Reddit reviews The Logic Of Failure: Recognizing And Avoiding Error In Complex Situations

Humans are terrible as risk mitigation and (real) risk avoidance (I mean in the technically correct sense of the word).

One of my favorite business books is "The Logic of Failure"

https://www.amazon.com/Logic-Failure-Recognizing-Avoiding-Situations/dp/0201479486

If you're interested in this sort of thing, then the book "The Logic of Failure - Recognizing And Avoiding Error In Complex Situations" is a superb, and useful, read.

The Logic of Failure

From the synopsis: "Dietrich Dörner identifies what he calls the “logic of failure”—certain tendencies in our patterns of thought that, while appropriate to an older, simpler world, prove disastrous for the complex world we live in now."

I find the book both entertaining and informative

>It can't possibly affect what your tongue actually tastes.

your tongue doesn't taste though, that's your brain. all your tongue does, is send signals about what the taste receptors are doing. the simple act of being a subjective expert like a wine or restaurant critic requires that you rely on your impressions... not that you distrust them or dissemble when it comes to sharing your mighty opinion. it's all they have. in a way, it can't be wrong. at least, not in the same way as the experts at chernobyl were:

>The Chernobyl atomic-plant explosion, observes Dorner, was entirely due to human error involving the breaking of safety rules by a team of experts who reinforced one another's puffed-up sense of competence.

we're all limited by our perceptions far more than our senses.

>> Moreover, the right likes to call the left Utopian, but it also has a vision of a "better world" which it would like to see come about

Tu Quoque fallacy.

Just because the right does something hypocritical, doesn't invalidate the idea that the left can't do it either.

>> And if you want to go on and claim ... "blah blah blah I'm projecting my biases onto you"

ok whatever, you think I'm right wing. See below.

>> There is nothing wrong at all with a vision of a better world.

Tell that to the victims of the holocaust and the peasants in Soviet Russia. Both were victims of the deluded masses that believed they knew with certainty what was good for mankind. Go read Dorner's 'The Logic of Failure'. Individuals with good intentions will do anything to reach their goals, including the most questionable acts. The thing that makes good intended people highly dangerous, is that they rarely learn their lesson when they completely fuck it up.

>> There is nothing necessarily religious about such a vision

Yes there is. It's called millenarianism. Look it up.

>> And it's definitely not just a characteristic of the left

No fucking shit. Where did I say it wasn't? Can you even read? Or are you just typing for the point of typing?

>> although conservatives don't like to admit it.

Sounds like your biases are showing through again. I don't think you can separate criticism of the left from the idea that 'if someone criticizes the left, then they must be right wing'. It's plainly false and the basis of logic 101. Someone can not be right wing, and still criticize the left.

Nearly the entire of your argument is based around a crude character of, "BUT THE RIGHT WING DID IT TOO." It is completely tu quoque fallacy. The fact that the right does something bad doesn't invalidate bad stuff that the left does. Do you understand that? Have you done any informal logic or logic?

Here I'll lay out your argument in an analogy: If I said to you that Bruce lives in New York, and then you replied, "but Gerald lives in New York too," that doesn't invalidate the fact that Bruce STILL LIVES IN NEW YORK. Do you see the argument you are making? I am saying both Bruce and Gerald live in New York, while you seem to be the one that is ignoring and downplaying Bruce's part, while highlighting Gerald's position.

The Logic Of Failure: Recognizing And Avoiding Error In Complex Situations. It's not a large book, but it has many worthwhile lessons. In particular, sometimes the worst catastrophes are caused by the very people who write the procedures to avoid disaster — because they think they're too smart to need to follow their own rules. (At work we have "Vince's Law," named after a co-worker who shared it with us: if you find yourself thinking "I'll just be very careful," stop immediately!)

Systemantics. The Systems Bible. Probably satirical, and he's writing about human organizational systems, but almost all of it applies equally well to larger IT systems (both organizationally and technically).

Perhaps books like The Art of Memory, The Logic Of Failure, Prometheus Rising, Finite and Infinite Games could offer some new perspectives.

Edward De Bono's work on lateral thinking might also be of interest.

Textbook example of bad science. By that logic the underserved ethnic groups would have to be more prone to conspiracy theories than others. And that is obviously not the case. The example in the picture (Obama being Kenyan) is not a good example anyways, since there are real hints of problems with a 100% sure US citizenship. The Senate had invalidated those concerns, but they were there . (International student status at Harvard, problems with birth certificate, if I remember correctly.) The logic of Failure by Dietrich Doerner https://www.amazon.com/Logic-Failure-Recognizing-Avoiding-Situations/dp/0201479486 shows very convincingly that this type of thinking, conspiracy theories that is, is more rooted in a situation that is poorly understood and where the feeble mind tries to find a reason in an unreasonable situation. Only people that are aware of that process can try to avoid it.