Glen, No, taking on impossible tasks is what true stupidity is about, not expertise, and the best way to hire a stupid expert is to hire people ready to do it. Come on... heading into impenetrable walls of complexity is the stupidest thing any 'expert' could possibly recommend but we've gone and hired an entire world full of so called 'experts' doing exactly that. It ain't gonna work.
You say: > There's no reason to avoid relying on historically successful patterns > of control. You just have to accumulate enough momentum while > successful to survive the black swans. Momentum is what is causing you to be blind sided by them, not what will let you barrel through them. It's not 'bumps in the road' to crash through but true ends of the road that go unseen. > The trick is that when experts > sell themselves to you, they tend toward optimism (and underestimate the > risks) because they don't eat their own dog food ... they won't really > suffer the consequences the customer will suffer when their expertise > fails. They _tend_ to promise what they really can't deliver ... or > they're extremely vague about what they promise so they can hold up > whatever they happen to deliver as a refined version of what they > promised ... like politicians and outsource code shops. Right, but totally inconsistent with your first statement "just hire an expert". > > In contrast, if your "skin is in it", then you tend to be a bit more > pessimistic (and conservative) with what you promise. Right, but inconsistent with how mistaken self-interest by the experts has spread so far and wide that our global life-support system becomes fragile enough to collapse. What I've been trying to point out is that nature is full of signals for when patching up the old model will soon fail. The hunt for the new one can be the fun you need to replace our natural disappointment that nature has wriggled out of our feeble grasp yet again!! If we don't look out for change, change will surely not look out for us. Phil > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of glen e. p. ropella > Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 8:06 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] government hierarchy (was Re: Willful Ignorance) > > Thus spake Phil Henshaw circa 10/07/2008 12:15 PM: > > Well, the reliance on competence is relative to the difficulty of the > task. > > As our world explodes with new connections and complexity that's sort > of in > > doubt, isn't it? Isn't Taleb's observation that when you have > increasingly > > complex problems with increasingly 'fat tailed' distributions of > correlation > > then you better not rely on analysis? Anyone who takes that job is > > probably running into 'black swans' aren't they? > > Of course more complex processes mean more difficulty in handling them. > But that's what "expertise" is all about. The more difficult the > handling, the more one needs expertise. The simpler the processes, the > more one can rely on yokels or algorithms. So, I think the opposite of > your conclusion is justifiable: The more complex the processes, the > more powerful the "skill set" sales pitch becomes because the customers > are aggressively hunting for expertise. > > But even in a very complex domain, regular, somewhat predictable > patterns of observation/manipulation can yield success, despite the > occult possibility of unexpected wonky trajectories. And people who > have those patterns of observation/manipulation down pat are also > experts. They just run the risk of being wrong when/if the system does > happen to take a wonky trajectory. > > There's no reason to avoid relying on historically successful patterns > of control. You just have to accumulate enough momentum while > successful to survive the black swans. The trick is that when experts > sell themselves to you, they tend toward optimism (and underestimate > the > risks) because they don't eat their own dog food ... they won't really > suffer the consequences the customer will suffer when their expertise > fails. They _tend_ to promise what they really can't deliver ... or > they're extremely vague about what they promise so they can hold up > whatever they happen to deliver as a refined version of what they > promised ... like politicians and outsource code shops. > > In contrast, if your "skin is in it", then you tend to be a bit more > pessimistic (and conservative) with what you promise. > > -- > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
