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, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday May 03 2020, @05:07PM (10 children)
No, it quite explicitly does not. It assumes there was a reason. Full stop. From TFS: "The reason might not be a good or relevant one; we just need to be aware of what the reason is."
Dude, that's "we have to pass the bill so we can find out what's in the bill" logic and you know it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday May 03 2020, @11:36PM (8 children)
Except that they could always read the bill first. It was just an excuse to ignore criticism of the pork barrel process. And of course, they weren't going to take things back when the bill passed.
There really are times you can't figure out these consequences without doing the thing. But you can take precautions such as testing the change on a smaller scale and rolling back changes that turn out bad.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday May 04 2020, @02:01AM (7 children)
No, they couldn't. It wasn't humanly possible to do and still vote on it any time soon.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 04 2020, @03:20AM (6 children)
Nothing required them to pass the bill any time soon. There wasn't any emergencies addressed by the bill.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 04 2020, @03:43AM (5 children)
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday May 04 2020, @04:37AM (4 children)
No, they couldn't. If any member of Congress had actually written it they might have but it was written by lobbyists.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 04 2020, @04:54AM (3 children)
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday May 04 2020, @05:47AM (2 children)
If they'd wanted it passed before Republicans took over the house, yes. It was bigger than a comprehensive NYC phonebook from back when phonebooks were a thing.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 04 2020, @02:00PM (1 child)
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday May 04 2020, @10:32PM
So am I. I've been telling you what was not what should have been.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday May 03 2020, @11:37PM
Yeap. Typical example of the difference in the way of thinking between an engineer and a statistician.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford