AnnaSalamon comments on Humans are not automatically strategic - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (266)
I think you rather overstate your case here. When you say:
I'm not sure who you are referring to by 'we'. Most of these tactics are fairly commonly advised by everything from management and business books to self help and sports training. Some of them are things that come naturally to me and seem to come naturally to quite a few other people I know (though certainly not everybody).
This comes naturally to me but I've noticed it doesn't seem to to everybody. It is something I've seen others do (and talk about doing) fairly often however.
Very common advice in business/management and in programming. It does seem to require a bit of practice for most people to acquire this habit and it is one of the things I notice separating more experienced programmers from less experienced. It needs pointing out however that this is often very difficult and/or time consuming in practice for many real world goals and is easy to get wrong.
Comes naturally to me and seems to be reasonably common in others but I'd agree that there are many people for whom it doesn't seem to come naturally.
Seems obvious and natural to me and pretty common in others. In fact I think this is how most people approach most of their goals. Many people fall down by being too undiscriminating in who they ask for advice and what evidence they require from others that said advice is effective however. Again it should be pointed out that this is much more difficult in practice for many real world problems than is implied here. There are many goals for which there is no straightforward and uncontroversial answer to how best to achieve them.
This is one where I could stand to improve. I think it's a common failing and few people do this as much as they should. It is another case of something that is quite difficult in practice however - tracking can be time consuming and difficult for many goals and it can be difficult to gather 'clean' data on what really works best.
Seems fairly obvious and I think is reasonably common but people are easily distracted from their goals. Sometimes distraction can be a signal that goals need re-evaluating however.
Seems fairly obvious but is something it is useful to get into a mental habit of reminding oneself of periodically. Another one that can be incredibly difficult in practice however. I'd say that figuring out what our 'real' goals are and how to achieve them is the central problem of most people's lives. I know I consciously think about this a lot, I think to a greater extent than is typical, and have yet to reach any entirely satisfactory conclusions.
This strikes me as pretty common advice but it is useful advice and bears repeating.
Overall I don't think you are saying anything here that isn't already fairly widely known and talked about in many contexts. Some of these things come naturally, others require conscious effort to develop as habits. There is clear variation in the population when it comes to which of these come naturally however and certainly there are many people who do few of these things as a matter of course. The real trick is in the execution however - many of these things are difficult to do and failure to do them is just as often a result of this inherent difficulty as it is of a lack of awareness of these heuristics.
I agree that many of these heuristics are discussed in the business and self-help literatures reasonably often. My point was simply that we for the most part do not automatically implement them -- humans seem not to come with goal-achievement software in that sense -- and so it should not be surprising that most human "goal-achievement" efforts are tremendously inefficient. These heuristics are relatively obvious to our verbal/analytic reasoning faculties when we bother to think about them, but, absent training, are mostly not part of our automatic reward-gradients and motives.
If you find that e.g. (a) and (c) come fairly naturally to you, ask yourself why, and see if you can spell out the mechanics in ways that may work for more of us. The question here isn't "are (a)-(h) novel ideas that demonstrate amazing original insight?" but rather: "how can we get our brains to automatically, habitually, reliably, carry out heuristics such as (a)-(h), which seem to offer straight-forward gains in goal-achievement but seem not to be what we automatically find ourselves doing".
I think d) for example (gather information) is pretty 'automatic' for many (if not most) people. It is the natural first step for many people. It is often difficult to find accurate information and detect and ignore misinformation so simply taking this step is not sufficient on its own however and I think it is in the execution that most people fail.
Both a) and c) have come naturally to me for as long as I can remember. I'm afraid I can't offer any more detail through introspection. It still strikes me as odd when people don't do these automatically even though I've learned over time that many people do not.
For some of the other heuristics, e) for example, I've had to consciously work to develop them as habits of thought (still imperfectly in this case). My general approach has been to consciously think through what other heuristics I could apply periodically (usually prompted by getting stuck / not making progress on some goal) and then apply any heuristics that I realize I have neglected. Over time some things can move from this 'meta' level of analysis to become more automatic habits.
I disagree for everything people have enough information of to have performed a prior opinion. Gathering information is predicated on the idea that you do not have enough information. Most people believe they already know what they need to know, and all that is left are the details.
The perfect example is the one in the article: I want to become a comedian, so I will watch Garfield. Where is the intermediate step of finding out whether or not watching a funny show is a good way to learn how to be funny? You need more information to even begin to answer that, yet he skips this step. Why? It is almost certainly because he has already decided that the way to learn to be funny is to study funny things, and he thinks Garfield is funny, so he is going to study.
Now, it is entirely possible he could learn to be funny just by watching Garfield and asking the right questions, but given his track record I seriously doubt it. It's also re-inventing the wheel, because other people have figured out the secret of funny before him (else there would be no one funny to study) and the information is available for those who seek it.
If a person is aware he lacks information, then yes I would agree that gathering information is automatic. However, most people in most situations where this comes up are not aware that they lack information. They believe they know exactly how to do what it is they want to do, even though they are almost certainly wrong, and even though they are wrong on these matters all the time (the many failures to achieve their goals). Therefore, there is no need to seek new information, so seeking information is not automatic.
Another way of putting it is that you can't seek the right information if you aren't looking for it.
I would agree that, when people are aware that they lack information, they generally try to inform themselves.
You can edit your comment to fix the quote formatting. We use Reddit Markdown syntax - you can see the most-used options by clicking "Help" below the comment box while you are writing/editing a comment (to the right of the "comment" and "cancel" buttons). To quote something, just start the paragraph with > .
Thanks :)
Ah... silly me, I meant to look up exactly how to do quotes before I posted, and I forgot. My mistake.