I like it. Having taken a bad decision lately, this resonates deeply. Had I evaluated the available options and criteria explicitly, it could've been avoided.
The feeling is the same as being sure that something, like an algorithm, is able to do what you expect. Then you sit down, trying to write a proof for it and end up finding the flaw in it. By making the thought process explicit you can uncover so much.
Personally I just go with the scientific method. That means coming up with falsifiable hypotheses and deducing predictions from them logically, then comparing to reality in order to accept and continue, or reject and rethink the approach and situation.
Unfortunately I think most people won’t want to do this, because who wants to draw a target on themselves „he was wrong about that“ and risk job security, because coworkers make themselves look flawless by saying/doing things in a vague rather than falsifiable way.
6 comments
[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 20.9 ms ] threadThe feeling is the same as being sure that something, like an algorithm, is able to do what you expect. Then you sit down, trying to write a proof for it and end up finding the flaw in it. By making the thought process explicit you can uncover so much.
I've made serious mistakes in my life, but I like to think I didn't make the same mistake twice.
So keep that head up and get better. Cheers.
As such - lay down the information such as mentioned in this article is fantastic, but always take into account intangible elements.
Such as in Poker - bluffing is an integral part of decision processing, so make sure you get similar variations and variables.
The best on paper decisions are sometimes just not good - code, life, products... whatever pros and cons you've put forward.
Unfortunately I think most people won’t want to do this, because who wants to draw a target on themselves „he was wrong about that“ and risk job security, because coworkers make themselves look flawless by saying/doing things in a vague rather than falsifiable way.