Hats
I did a comment a couple of weeks ago about Thomas Kida’s Don’t Believe Everything You Think and NASA and the Challenger explosion and Richard Feynman. I got Feynman’s book (What do You Care What Other People Think?, the one that includes his account of the investigation of the explosion) from the library yesterday – it’s a fascinating read. It is all about bad or non-existent communication between managers and engineers, along with the fact that the managers make the decisions. Baaaad set-up. However good a manager you are, you can’t manage a cold stiff non-resilient rubber O-ring into doing its job of holding in the hot gases during launch. That just isn’t a managerial skill. O-rings and rubber just aren’t…manipulable or commandable or influenceable or persuadable in that way. They just do what they do, no matter what plans the managers make, no matter how many zeros the managers add to the number an explosion can’t happen in. That kind of thing just doesn’t change what happens when a cold O-ring isn’t resilent enough to expand when the joint expands. It just can’t be coaxed. It doesn’t expand, the gas escapes, blam; that’s all.
I’ll tell you more another time, but there was this one passage I read this morning that made me sit up and take even more notice than I already was, which is a lot. It’s highly interesting in itself, but it also exactly echoes something I was thinking…the other day, recently some time, but I couldn’t remember when. You know how that is. I enjoyed that ‘Yeah, yeah, that’s just what I was thinking…whenever it was,’ but I wanted to remember when I was thinking it. (I don’t know. I just did.) I knew I could find out though, because I scribbled a note about it at the time. I scribble notes about things like that in a notebook. You never know when you might want to recall them. It took me awhile to find the note, but I did, and oddly, I scribbled it the day after that post. (I date them. I do several every day, so I insert each day’s dates. I don’t know. I just do.) I’d forgotten that it had anything to do with NASA. But I ended up having the same thought Feynman did about the whole matter. I find that interesting.
Here’s some of what I say in the notebook (don’t mind the sketchiness and crudeness, it’s just a note, a scribble, a memory-aid):
Politics is like NASA. It’s about taking off your engineering hat and putting on your management hat. It’s about – agreement, compromise, persuasion, manipulation, acceptance, opinion. It’s got nothing to do with accuracy, evidence, inquiry, critical thinking – it’s all mush. Mush-world. Baby world. Coax world. ‘Is this okay, will this do?’ Who cares; is it right, or not? [etc] But the political way of thinking – at the extreme – is like NASA – and is a kind of magical thinking – if the majority thinks so then it is true, which can even become, if the majority wants it to, it will happen. Like prayer, perhaps – a background idea that our hopes and wishes (and prayers) really do affect rocks and gases – really do protect the shuttle and keep it from exploding.
That’s politics at its worst, of course, but still, it did strike me with a peculiar force or clarity at that moment, and explain to me why I’m really not very interested in politics these days. So you’ll be able to see why this bit of Feynman’s book made me sit up.
The only way to have real success in science, the field I’m familiar with, is to describe the evidence very carefully without regard to the way you feel it should be. If you have a theory, you must try to explain what’s good and what’s bad about it equally. In science, you learn a kind of standard integrity and honesty. In other fields, such as business, it’s different.’ He cites advertising, where the goal is to fool the customer, and then: ‘When I see a congressman giving his opinion on something, I always wonder if it represents his real opinion or if it represents an opinion he’s designed in order to be elected. It seems to be a central problem for politicians.
Yes. It does. That’s exactly it. It’s wearing a management hat not an engineering hat – which means ignoring what the engineers tell you if it’s not what you or the voters want to hear. Even if that means ignoring the engineers telling you it’s dangerous to launch when it’s this cold and launching anyway, as if managers or politicians have some kind of magical power to over-ride physical reality and make O-rings resilient by the mere power of wishing. Step right up, buy our magic hats, they can make you beautiful and healthy and young, and they can prevent shuttles from exploding and hurricanes from breaching levies.
Once you’ve been impressed by that difference, it’s hard to go back, I think.
“He cites advertising, where the goal is to fool the customer”
I’m not quite sure who he thingsks the ‘customer’ is in this instance, but in either case that is a very tendentious and silly way to describe what advertisers try to do. The customers of advertising agencies employ them beause they get substantive returns. These are hard to measure (the old problem of 90% of advertising revenues being wasted, but nobody knows which 90%). Advertsiers then work on behalf of thjeir customers to persuade consunmers to buy particular products. Not to fool them, to persuade them. If the persuasion works but the product turns out not to be what was advertised or to satidfy the consumer, it won’t sell for long.
Which plays nicely (as I’m sure you knew when you linked) to what’s all wrong about the ‘scientific ID’ scam.
They’ve already got their agenda, they know what they want to find and, I assume, will ensure that only that “evidence” that supports their thesis will see the light of day.
Of course, as we know, proper scientists have on occasions not been immune from this kind of behaviour – see the MMR fiasco for one.
A close friend of mine spentseveral years working as an analyst for the UK government, she left absolutely sickened at how evidence was just ignored if it didn’t fit the political agenda, and how much her analyses were twisted and spun to fit the agenda if at all possible. She now works in the financial services industry where they actually seem to care about what the numbers mean, rather than whether they can be interpreted to fit the policy you wanted to implement all along.
Funny, John M, how infrequenty advertising relies on the bald statement of incontrovertible fact for its work, isn’t it? Of course, that kind of thing isn’t very ‘creative’, so probably doesn’t appeal to the cultural geniuses who steal ideas from films or swap letters around in rude words. I’m still waiting for the ‘CNUT’ campaign.
OF COURSE advertisers get substantive returns, because everyone’s at it, and most people are dopes, susceptible to having misleading imagery piped into their brains via every available orifice. If we were all Richard Feynmans, it wouldn’t be a problem.
‘Persuade’ = ‘bypass rational faculties, imply greater benefits than actually offered, including charm, “fashionability”, sexual availability, domestic harmony, emotional security, and above all, happiness’. Which, as we all know, is actually a warm gun.
This reminds me of a particular episode of The West Wing. There was a discussion about drug policy and Toby said that the science indicated that rehab was a better policy than punishment. The guest opinion pollster replied, “I can’t sell science.”
Politicians will be more rational if they think the public are. The question is how do you create a more rational public?
“If the persuasion works but the product turns out not to be what was advertised or to satidfy the consumer, it won’t sell for long.”
Except if the persuasion is the product, like say cigarettes, all those strange sprays that do something or other (make you sexy, kill ‘germs’, whatever) or a certain other product which we are familiar with here.
“OF COURSE advertisers get substantive returns, because everyone’s at it, and most people are dopes”
Well OF COURSE, when YOU buy a product you are making a rational deision, but all those others, well they are simply morons who will do whatever they are told. Nothing else, after all, could explain why they so stubbornly refuse to conform to the social norms that people like us prefer.
And, of course, the only rational conclusion to draw from this is that the sales of products will be entirely proportional to the advertising budget. These idiots will be persuaded to consume anything. They don’t know any better.
Several thoughts here …
The late, great Dorothy L. Sayers’ (who used to work in advertising, before her novels started to make sufficient money) defined it as: “Telling plausible lies in public, for money.”
Ouch!
Feynman was, of course correct, but then I have another work of his, which I very rarely look at these days – his “Lectures on Physics” – usually referred to as “The red books”, as well as most of his other writings.
Why do you think I get so annoyed by spurious claims by people who ought to know better, and sometimes do, but won’t admit it?
Or the false claims of religious and political “leaders”.
Of course, the end of the “managerial” road brings you up against Godwin’s Law again (!)
After all, Stalin believed, and as far as anyone can tell, genuinely believed that all failures were due to malice, and treated them as such.
And Adolf believed that with sufficient will, any obstacle could be overcome.
And they were both wrong.
There is a classic engineering textbook, except that it wasn’t written as a textbook, by the late Professor J. E. Gordon called:
“Structures – or why things don’t fall down”.
But he included a lot of examples of things that DID fall down, or fall apart, or crash, or sink.
And he blamed human arrogance, and complacent stupidity – except that his words were much more resonant and convincing than mine.
If you can get a copy, it is well worth reading.
Thus you evade the central issue. Personally, if I want to buy something that actually works, I consult consumer advice websites, read professionals’ and actual users’ reviews, look for almost anything apart from a manufacturer’s puff, because, as anyone who does read these things knows, what manufacturers [i.e. advertising and marketing] tell you about a product is frequently just plain misleading.
Now, in a world where the above resources exist, and are used by many, why does advertising continue to churn out its guff? Perhaps there may be a case for ‘brand awareness’, or ‘oo, look, we’ve got a new product’, but after that, it’s all guff. Millions of quid spent by supermarkets to remind us they exist. Gosh, thanks, and I thought food flew into my kitchen cupboards by magic…
Remind me why the UK, for example, has an Advertising Standards Authority? Oh, yes, it’s to stop advertisers getting away with blatant lies, thus forcing them to get ‘creative’ with what they suggest instead…
Perhaps it doesn’t have a direct bearing on sales – well, some might argue that proves its pointlessness. Much of it, especially in the luxury sector, seems to be an excuse for mere self-congratulation, at a cost passed on to the poor aspirational consumers of already over-priced goods. That’s their look-out, but don’t expect me to pretend for your sake that it’s a noble calling.
“That’s their look-out, but don’t expect me to pretend for your sake that it’s a noble calling.”
Well, not ‘noble’, no, but not venal either. It’s just one of those things that you like or you don’t. Personally I think the benefits outweigh the disbenefits by a sizeable margin, and most people who visited Cold War East Germany will understand why. But why so many get so worked up about it is beyond me.
John M,
You are right to say that the problem with advertising is not lying – people aren’t fools, they factor in a dollop of reality when the local restaurant advertises ‘Finest Wines in Britain’ or whatever. Nobody takes commercial speech literally – that’s why ‘misleading advertising’ is rarely misleading unless the recipient is a total sucker.
The real downside of advertising is that it tempts us to want things we don’t need and to make us dissatisfied. The hedonist treadmill, etc.
But the same applies to political advertising – for example when feminist activists shrilly try to persuade contented homemakers that if they want to be truly happy they will have to put their kids in daycare centres and say adieu to their false consciousness as gullible victims of a patriarchal and discriminatory value system, or (to the right) when ethnocentric irredentists try to convince the general public that they should agonise over the loss of some square miles of sacred soil that belonged to their forebears ‘since time immemorial’. Ireland divided shall never be free, etc.
Politicians, like manufacturers, also thrive on creating false needs and aspirations, while presenting themselves as the quick-fixers who will cure the diseases they themselves have created. Set society aflame and then play the fireman: pompier pyromane, as the French say.
Compared with most pols, advertisers are pretty decent people.
P.S. ‘shrilly’ – I just couldn’t resist. Limbaugh will out.
“I just couldn’t resist,” Cathal said limbaughly.
This idea about hats sounds really interesting. It seems that we could, for certain purposes, label the engineer hat “the philosopher hat”, and the manager hat “the political activist hat”. Think of many occasions where both groups are essentially fighting for the *same* purpose, but have to adopt very different techniques and strategies to do so.
Think, for example, of discussions about use of torture techniques – we may think it’s plain wrong for ethical reasons, but it seems to be a much better idea to focus on how such techniques are actually ineffective (i.e., don’t produce the desired results), if we’re to convince the general public.
This also reminded me of a discussion I’ve had with my cousin last summer. I was explaining how I hate the (liberal) attempts to find some scientific evidence that homosexuality is something predetermined, either by genes or upbringing. I said I hope no one ever discovers a “gay gene” – why would homosexuals have to “excuse” their preferences by appealing to determinism, since none of the rest of us have to?
He replied that, while he agrees with me, he actually hopes the gay gene is discovered, because he believes this is the only way the majority of people will ever accept homosexuality. In essence, it’s better if they accept it for wrong reasons, than not accepting it at all.
I don’t know… he might be right, but I suppose this is what makes me a philosopher, and him a lawyer. I just really can’t stand it when people believe the right things for wrong reasons.
oops…
when writing “why would homosexuals have to “excuse” their preferences by appealing to determinism” I meant *justify*, not *excuse*.
sorry.
“I just really can’t stand it when people believe the right things for wrong reasons.”
And (speaking for myself here) when believing things for the right reasons isn’t even the goal.
In a way I can see that that’s wrong. The goals of politics (at best, to be sure) are good goals. But the way they tend to make things like truth and belief for the right reasons, not just less important, or peripheral, but entirely beside the point…is repellent.
I have no idea how to resolve this. I don’t think it can be resolved. It can be more or less bad, but not resolved. A bit depressing, really.
I wonder if Bush was wearing his magic hat when he met with Michael Crichton after the publication of “State of Fear” – don’t meet with scientists currently up to speed on the latest research on global warming but invite a hack writer of techno-thrillers instead.
I think Bush’s magic hat is everything above the level of his neck.
When I worked for a while in a print shop long ago, I was quite struck by the difference between the ads in the trade graphics industry journals I saw and the ads in the popular press that I was used to. The former did feature a fetching lass now and then to attract the attention of the (mostly male) readers, but generally speaking they were entirely factual about the presses and other equipment they were selling: the specs, the number of sheets per hour, etc., but nothing to imply that buying our presses will improve your sex life, etc. To me that speaks volumes about what ad agencies try to do when they deal with products for the general public.
As for politicians vs. scientists and engineers, Plato would have agreed with you, OB. He thought society would be much better off being run by the “philosopher kings,” who had a complete intellectual understanding of the Forms of the Good, Justice, etc., rather than the messy democracies, with people being tricked into disastrous schemes by the sophists, the ad agencies and pols of that time, who were experts in manipulating popular emotions. However, we seem to be stuck with (at least quasi-) democracies these days, until some philosopher kings come along, so the best we can do is with the “mush-world” of compromise and persuasion, as you call it.
For example, a sizable majority of the American people somehow or other (I’m not quite sure how, given the awfulness of the mass media) seems to have come to the conclusion that the Iraq war was a bad idea to begin with and was very badly executed, and the best thing to do now is to get out as fast as possible. The politicians, in their mushy, compromising way, are much too slow responding to this feeling, of course. If they were philosopher kings, they would act much more quickly and decisively, like scientists or engineers. But even so, given that “philosopher kings,” unfortunately, are pure myth, I’d rather go with democratic politicians than the only real-world alternative I can come up with, which are totalitarian dictators.
“Plato would have agreed with you, OB.”
I know. I’ve always seen what he was getting at, while not wanting his solution. It’s an obvious enough point, of course, and why democracy was seen as a loony idea from democratic Periclean Athens to the Reform Bill and beyond. But I’m not expressing a wish for fascism, just articulating a personal reaction.
YES!
I’ve often described myself as not just a religious atheist, but a political atheist too. I think this you describe goes a long way towards finding part of the explanation as why I feel that politics is not only not the answer to the question, but could be entirely the wrong question altogether.
I think it is something that goes way beyond mere cynicism about politicians and the political processes into something much deeper I can only occasionally get glimpses of, can’t quite grasp yet.
BERTIE HAS A BERTIE [BOWL}ER HAT, A METAL ENGINEERING MEDIA HAT, A COWBOY HAT, A TOP O’ THE MORNING HAT, AND ANOTHER HAT FOR DUCKING AND DIVING. The latter is MOMENTARILY on his head.
Deputy John Gormley of the Irish GREEN PARTY SUMS IT UP NICELY “While the Taoiseach is in the Middle East he will be hosted by Saudi leaders who are as out of touch with their own people as President Bush. I would question why the Taoiseach has failed to publicly raise human rights issues while leading a trade mission to Saudi Arabia. This country is a ruthless monarchy steeped in human rights abuses. All political parties, elections and trade unions are banned, working conditions are exploitative, and women and migrant workers are heavily discriminated against. Nearly 90 people were executed in 2005 and torture and floggings are part of the ‘judicial’ process. However, ethical considerations apparently are less important than business interests for this Government.
On no topic whatever, and it’s probably redundant to post a link to RD’s site, but you must watch this:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,543,Mr-Deity,Brian-Keith-Dalton-MrDeitycom
Laughing…
Good one, Marie-Therese. A top o’ the morning hat, and another hat for ducking and diving – haw!
David Hadley writes:-
“I’ve often described myself as not just a religious atheist, but a political atheist too. I think this you describe goes a long way towards finding part of the explanation as why I feel that politics is not only not the answer to the question, but could be entirely the wrong question altogether.”
Consider the politics not of the government of the state but of how your department runs, or your work place, or your family, or your local voluntary group or your rock band.
And there you see in miniature of how interests compete and have to be accommodated, how there are forceful personalities and apathetic personalities, passions to be subdued, loud and quiet voices, cunning manipulators behind the scenes (6 year old girls are often very good at that). And some people who love power and other people who cannot bear responsibility.
Politics is the art of living together with other people and their conflicting needs and desires. It is messy and compromising and frustrating and unsatisfying. Like life itself.
For a good novel about truth-seeking scientists v careerist politicians try Nigel Balchin’s The Small Back Room.