3 ms·

I agree with these points, but all I'm saying is that "logical reasoning" is based off an understanding of the problem without inside information. This is somet

I agree with these points, but all I'm saying is that "logical reasoning" is based off an understanding of the problem without inside information. This is sometimes useful, but when we're talking about actual numbers - and not ones that are made up based on general knowledge - I generally believe the person with specific knowledge over someone without specific knowledge. This can be challenging in the decision making sphere, or when events are unpredictable (planning, stock trading). But it would be weird if we didn't allow for deference to people with actual specific knowledge and experience over those who are just surveying from the outside. Even further, maybe what you're saying is true under general assumptions, for 90% of companies. However, how do you know there aren't outliers for whom the assumptions do not hold true? Not to be too blunt, but what evidence or information do you have that makes this more than an "armchair quarterback" situation? Have you experience in this particular field to such an extent that it can be extended as a functional rule within the industry, or are you expecting it to behave like physics? We can't just take general principles and assume they hold true in specific circumstances - that is what makes this kind of work so hard.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago
> Even further, maybe what you're saying is true under general assumptions, for 90% of companies. However, how do you know there aren't outliers for whom the assumptions do not hold true? The right answer here is to have the person claiming inside knowledge describe the bad assumptions and why they weren't true in that particular case. Because that's how you distinguish that case from the one where a bad manager is just assigning arbitrary work. More than that, you need that information to do something useful with it anyway. Suppose the answer is that they're doing the research to see if they should enter the market for manufacturing the product themselves. Then this works (a) only in the case where the existing market is uncompetitive because otherwise the existing suppliers already have razor-thin margins and there is nothing to extract and (b) only if you're big enough to justify building an entire factory and buying out all of its output yourself. But under those circumstances knowing the cost of production could get colluding suppliers to cut you a better deal to prevent you from entering the market. Moreover, the cost is further justified in that case because if they won't cut you a deal you'd have had to do that research to start manufacturing it yourself anyway. Without knowing that context the information is misleading. Because (a) implies that anyone doing it are actually the good guys because the counterparty is a price-fixing cartel or monopolist, and (b) implies that it's a waste of resources for smaller entities to pay to do the calculation when they can't enter the market themselves or credibly threaten to in order to get the deal. And even if you are big enough, you would still have to know that making that threat is what you have to do with the information. So just saying they used it is useless until they tell you how, and then you can assess their claims by reasoning about what they tell you. > We can't just take general principles and assume they hold true in specific circumstances - that is what makes this kind of work so hard. General principles apply unless there is an exception. But if someone is claiming there is an exception, the first thing they should be expected to do is spell out how the exception works.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago

> Even further, maybe what you're saying is true under general assumptions, for 90% of companies. However, how do you know there aren't outliers for whom the assumptions do not hold true? The right answer here is to have the person claiming inside knowledge describe the bad assumptions and why they weren't true in that particular case. Because that's how you distinguish that case from the one where a bad manager is just assigning arbitrary work. More than that, you need that information to do something useful with it anyway. Suppose the answer is that they're doing the research to see if they should enter the market for manufacturing the product themselves. Then this works (a) only in the case where the existing market is uncompetitive because otherwise the existing suppliers already have razor-thin margins and there is nothing to extract and (b) only if you're big enough to justify building an entire factory and buying out all of its output yourself. But under those circumstances knowing the cost of production could get colluding suppliers to cut you a better deal to prevent you from entering the market. Moreover, the cost is further justified in that case because if they won't cut you a deal you'd have had to do that research to start manufacturing it yourself anyway. Without knowing that context the information is misleading. Because (a) implies that anyone doing it are actually the good guys because the counterparty is a price-fixing cartel or monopolist, and (b) implies that it's a waste of resources for smaller entities to pay to do the calculation when they can't enter the market themselves or credibly threaten to in order to get the deal. And even if you are big enough, you would still have to know that making that threat is what you have to do with the information. So just saying they used it is useless until they tell you how, and then you can assess their claims by reasoning about what they tell you. > We can't just take general principles and assume they hold true in specific circumstances - that is what makes this kind of work so hard. General principles apply unless there is an exception. But if someone is claiming there is an exception, the first thing they should be expected to do is spell out how the exception works.