolute worst option over and over because a lawyer mentioned maybe something might be possibly questionable. When debriefed after shipping the lawyer couldn’t understand why no one pushed back.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
hammock 5y ago
There are at two paths when you vet an idea to death (life?) like that. One is that you come to the optimal solution. Another is that enough people get exhausted defending their objections and eventually give in to what is a suboptimal solution. So there is something still missing from the recipe for coherent decision-making. It's the reason Feynman says these are "great men" - it's NOT the process which makes it work, but rather a quality inherent in the character of these men. I don't have an answer for what that may have been, but in the spirit of your second paragraph I just wanted to bring up this thought.
jerf 5y ago
I think one of the most important life hacks of all is to search out the reasons why you are wrong, not the reasons why you are right. Your brain is primed to tell you why you are right already. It takes active cognitive effort to find the reasons why you are wrong. I've characterized this before as the single most important aspect of science [1]. It is obviously very important in engineering. It's important in navigating the noise of propaganda and lies out there in the world. It's important in day to day life, e.g., it's hard to scam someone who is actively trying to figure out why your scam offer is not going to work rather than helpfully talking themselves into going along with it. I suppose there is an excessive negativity trap. In the end you must decide something. But for many people that would still be an upgrade, vs. letting their natural inclination to self-justify every decision with the full power of the human brain run rampant. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5680397 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5680397
- kqr 5y ago
  Absolutely. This is a distinguishing mark of experts in any field: they are quick to construct situations that disprove their mental models. So instead of looking for corroboration, they actively set up a situation which they think could disprove their hypothesis. This is a very economical way to zero in on truth. It's also why I ask seemingly stupid questions when someone teaches me something. It's not that I don't think I know the answer -- it's precisely because I think the answer is obvious. One out of fifty times the answer is different, and that tells me my mental model is seriously flawed and I should question everything else I thought I just learned.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- rileyphone 5y ago
  For a book around this, I would recommend Scout Mindset by Julia Galef, which close to a self-help-type book but still highly informative while still being digestible. From the ACX review [1]: > Of the fifty-odd biases discovered by Kahneman, Tversky, and their successors, forty-nine are cute quirks, and one is destroying civilization. This last one is confirmation bias - our tendency to interpret evidence as confirming our pre-existing beliefs instead of changing our minds. I certainly agree with the premise that there is a deep epistemic flaw in the nature of our reasoning that we can counteract with conscious intervention, such as your suggestion. [1] https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/book-review-the-scout-mindset https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/book-review-the-scout-...
N1H1L 5y ago
Tangential to this is I have observed one thing. I work in science, and a lot of our hires are fresh PhDs/postdocs. The best question to ask is the limitations of their approach. The more thoroughly they have worked on it, the better they know the limitations. On the other hand, people who are super confident and wave away any limitations of their approach have invariably been problematic hires. There is a cultural aspect to this too, because America for some reasons worships confidence and hates ambiguity.
pjungwir 5y ago
Even in literary criticism, this balance and specificity is such a pleasure. It's one of the things I love about Samuel Johnson's essays. (Contrast with what people are saying in the article about failing literary magazines.) I just started reading Boswell's biography, and the introduction to the Everyman's Library edition makes the same point: > Part of this comes from a literal-mindedness that won't mistake one fault for another or all others. This worked even when his dominant feeling was not of fondness (as for Smart) but of dislike (as for Sterne). Boswell reports Goldsmith toadying up to Johnson, in a conversation on Sterne, by saying 'And a very dull fellow': Johnson replied 'Why, no, sir.' Fact.

by dkarl 5y ago

Datenstrom 5y ago

> talking through every possible objection to an idea is how you can tell that people are starting to zero in on it as the most likely best solution. The closer an idea gets to acceptance, the more thoroughly you vet it. The more it becomes clear that an idea is the best way forward, the more you start to prepare for dealing with the reality of it. Sounds a lot like the Braintrust described in the book "Creativity, Inc." which was accredited with a large portion of the credit for Pixar's success. > This makes practical sense, but not political sense The book says that to create the kind of environment that a Braintrust can function in takes a deal of care and one thing was all politics needed to be removed. Great book though highly recommend it.

jjoonathan 5y ago
Not just politics, everyone has to be actively engaged with the process because it runs contrary to instincts. One time I saw a room full of zoned out world-class scientists do this exact thing: reject the heavily vetted good option and accept the bad alternative because in the back of their heads they were just counting up positive attention and negative attention. The leader of the group realized what was going on, swung the conversation around again, re-framed things on more even footing, and people came to their senses. Still, it was a pretty stark reminder that we're all human and prone to misusing the "attention survey" shortcut if the group is even slightly disengaged.
- texuf 5y ago
  Put a lawyer in the mix and everyone loses their minds. No offense to lawyers, they’re just doing their job, but I’ve seen the group pick the absolute worst option over and over because a lawyer mentioned maybe something might be possibly questionable. When debriefed after shipping the lawyer couldn’t understand why no one pushed back.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

hammock 5y ago

There are at two paths when you vet an idea to death (life?) like that. One is that you come to the optimal solution. Another is that enough people get exhausted defending their objections and eventually give in to what is a suboptimal solution. So there is something still missing from the recipe for coherent decision-making. It's the reason Feynman says these are "great men" - it's NOT the process which makes it work, but rather a quality inherent in the character of these men. I don't have an answer for what that may have been, but in the spirit of your second paragraph I just wanted to bring up this thought.

jerf 5y ago

I think one of the most important life hacks of all is to search out the reasons why you are wrong, not the reasons why you are right. Your brain is primed to tell you why you are right already. It takes active cognitive effort to find the reasons why you are wrong. I've characterized this before as the single most important aspect of science [1]. It is obviously very important in engineering. It's important in navigating the noise of propaganda and lies out there in the world. It's important in day to day life, e.g., it's hard to scam someone who is actively trying to figure out why your scam offer is not going to work rather than helpfully talking themselves into going along with it. I suppose there is an excessive negativity trap. In the end you must decide something. But for many people that would still be an upgrade, vs. letting their natural inclination to self-justify every decision with the full power of the human brain run rampant. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5680397 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5680397

kqr 5y ago
Absolutely. This is a distinguishing mark of experts in any field: they are quick to construct situations that disprove their mental models. So instead of looking for corroboration, they actively set up a situation which they think could disprove their hypothesis. This is a very economical way to zero in on truth. It's also why I ask seemingly stupid questions when someone teaches me something. It's not that I don't think I know the answer -- it's precisely because I think the answer is obvious. One out of fifty times the answer is different, and that tells me my mental model is seriously flawed and I should question everything else I thought I just learned.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
rileyphone 5y ago
For a book around this, I would recommend Scout Mindset by Julia Galef, which close to a self-help-type book but still highly informative while still being digestible. From the ACX review [1]: > Of the fifty-odd biases discovered by Kahneman, Tversky, and their successors, forty-nine are cute quirks, and one is destroying civilization. This last one is confirmation bias - our tendency to interpret evidence as confirming our pre-existing beliefs instead of changing our minds. I certainly agree with the premise that there is a deep epistemic flaw in the nature of our reasoning that we can counteract with conscious intervention, such as your suggestion. [1] https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/book-review-the-scout-mindset https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/book-review-the-scout-...

N1H1L 5y ago

Tangential to this is I have observed one thing. I work in science, and a lot of our hires are fresh PhDs/postdocs. The best question to ask is the limitations of their approach. The more thoroughly they have worked on it, the better they know the limitations. On the other hand, people who are super confident and wave away any limitations of their approach have invariably been problematic hires. There is a cultural aspect to this too, because America for some reasons worships confidence and hates ambiguity.

pjungwir 5y ago

Even in literary criticism, this balance and specificity is such a pleasure. It's one of the things I love about Samuel Johnson's essays. (Contrast with what people are saying in the article about failing literary magazines.) I just started reading Boswell's biography, and the introduction to the Everyman's Library edition makes the same point: > Part of this comes from a literal-mindedness that won't mistake one fault for another or all others. This worked even when his dominant feeling was not of fondness (as for Smart) but of dislike (as for Sterne). Boswell reports Goldsmith toadying up to Johnson, in a conversation on Sterne, by saying 'And a very dull fellow': Johnson replied 'Why, no, sir.' Fact.