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: 5, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Sunday May 03 2020, @04:07PM (1 child)
Well, I'm glad I understand your reality a little better now.
Both Chess and Go have a discrete number of pieces and legal playing positions. From any given board position there are mathematically/logically limited future positions. Although the number of positions and outcomes is difficult for most people to predict, they are many many orders of magnitude fewer than the simple question of: when I get out of bed this morning will I die before I leave the house? You think you know the answer to that question, but there are trillions of trillions of variables, mostly unknown to everyone on the planet, even more unknown to you personally. We think we comprehend the question in terms of statistics, but those statistics are hopelessly flawed in the face of all the unknowns. What we have is an approximation based as much on faith as anything else that the answer is: usually, yes.
If you think you, or anyone, can have the answers to any real world questions in the way that a Go or Chess master can, you are living a delusion. We operate in a world of best guesses. Key point: predictions of outcomes are influenced more by what people wish the reality were than what it actually is or will be.
If you are equating Chess and Go to winner-take-all life and death games, that's a gross misinterpretation of their importance and value. They are entertainment, diversion, mostly a waste of time with less value than your driving trip from point A to point B. Whether you win or lose your online game of 9x9 Go with Chung-Ho is of less value and consequence than whether or not Billy Bob cuts you off in traffic delaying your arrival at the store by 90 seconds. The game of Go may seem harder and more adversarial than driving to you, and it should - that's the design of both systems: games for entertainment to be challenging and adversarial, daily tasks to be simple and cooperative, even though both are imperfect at achieving their design goals.
When your elected representatives determine policy, or you and your neighbor decide whether or not to remove a fence, the deciding factors are generally selfish, short sighted, and poorly if at all thought out beyond the immediate consequences. People attempting to influence the debate for the outcome of a decision similarly have mostly selfish, short sighted, and often poorly thought out motivations driving their more carefully structured arguments designed to influence the outcome. Any attempt to model these systems for multiple steps forward into the future is futile as the arguments so derived are lost on the ears of those who might be influenced - appeals to emotional response are far more effective at eliciting actual change.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 04 2020, @03:02AM
You have the order of magnitude switched. The simple question has a simple answer - actuaries do this sort of calculation all the time without having to consider more than a few variables.
And completely irrelevant to the question. We can make similar spurious claims about the minds of the parties playing Chess and Go.
Which again is irrelevant, even if it were happening. We could also claim the same of your use of the phrase "life and death games" with the same degree of relevancy.
A third irrelevant remark. This story wouldn't exist in the first place, if it weren't for the way-too-common flawed approaches that are traditionally employed. Of course, someone is doing it wrong.