4 ms·

Because if we are to address this problem we have to identify the primary cause.

by ein0p 2y ago

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
shkkmo 2y ago
If a problem has multiple causes, only addressing one of them seem like a mistake.
- jader201 2y ago
  If there is a more likely single “tipping point”, solving for that one may be easier and therefore more likely to have an impact.
- vasco 2y ago
  That's the destructive wasteful thinking of "every little bit helps". 80/20 can be applied to almost everything and looking at the second top factor of anything is a waste of time until you properly looked at the first and can't do anymore.
  - enugu 2y ago
    In a multi-stage process, even if you fix the cause with 80% responsibility, the outcome may not improve by much, as there is failure now at another stage. Of course, fixing that single cause is still progress.
    - vasco 2y ago
      Then it didn't have 80% responsibility and you failed to identify the bottleneck, it just means you identified a local optimisation, which is again "every little bit helps" thinking - what you should do when thinking about queueing systems (or multi-stage) like you describe is to identify the bottleneck. An improvement on the bottleneck should directly translate to an improvement to the end result.
      - enugu 2y ago
        The issue is when there is overdetermination - fixing a single cause resolves 80% of the current cause of failures, but the process fails at another point which becomes the new bottleneck. Say, most people are failing at a task due to stress(A). But even if you solve that, then most people can start failing due to another cause, B, say laziness. Fixing A is not "a little bit" and any solution will have to face A(in order to have success rate > 20%) but it is not sufficient to fix stress alone. You can of course agglomerate A & B into a single cause C but for that to be meaningful C has to be the 'root' of A and B, otherwise the solution for C also just becomes an agglomeration of the solutions for A and B.
        vasco 2y ago
        All I said is you identify the major factor first and fix it, and keep doing that. What you're saying now is basically what I started with, except applying a recursive step of "keep identifying new bottlenecks". But the algorithm should always be "Look at the biggest factor and nothing else", of course you should check if the biggest factor stays the same over time
  - shkkmo 2y ago
    I didn't say "every little bit helps". "80/20" absolutely can't be applied to "almost everything" and assuming it can is lazy thinking. Even if it does apply in this case, just because as secondary cause has 1/4 impact, that doesn't mean you should ignore it. Sometimes secondary causes have cost effective solutions that mean it is more efficient to address first. Simply ignoring this possibility like you are suggesting is not smart.
dghlsakjg 2y ago
Multivariate problems can often fail to have a “primary cause”. It can be the case that two easily treatable conditions combine to make a condition that is very hard to treat.
lazide 2y ago
What if there is no ‘primary cause’ that can be fixed, while still solving the underlying need the country seems to have - which is ‘have a large standing group of highly trained, extremely focused, non-conformist, insanely competitive, and professional killers ready at a moments notice’? It’s not like the mere fact of creating/concentrating the population of the folks willing to be this doesn’t also create a whole swath of secondary effects. Since after all, if steroids and similar PEDs do actually improve performance - which we wouldn’t be getting worked up about them this way if they didn’t! - then isn’t using them nearly a duty of the folks we are talking about? After all, mission first, and they’re (somewhat) expendable due to the nature of the work. We make them do all sorts of other things which regularly puts their lives and health in danger, after all, and all the ‘high speed low drag’ folks I’ve personally known have had some kind of long term health impacts. Even if it’s just a lot of joint pain, or screwed up knees/backs. And barring undesirable secondary effects, isn’t it saving lives and accomplishing missions that otherwise would not be? That is what they signed up for, literally. That and having the absolute craziest stories at the bar later. note: professional bicyclists and weight lifters will also always have a doping issue that needs mitigating. Well, mitigating if we care about their health vs absolute performance anyway.
- ein0p 2y ago
  What if there is a primary cause, and brain trauma is not it? Seems pretty likely that the issue is psychological in nature, otherwise contact combat sports and eg rugby/football would show similar incidence of suicide. I can see how after a couple of years of high intensity combat civilian life would feel like a complete waste of time and a road to nowhere.
  - lazide 2y ago
    Interestingly, if I remember correctly, other contact sports like football do show similar increases in suicide (and unexpected homicide). It’s why football is getting phased out in a lot of areas for kids. But oddly, based on [https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/04/10/health/student-athlete-suicide-rates-doubled-study-wellness https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/04/10/health/student-athlete-su...] cross country athletes actually have the highest rates, which is surprising. Unless, like you’re saying, it is as much about the group being selected for as it is whatever is going on during the activity itself.
munificent 2y ago
Many situations don't have a primary cause. There's no rule in the universe that says physical objects can always be decomposed into simple systems with a hierarchy of priorities. If I break my leg and have COVID, I'm not going to be better until both of those problems are fixed and neither has any bearing on the other. There is no primary cause. There may be different levels of urgency, but some problems in the real world are just intrinsically messy and complex.

Because if we are to address this problem we have to identify the primary cause.

by ein0p 2y ago

Because if we are to address this problem we have to identify the primary cause.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

shkkmo 2y ago

If a problem has multiple causes, only addressing one of them seem like a mistake.

jader201 2y ago
If there is a more likely single “tipping point”, solving for that one may be easier and therefore more likely to have an impact.
vasco 2y ago
That's the destructive wasteful thinking of "every little bit helps". 80/20 can be applied to almost everything and looking at the second top factor of anything is a waste of time until you properly looked at the first and can't do anymore.
- enugu 2y ago
  In a multi-stage process, even if you fix the cause with 80% responsibility, the outcome may not improve by much, as there is failure now at another stage. Of course, fixing that single cause is still progress.
  - vasco 2y ago
    Then it didn't have 80% responsibility and you failed to identify the bottleneck, it just means you identified a local optimisation, which is again "every little bit helps" thinking - what you should do when thinking about queueing systems (or multi-stage) like you describe is to identify the bottleneck. An improvement on the bottleneck should directly translate to an improvement to the end result.
    - enugu 2y ago
      The issue is when there is overdetermination - fixing a single cause resolves 80% of the current cause of failures, but the process fails at another point which becomes the new bottleneck. Say, most people are failing at a task due to stress(A). But even if you solve that, then most people can start failing due to another cause, B, say laziness. Fixing A is not "a little bit" and any solution will have to face A(in order to have success rate > 20%) but it is not sufficient to fix stress alone. You can of course agglomerate A & B into a single cause C but for that to be meaningful C has to be the 'root' of A and B, otherwise the solution for C also just becomes an agglomeration of the solutions for A and B.
      - vasco 2y ago
        All I said is you identify the major factor first and fix it, and keep doing that. What you're saying now is basically what I started with, except applying a recursive step of "keep identifying new bottlenecks". But the algorithm should always be "Look at the biggest factor and nothing else", of course you should check if the biggest factor stays the same over time
- shkkmo 2y ago
  I didn't say "every little bit helps". "80/20" absolutely can't be applied to "almost everything" and assuming it can is lazy thinking. Even if it does apply in this case, just because as secondary cause has 1/4 impact, that doesn't mean you should ignore it. Sometimes secondary causes have cost effective solutions that mean it is more efficient to address first. Simply ignoring this possibility like you are suggesting is not smart.

dghlsakjg 2y ago

Multivariate problems can often fail to have a “primary cause”. It can be the case that two easily treatable conditions combine to make a condition that is very hard to treat.

lazide 2y ago

What if there is no ‘primary cause’ that can be fixed, while still solving the underlying need the country seems to have - which is ‘have a large standing group of highly trained, extremely focused, non-conformist, insanely competitive, and professional killers ready at a moments notice’? It’s not like the mere fact of creating/concentrating the population of the folks willing to be this doesn’t also create a whole swath of secondary effects. Since after all, if steroids and similar PEDs do actually improve performance - which we wouldn’t be getting worked up about them this way if they didn’t! - then isn’t using them nearly a duty of the folks we are talking about? After all, mission first, and they’re (somewhat) expendable due to the nature of the work. We make them do all sorts of other things which regularly puts their lives and health in danger, after all, and all the ‘high speed low drag’ folks I’ve personally known have had some kind of long term health impacts. Even if it’s just a lot of joint pain, or screwed up knees/backs. And barring undesirable secondary effects, isn’t it saving lives and accomplishing missions that otherwise would not be? That is what they signed up for, literally. That and having the absolute craziest stories at the bar later. note: professional bicyclists and weight lifters will also always have a doping issue that needs mitigating. Well, mitigating if we care about their health vs absolute performance anyway.

ein0p 2y ago
What if there is a primary cause, and brain trauma is not it? Seems pretty likely that the issue is psychological in nature, otherwise contact combat sports and eg rugby/football would show similar incidence of suicide. I can see how after a couple of years of high intensity combat civilian life would feel like a complete waste of time and a road to nowhere.
- lazide 2y ago
  Interestingly, if I remember correctly, other contact sports like football do show similar increases in suicide (and unexpected homicide). It’s why football is getting phased out in a lot of areas for kids. But oddly, based on [https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/04/10/health/student-athlete-suicide-rates-doubled-study-wellness https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/04/10/health/student-athlete-su...] cross country athletes actually have the highest rates, which is surprising. Unless, like you’re saying, it is as much about the group being selected for as it is whatever is going on during the activity itself.

munificent 2y ago

Many situations don't have a primary cause. There's no rule in the universe that says physical objects can always be decomposed into simple systems with a hierarchy of priorities. If I break my leg and have COVID, I'm not going to be better until both of those problems are fixed and neither has any bearing on the other. There is no primary cause. There may be different levels of urgency, but some problems in the real world are just intrinsically messy and complex.