From the notes: "One of my goals in life is to create a tool that can help humans think with others" - I am often thinking about something like that, especially in relation to the point related to the System: "Systems should be designed to eliminate human failure". I think currently we are facing the challenge related to the fact that we need to renovate our system: we have many vicious circles (like an algorithm feeding itself with wrong data) about many different topics (some things are going bad, because all the actors are doing what the system is pushing them to do, but sometimes we don't see the big picture and the consequences, sometimes we do, but we are not able to stop the circle). We need to redesign our system, but our system doesn't include a place for doing so: the possible places for doing so are affected by the system. It is time to start to think differently and the first step would be to find a space for doing so.
Let us not forget that politicians were advised by scientists and doctors. As Tomas' discussion with Prof John Edmunds last year showed, that advice wasn't always ideal.
First of all: thinking of this as a cost-benefit-analysis implies the underlying ethical framework of utilitarianism. While that is one way to approach ethical considerations, it's not the only way, or the only correct way. This is something to consider. Personally, I think the utilitarian framework *itself* has been a part of the failings around the crisis. We haven't paid much attention to the intrinsic value (and values) of life.
But second, quite important, this crisis has been going on while global politics were very unhinged with very corrupt and quite destructive leadership. The thing with those in power isn't just that they tried to analyse and failed, but in that many of them really don't care about human lives as cost at all. They may very well have calculated certain things very accurately, just not with 'society' on the side of benefit. Without putting that front and center, how corona happened cannot be understood.
Thank You Tomas for writing this. And thank You VictoriaF for broadening it. I wish we had more intelligence like yours in this humanity of ours. Maybe it can be seeded?
Grasping systems on any broader, meaningful level is hard work for a poor brain. Most ppl don't want to go there. And to be honest, many have their abilities developed in other walks of life. Being good at something must and will suffice. We are diverse.
We are on a treshold to develop human systems or -- keep marching blindfolded into a grim future. I'd very much prefer the former :-o
I think that one bias that causes a lot of problems is our tendency to assume that others think in the same way that we do. We find it difficult to grasp that another human being can think in ways completely alien to us (e.g., those whose focus in life is power or wealth struggle to believe that others may not have this as their primary goal) . We mostly grow up with and associate with people who think like us and it is not until we travel or have open discussions with those who think differently that this bias is challenged. As with all challenges, this can be seen as a positive thing or as a threat.
I note the emphasis in the 3D conversation article on countering this bias with paraphrasing to check that others share our understanding of what has been said.
From the notes: "One of my goals in life is to create a tool that can help humans think with others" - I am often thinking about something like that, especially in relation to the point related to the System: "Systems should be designed to eliminate human failure". I think currently we are facing the challenge related to the fact that we need to renovate our system: we have many vicious circles (like an algorithm feeding itself with wrong data) about many different topics (some things are going bad, because all the actors are doing what the system is pushing them to do, but sometimes we don't see the big picture and the consequences, sometimes we do, but we are not able to stop the circle). We need to redesign our system, but our system doesn't include a place for doing so: the possible places for doing so are affected by the system. It is time to start to think differently and the first step would be to find a space for doing so.
1932. «Franzosischer Witz» by Kurt Tucholsky (1890-1935):
«Der Krieg? Ich kann das nicht so schrecklich finden! Der Tod eines Menschen: das ist eine Katastrophe. Hunderttausend Tote: das ist eine Statistik!»
Let us not forget that politicians were advised by scientists and doctors. As Tomas' discussion with Prof John Edmunds last year showed, that advice wasn't always ideal.
First of all: thinking of this as a cost-benefit-analysis implies the underlying ethical framework of utilitarianism. While that is one way to approach ethical considerations, it's not the only way, or the only correct way. This is something to consider. Personally, I think the utilitarian framework *itself* has been a part of the failings around the crisis. We haven't paid much attention to the intrinsic value (and values) of life.
But second, quite important, this crisis has been going on while global politics were very unhinged with very corrupt and quite destructive leadership. The thing with those in power isn't just that they tried to analyse and failed, but in that many of them really don't care about human lives as cost at all. They may very well have calculated certain things very accurately, just not with 'society' on the side of benefit. Without putting that front and center, how corona happened cannot be understood.
Thank You Tomas for writing this. And thank You VictoriaF for broadening it. I wish we had more intelligence like yours in this humanity of ours. Maybe it can be seeded?
Grasping systems on any broader, meaningful level is hard work for a poor brain. Most ppl don't want to go there. And to be honest, many have their abilities developed in other walks of life. Being good at something must and will suffice. We are diverse.
We are on a treshold to develop human systems or -- keep marching blindfolded into a grim future. I'd very much prefer the former :-o
FYI, Cialdini has just published an extensively revised "Influence"
I think that one bias that causes a lot of problems is our tendency to assume that others think in the same way that we do. We find it difficult to grasp that another human being can think in ways completely alien to us (e.g., those whose focus in life is power or wealth struggle to believe that others may not have this as their primary goal) . We mostly grow up with and associate with people who think like us and it is not until we travel or have open discussions with those who think differently that this bias is challenged. As with all challenges, this can be seen as a positive thing or as a threat.
I note the emphasis in the 3D conversation article on countering this bias with paraphrasing to check that others share our understanding of what has been said.