I don't understand how articles like this get upvoted. Who is getting value from this?
This reads like some generic LinkedIn CEO post that sounds deep on the surface but actually means nothing.
This reads like some generic LinkedIn CEO post that sounds deep on the surface but actually means nothing.
These ideas that should be obvious to anyone who's studied advanced statistics, or formal logic, or read some books about extreme events, all likely already know, but the fact is, not everyone... better yet most people have not every studied these things.
These ideas are inherently interesting, and every year, there are new people coming of age that are introduced to these interesting ideas via an article like this, and then it'll get upvotes. The world is like a fire hose of young people. Add in a popular author who will likely get attention anyway, and here we are at the top of the feed.
It's just generalized parables by someone not in any of the fields or positions mentioned, some weak conclusions, and a "Heuristics That Almost Always Works" book title.
You will get surprised 0.01% of the time, and that's fine. If you don't follow the heuristic you'll be surprised far more often by way of being wrong.
This gets further weighted by costs. If the cost of a false negative is high and the cost of a false positive is nothing, always assume the positive and do whatever is required: check the window, palpitate the whatever, etc. You are certain it is nothing, but the cost of being wrong is so high that you do it anyway.
The author's whimsical point about needing people who buy into fairy-tales isn't useful or valid. You make these decisions based mostly on the costs of being right and wrong, and within that you assume things based on the stats of occurring.
Author is an MD (doctor)...
I just realized it's possible I'm being whooshed by your comment.
I felt exactly the opposite. In my career as an engineer I regularly encounter experts who claim to be so, but offer no qualifications or expertise. Having the ability to respond to this type of stuff is valuable.
In my personal life, I've felt that many therapists exhibit this exact response. They choose to give heuristics and platitudes because, often times, they work. But it means they are giving up the expertise which they claim possession of.
I'm reminded of quite the childish thing by this article: "With great power comes great responsibility." If you claim to be an expert, you need to actually be an expert. I consider this the social contract of expertise and prestige.