SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Chesterton's Fence: A Lesson in Second Order Thinking:
A core component of making great decisions is understanding the rationale behind previous decisions. If we don't understand how we got "here," we run the risk of making things much worse.
When we seek to intervene in any system created by someone, it's not enough to view their decisions and choices simply as the consequences of first-order thinking because we can inadvertently create serious problems. Before changing anything, we should wonder whether they were using second-order thinking. Their reasons for making certain choices might be more complex than they seem at first. It's best to assume they knew things we don't or had experience we can't fathom, so we don't go for quick fixes and end up making things worse.
Second-order thinking is the practice of not just considering the consequences of our decisions but also the consequences of those consequences. Everyone can manage first-order thinking, which is just considering the immediate anticipated result of an action. It's simple and quick, usually requiring little effort. By comparison, second-order thinking is more complex and time-consuming. The fact that it is difficult and unusual is what makes the ability to do it such a powerful advantage.
Second-order thinking will get you extraordinary results, and so will learning to recognize when other people are using second-order thinking. To understand exactly why this is the case, let's consider Chesterton's Fence, described by G. K. Chesterton himself as follows:
There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."
Chesterton's Fence is a heuristic inspired by a quote from the writer and polymath G. K. Chesterton's 1929 book, The Thing. It's best known as being one of John F. Kennedy's favored sayings, as well as a principle Wikipedia encourages its editors to follow. In the book, Chesterton describes the classic case of the reformer who notices something, such as a fence, and fails to see the reason for its existence. However, before they decide to remove it, they must figure out why it exists in the first place. If they do not do this, they are likely to do more harm than good with its removal. In its most concise version, Chesterton's Fence states the following:
Do not remove a fence until you know why it was put up in the first place.
Chesterton went on to explain why this principle holds true, writing that fences don't grow out of the ground, nor do people build them in their sleep or during a fit of madness. He explained that fences are built by people who carefully planned them out and "had some reason for thinking [the fence] would be a good thing for somebody." Until we establish that reason, we have no business taking an ax to it. The reason might not be a good or relevant one; we just need to be aware of what the reason is. Otherwise, we may end up with unintended consequences: second- and third-order effects we don't want, spreading like ripples on a pond and causing damage for years.
[...] Chesterton's Fence is not an admonishment of anyone who tries to make improvements; it is a call to be aware of second-order thinking before intervening. It reminds us that we don't always know better than those who made decisions before us, and we can't see all the nuances to a situation until we're intimate with it. Unless we know why someone made a decision, we can't safely change it or conclude that they were wrong.
The first step before modifying an aspect of a system is to understand it. Observe it in full. Note how it interconnects with other aspects, including ones that might not be linked to you personally. Learn how it works, and then propose your change.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2020, @03:11PM (9 children)
Clearly the democrats (voters, not the party) are failures at that, or they would have found somebody to beat Trump back in '16, or Nixon in 1968. And now they want to take him out with no thought as to how he won (which is obvious to any outsider) and with no suitable replacement to undo the damage. The only strategy they have is use of the scandal sheets
Now, watch this post trigger the democrat moderators!
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2020, @03:55PM
That's right! Why can't anyone see that you are the true victim here? Why can't they?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2020, @05:37PM (3 children)
Pack it in boys, the global warming hoax is over.
We've reached peak Snowflake.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2020, @07:28PM (2 children)
The global warming hoax was only cover for the China virus hoax.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday May 03 2020, @11:45PM (1 child)
Perfect example of first order thinking, completely disregarding the real motive: building the 5G networks to track and control your mind. (grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Funny) by khallow on Monday May 04 2020, @03:29AM
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2020, @07:35PM
Clearly Trump and the Republicans are playing 3rd order dimensional chess by your logic. Or perhaps they've been huffing the
ChloroxTrump wineKool Aid too long.(Score: 2) by istartedi on Sunday May 03 2020, @11:20PM (2 children)
IMHO, the Democrat's failure in '16 doesn't relate to the concept of 2nd order thinking. There were no "knock-on" effects of actions being ignored by the party. What was in operation were two big things: First, Overconfidence in metrics. Actually, this could be shoe-horned into the 2nd order thinking paradigm. The Democrats and media people who favor them sought to make Trump supporters pariahs. The knock-on effect here is that even when polls were confidential, respondents were more likely to lie than usual. Even if they tell you it's anonymous, you might prefer to identify as "independent" or even Democrat rather than GOP. Thus, they were overconfident in numbers from key states like Michigan, and they failed to campaign there.
Secondly, the Democratic Party is obsessed with "first". "First woman president" was irresistible to some of them, to the point where they would overlook obvious flaws in the candidate. This is is harder to shoe-horn in to the 2nd order thinking paradigm. The flaw here is that they're obsessed.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2020, @01:10AM (1 child)
There's been much ado made about your first point, but doesn't seem to hold up to a lot of scrutiny. You had an electorate split very close to 50/50, and you had two candidates who both were polling with unfavorable ratings greater than 50%. Think about that for second, both candidates went into a Presidential election with a majority of the county finding them unfavorable. All of this "they abandoned the rust belt" stuff was Monday morning quarterbacking political science BS attempting to find a way to explain what happened after the fact, when it basically came down to a 50/50 split decided by statistical fluctuations.
Don't forget that EVERYBODY, including Trump, knew that Clinton was going to win. The Senate and House Republicans were strategizing how they were going to handle the Clinton administration (Chavitz gleefully saying it was going to be "all Benghazi all the time" for the next several years). Trump didn't even have any significant transition team put together.
Nate Silver had a pretty decent post mortem [fivethirtyeight.com], and he notes that the polling ended up being no better or worse than it had since it started in 1968.
I think it was simply a typical 50/50 split election where the populist message swung a few more voters one way than the other in a couple of important states. Don't forget how close the election was. Trump lost the popular vote, and only about 50k votes gave him the electoral college victory. When it is that close, coming up with general explanations is trying to fit a model to noise fluctuations.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 04 2020, @03:06AM
which a Democrat candidate less obsessed with metrics might have made more in their favor.