The McNamara fallacy: Measurement is not understanding
mcnamarafallacy.com
The McNamara fallacy: Measurement is not understanding
1–10 of 223 posts
Re: The McNamara fallacy: Measurement is not understanding
#2From a game-theory POV, all wars are caused by misunderstandings / partial information.
If each side really knew the true strength of the other side, it would be clear which would win and therefore actual war is illogical and unnecessary.
Re: The McNamara fallacy: Measurement is not understanding
#3From a game-theory POV, all wars are caused by misunderstandings / partial information. If each side really knew the true strength of the other side, it would be clear which would win and therefore actual war is illogical and unnecessary.
Is that true? What if the situation is that I am currently stronger then you but can expect to become weaker in the future? Why not force a war now if I can expect to win?
I still haven't finished it (too depressing) but my reading of the book The Sleepwalkers about the events leading up to WWI is that all the parties thought they were in that place; even if they all had a full picture it's certainly possible those beliefs would in fact be true.
Re: The McNamara fallacy: Measurement is not understanding
#4From a game-theory POV, all wars are caused by misunderstandings / partial information. If each side really knew the true strength of the other side, it would be clear which would win and therefore actual war is illogical and unnecessary.
That's a fallacious line of reasoning on several fronts.
A) The beneficiaries of a war need not be the ones who pay the cost. If you personally stand to benefit from the war itself, regardless of win or lose, you want the war.
B) It's applying a rational economics approach when it's pretty clear that humans aren't rational. Japan kept fighting even when it was clear they would lose. Pride, image, your future after the war. All things that impact the decision that gets made.
C) War isn't typically total like it was in WWII. Most wars are just skirmishes or prolonged skirmishes that don't meaningfully change borders. In such a scenario, a single "war" loss may still be an important fight to have in the middle of the overall conflict (i.e. to signal to your opponent that you're not a pushover and that continuing on their current path has consequences).
D) Win/lose isn't the only outcome of war. Lose/lose is also another scenario. Additionally, you might lose the war but winning may not be the goal. For example, maybe it only takes me 1/10th the resources for me to wage the war that it takes for you to win. A single war might cost me 100 units, but it's important for me to be able to cause you to spend 1000 units because then I have a 900 unit advantage in some other area.
There's many more, but I don't think imperfect information is the only reason war exists.
Re: The McNamara fallacy: Measurement is not understanding
#5I don't understands what the fallacy is. It is that an overreliance on data can overlook factors not in the data? Why is that a surprise. You would also have to show that not relying on data would generate better results.
Re: The McNamara fallacy: Measurement is not understanding
#6From a game-theory POV, all wars are caused by misunderstandings / partial information. If each side really knew the true strength of the other side, it would be clear which would win and therefore actual war is illogical and unnecessary.
Is that true? What if the situation is that I am currently stronger then you but can expect to become weaker in the future? Why not force a war now if I can expect to win? I still haven't finished it (too depressing) but my reading of the book The Sleepwalkers about the events leading up to WWI is that all the parties thought they were in that place; even if they all had a full picture it's certainly possible those b…
If I know that you are currently stronger and would ultimately win a war, I should logically concede now since I will lose anyway.
If I know that you are currently stronger but we both also know that I can draw out a war such that I eventually become stronger, then you shouldn't go to war since you will ultimately lose.
Re: The McNamara fallacy: Measurement is not understanding
#7From a game-theory POV, all wars are caused by misunderstandings / partial information. If each side really knew the true strength of the other side, it would be clear which would win and therefore actual war is illogical and unnecessary.
Wait a minute. Shouldn't the goal of the defender be to make it clear to the attacker that they would incur losses that outweigh possible wins for the attacker, thereby making the attack a lose-lose scenario? This is only possible if the defender makes it credible to the potential attacker that they will defend their country even when the costs would be extremely high and they cannot possibly win the conflict. In other words, at least from deterrence point of view it's not about winning, it's about making sure the attacker would overall lose more than gain (which is not the same as winning against the attacker).
Re: The McNamara fallacy: Measurement is not understanding
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is that true? What if the situation is that I am currently stronger then you but can expect to become weaker in the future? Why not force a war now if I can expect to win? I still haven't finished it (too depressing) but my reading of the book The Sleepwalkers about the events leading up to WWI is that all the parties thought they were in that place; even if they all had a full picture it's certainly possible those b…
If I know that you are currently stronger and would ultimately win a war, I should logically concede now since I will lose anyway. If I know that you are currently stronger but we both also know that I can draw out a war such that I eventually become stronger, then you shouldn't go to war since you will ultimately lose.
> If I know that you are currently stronger and would ultimately win a war, I should logically concede now since I will lose anyway.
You'll often lose less if you fight to a loss.
In fact, you often won't have to fight at all if you make it clear to your adversary that you will fight to a loss.
If I'm a street thug, I'm not going to try to mug someone who clearly communicates that their response to a mugging is detonating their suicide vest. I will, however, repeatedly victimize someone who clearly communicate that they are a pushover.
This is an iterative game, against the same players. Loss aversion is not a winning strategy to pursue in the long-term. Something resembling tit-for-tat is.
Re: The McNamara fallacy: Measurement is not understanding
#9I don't understands what the fallacy is. It is that an overreliance on data can overlook factors not in the data? Why is that a surprise. You would also have to show that not relying on data would generate better results.
> It is that an overreliance on data can overlook factors not in the data? Why is that a surprise?
The vast majority of PMs I've worked with don't seem to understand this at all. If it's not in the metrics, it doesn't exist!
Re: The McNamara fallacy: Measurement is not understanding
#10I don't understands what the fallacy is. It is that an overreliance on data can overlook factors not in the data? Why is that a surprise. You would also have to show that not relying on data would generate better results.
If understanding is what you seek then https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNDsd798HR4 is a nice long discussion on McNamara overlooking factors not in the data. The fallacy didn't earn its name for simple reasons.