July 12, 2006
Tool for detecting fuzzy thought...
There was a comment that struck me at this post. I had written: Peter Drucker always taught that the key to making decisions is figuring out what the question actually is.
Reader Mike replied: I learned this when I started working alongside of engineers for a few years. It's probably the single most important thing I learned during that time.
Here's another key: things are defined as much by what they are, as what they are not. For example, when somebody suggests a new product that does A, B, and C, we take pains to clearly specify that the product will not do X, Y, or Z. This additional step is crucial in defining the problem we are trying to solve. In engineering terms, it's the difference between a product specification, and a wish list.
In more abstract terms, it's a great tool for detecting fuzzy thought. For example, ask a 9/11 conspiracy buff what the conspiracy could not have accomplished. What are its limits? If he says that anything was possible, then he's hoist in his own petard - "How do you know that Bill Clinton wasn't behind the whole thing?".
Well-formed thoughts have edges. Poorly-formed thoughts are like clouds that endlessly shift and fill the available space.
The "lack of limits" characterizes a lot of goofix thinking today. Whatever the criticism, people keep raising the bar, and can never be satisfied. A friend wrote to me, "I always point out that the people in the top 10% pay 66% of the taxes and then ask: How much do you think they should pay? What's the right number? I don't think I have ever gotten an answer."
They don't dare, those clot-brains who cry, "Bush is giving tax cuts to the rich!" And they never, ever, ever will give you a definition of "the rich." Probably because they mean you and me and at least half the people in the country, horrid bloodsuckers that we are, stealing from the poor...
I have spent a lot of time in my career teaching behavioral finance (and financial engineering) to executives and boards of directors. The ultimate goal of this teaching is to get them to change their behavior - more specifically to get them to stop engaging in self-destructive behavior.
It has been my experience that even when smart, reasonably well-intentioned people have already made up their mind about something they actually go as far as to seek out and encourage "fuzzy thinking". (If you've already made up your mind what really is the point of clear thinking and sound reasoning.)
In the example above it is probably a pretty good bet that most leftist have already made up their minds that "the rich pay too little" and "the wealthy have too much power". Using logic at that point is going to be frustrating and futile no matter how good your numbers and reasoning are.
Posted by: Mike Plaiss at July 13, 2006 07:39 AM
Behavioral finance, huh? I learn something new every day almost.
You are right that reasoning with a Red is futile, but I suspect that posing questions they can't answer can be illuminating for the onlookers...
Posted by: John Weidner at July 13, 2006 10:56 AM...and a lot of fun too, as long as one engages in the sport in the right frame of mind.
Posted by: Mike Plaiss at July 13, 2006 11:52 AM"Well-formed thoughts have edges. Poorly-formed thoughts are like clouds that endlessly shift and fill the available space."
Therefore, well-formed thoughts are like solids, and poorly-formed thoughts are like gas. Gives a whole new meaning to the term "hot air."
Posted by: B. Durbin at July 13, 2006 09:56 PMTruly, specificity is your friend.
I've had the good fortune to work both in the sciences (astrophysics) and as an engineer. Specifications of the "the device shall not" variety are an analogue to what scientists call "the thesis's domain of applicability." For every proposed explanation of anything must have a domain within which it's relevant -- i.e., a context with specific conditions within which it's expected to display predictive power. Outside that domain, it must claim nothing, and no attributions may be made to it. Otherwise, it's indistinguishable from "God did it" or "S**t happens."
Good ideas and good thinking must have hard edges.
I have an answer for you. The rich should pay 90% of the taxes. Why ? My reasoning is that the top 10% of earners make 90% of the money. Thus in an equitable society, for example in one where we would have a flat tax as promoted by Forbes and others, each would pay a fixed percentage of his or her income. Thus, 90% is the fair and ciirect answer.
By the way, I do supprot a flat tax with deductions ONLY for home mortgages, elimination of the inheritance tax, and elimination of dividend and interest taxes.
Posted by: Rick at July 18, 2006 10:37 AM
