{"id":49,"date":"2010-11-05T11:40:54","date_gmt":"2010-11-05T11:40:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/benjaminmitchell.wordpress.com\/2010\/11\/05\/how-could-we-mistake-proof-our-thinking\/"},"modified":"2010-11-05T11:40:54","modified_gmt":"2010-11-05T11:40:54","slug":"how-could-we-mistake-proof-our-thinking","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/techpeoplethrivi-i2tkeoduos.live-website.com\/how-could-we-mistake-proof-our-thinking\/","title":{"rendered":"How could we mistake-proof our thinking?"},"content":{"rendered":"

How could ideas from psychology, lean, systems thinking and behavioural economics help us design systems which are better able to detect and correct error, so that we could \u2018mistake-proof\u2019 our own (and others\u2019) thinking?<\/p>\n

We know that it is common for humans to feel that they are right.  As Kathryn Schulz (@wrongologist<\/a>!) says in her book \u201cBeing Wrong: Adventures in the margin of error\u201d, \u201cwhat does being wrong feel like?  It feels *exactly* the same as being right until the point we realise that we’ve done something wrong\u201d.  She illustrates this through the \u201cWile E. Coyote Moment\u201d where the cartoon character<\/a>, runs off a cliff (he is \u2018wrong\u2019 at this point, but still feeling \u2018right\u2019), looks down and realises (detects the error) that he\u2019s standing in thin air and plunges (now he no longer feels \u2018right\u2019)<\/p>\n

One of the problems we have with detecting error is that we often trust our direct sensory experience as a way of testing if we are wrong or not.  We know, from optical illusions<\/a> and auditory illusions<\/a>, that our eyes and ears can play tricks on us.  However, we rarely acknowledge or act with an awareness that we can have similar problems with our thinking.  There are many sources of evidence that we experience \u2018cognitive illusions\u2019, such as the work of Behavioural Economist Dan Ariely.  For the Lean readers, Taiichi Ohno discusses the problem of \u201cillusions involving mental processes\u201d in \u201cWorkplace Management\u201d.<\/p>\n

Chris Argyris\u2019 research (see my Argyris links<\/a>) has found that we are often \u2018blind\u2019 to the fact that we could be wrong.  Further, in situations where the consequences of being wrong are potentially embarrassing or threatening then we are even less likely to be vigilant about the detection of error, and if it is discovered that we were wrong we\u2019re likely to bury, bypass or cover-up the error (and deny that we\u2019re bypassing the bypass!).<\/p>\n

So, if we know that humans act like this (e.g. this is the \u2018system\u2019 we have to work with), how would we mistake-proof<\/a> our thinking? (the concept, not tool)<\/p>\n

I\u2019d say that we should ask questions like the following:<\/p>\n