= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
I'll be there, possibly with another.
How do you want your organism to react when someone else's voluntary action changes who receives a prize?
I want my organism to be able to tell the difference between a cheater and someone making irrelevant changes to a deck of cards. I assume this was a rhetorical question.
Evolution is great but I want more than that. I want to know why. I want to know why my friends feel that way but I didn't when the roles were reversed. The answer is not "because I knew more math." Have I just evolved differently?
I want to know what other areas are affected by this. I want to know how to predict whatever caused this reaction in my friends before it happens in me. "Evolution" doesn't help me do that. I cannot think like evolution.
As much as, "You could have been cheating" is a great response -- and "They are conditioned to respond to this situation as if you were cheating" is a better response -- these friends know the probabilities are the same and know I wasn't cheating. And they still react this way because... why?
I suppose this comment is a bit snippier than it needs to be. I don't understand how your answer is an answer. I also don't know much about evolution. If I learned more about evolution would I be less confused?
Based on my friends, the care/don't care dichotomy cuts orthogonally to the math/no math dichotomy. Most people, whether good or bad at math, can understand that the chances are the same. It's some other independent aspect of your brain that determines whether it intensely matters to you to do things "the right way" or if you can accept the symmetry of the situation. I hereby nominate some OCD-like explanation. I'd be interested in seeing whether OCD correlated with your friends' behavior.
As a data point, I am not OCD and don't care if you cut the deck.
Of course, if you click on his profile you see that is his goal.
"No one should join this group or come to these meetings. If they do, their ideas will be attacked and they will be overwhelmed by adverse reaction from dozens of people who think nothing of making people change their minds about their most cherished beliefs."
Yes, I expect you guys would be a little mean if a real-live HIV denier showed up at a meet-up.
You don't think he's joking? That paragraph ends with
"They have no respect for the opinions of accepted experts and seldom quote Ovid in the original, so just don't bother to attend."
View more: Prev
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Goodhart's Law is a very nice corollary to the Snafu Principle: Communication is impossible in a hierarchy.
Temple Grandin has written about the importance of finding relevant, measurable standards-- the example she gives is the number of cattle falling down on the way to slaughter. Not falling down means the genes, food, lighting, walking surface etc. are all good enough.
Thing to check: Do measures used as targets for policy always become completely useless, or do they sometimes become increasingly less useful, but not totally useless? Does culture matter? I suspect that the amount of judgement which people are allowed to mix into the system varies a lot.
She seems to believe that thinking visually will be more likely to produce such standards than (as most people do) verbally.
I'm not convinced of that-- dog and cat show standards are an example of well-defined visual standards not producing reliably good results.
I have no idea if it's even possible to have that good a standard for financial markets.
I've heard "you can't manage what you can't measure", but I think "you can't manage what you can't perceive" is better. Is it possible to generalize the idea of the king traveling incognito to see how the kingdom is doing?
Once management recognizes that there is something to measure, I think they do an OK job measuring it - secret shoppers come to mind. But there's something more subtle about when you take for granted that G = G* and don't even think to verbalize your true values, so can't measure them.