From Simplicity to Understanding
As Lewis Goldberg and his colleagues have noted, the best tools to use in the engagement of prediction might be quite simple. A checklist can provide use with guidance in sorting through the multitude of options available to us in predicting the course of action regarding a mental health or medical issue—or the long-term trends of the stock market. These simple tools offer a partial answer to the challenge of Multipiicity. They can help us select one specific course of action.
However, at this point, we wish to move beyond this behavioral economic critique of the traditional expert—for the experts still have much to offer. We believe that a key element when introducing assessments and checklists is missed in Kahneman’s dialogue. These tools should be developed – as best as possible – together with the experts who will ultimately use them. This is a basic “behavioral change” principle, designed to overcome the “not invented here syndrome”. This principle has helped us introduce checklists into organizational change initiatives where many executives feel they “know it all.” Furthermore, William Perry, the psychologists who introduced us to Dualism and Multiplicity, suggests that the behavioral economist prescription of simplicity is not sufficient. If we move out of Multiplicity based on outcomes of a checklist, then in many ways we are moving back to Dualism. We now have the ”right” (or at least the “best”) answer.
As we have repeatedly emphasized in this essay, it is important to acknowledge our biases and the specific frame of reference we are engaging when approaching any issue and determining the best course of action to take regarding resolution of this issue. We have just identified one set of biases—the need for complex analyses when making predictions. There are many other biases of which we must become aware. Perry proposes that we should enter a third stage of cognitive development. He calls this stage, Relativism. In essence, we are invited to recognize that there are many different ways in which to view any problem (the Multiplistic challenge). However, these diverse perspectives tend to cluster into specific, unified frames of reference. Our job is to recognize and appreciation the valid and useful perspectives offered by each of these frames.
We embrace a Relativistic stance when acknowledging these valid frames. With this stance, we can move toward a fuller understanding of the issue we are addressing. It is fine to predict the outcome of a specific therapeutic treatment when working with a specific mental illness. It is even better (and ultimately of greatest value) to gain some understanding of WHY this treatment is effective with this illness. We need to not only predict what will happen with the stock market during the coming six months, but also gain greater appreciation for the factors that influence this market.
Download Article 1K Club
