Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The McNamara fallacy: Measurement is not understanding

mcnamarafallacy.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 223 posts

Re: The McNamara fallacy: Measurement is not understanding

#71

Post by chasd00 »

asdff wrote: post #14
crazy1van wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If each side really knew the true strength of the other side, it would be clear which would win This is too simplistic. Often wars are heavily influenced by things other than just the strengths of both sides. For example - What if the ground hadn't been soaked from days of rain at Agincourt and Waterloo? What if the Germans hadn't held back their armor reinforcements for so long on D-Day?

They'd still lose. Wars are fought not from individual battles but from logistics. Modern military's don't even engage if there isn't a lopsided power imbalance favoring their success.

if you find yourself in a fair fight it's time to re-think your strategy

Re: The McNamara fallacy: Measurement is not understanding

#73

Post by shellback3 »

the_af wrote: post #64
enkid wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The example with the US military lying certainly demonstrates another issue with over valuing metrics - making sure you have good data. People who get wrapped around metrics also tend to not look at the data they are being presented. One of the issues McNamara had was he was receiving inflated body count figures. [0] Not only was he measuring the wrong thing, he was measuring it badly. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wi…

It's also a good example of perverse incentives or "gaming the metrics" (in a horrifying way). If the main measure of success was body count, and every kill was considered an enemy by default, this encouraged just killing people and counting them as successes.

I was in Vietnam in a Naval Support Group. I had conversations with army officers that had combat experience and learned that since no statistics were collected about dead civilians all the dead were counted as enemy soldiers - and everyone from the top down knew it.

Re: The McNamara fallacy: Measurement is not understanding

#74

Post by giva »

musicale wrote: post #55
jscode wrote: post #23

Quick story: I was the CFO for a company that sold to a private equity group (PEG). I took over as the CEO as the founders retired, leaving me to deal with the PEG. It quickly became apparent that the PEG managers looked at everything through the lens of an Excel spreadsheet. These guys were brilliant attorneys and analysts but lacked experience building businesses and managing teams. Ultimately, they couldn’t add mu…

> private equity group The goal of a private equity group can sometimes be be to extract as much money from the company as possible in a given time frame, rather than to ensure the long-term success or survival of the company.

And the goal of PEG's empolyees is to get bonuses by hitting the metrics set for them.

Metrics are the only goal that means there. It's all about making the numbers look pretty.

Re: The McNamara fallacy: Measurement is not understanding

#75

Post by wayoutthere »

nickdothutton wrote: post #51
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. Great documentary. The part where Castro said he urged Russia to launch their nukes from Cuba to the US knowing it would destroy Cuba was chilling. Humans are not always logical. Don't assume somebody wont drag an entire country or the world to total destruction for some deranged cause. I didn't get the death bed vibe from McNamara but I definitely felt that he was genuinely reflecting on the past. The docume…

Morris himself said something like he didnt really feel he got to know Rumsfeld and had no real idea what was in his mind compared to his previous interview with McNamara.

Guess Donald himself was one of the “unknown unknowns”

Re: The McNamara fallacy: Measurement is not understanding

#76

Post by sf_rob »

This isn't a great article IMO (I say as someone who is a big fan of qualitative user research, mixed methods, etc).

Per the first example, many types of attitudinal data can be quantified and conflating attitudinal data with qualitative data is itself a fallacy. It's possible that there were quantitative attitudinal signals that could have been captured or created as inputs to a more accurate model.

Per the second example, this is more a question of data validity than the metric itself. If the metric could be validated through better design and gamification prevented then it would likely still be a helpful indicator. Granted this is a very hard problem.

Re: The McNamara fallacy: Measurement is not understanding

#77

Post by 7thaccount »

thereddaikon wrote: post #65
7thaccount wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the lean sigma stuff seems like another useless management fad to me that only benefits consultants. Is that what you're saying here?

Like many management system fads, it started as a useful kernel of wisdom or obvious maxim that idiots ran with and turned into a monster. In the case of six sigma, the idea is about constantly optimizing your workflows and not accepting "we've always done it this way" as an excuse. But most people lack the critical thinking skills to correctly apply wisdom when necessary and instead need a solid framework to operate…

Great comment and thank you. It has only popped up sparingly in my industry thankfully.

What you're saying makes sense to me in that you should never fall into the "this is how I've always done it" trap, but putting a complex beauracratic process around that is just going to create a whole new problem.

Re: The McNamara fallacy: Measurement is not understanding

#78

Post by missedthecue »

sandworm101 wrote: post #60

What is the name for the fallacy of thinking that wars are always meant to be won? Throughout history wars have been fought without any intention of "winning". Sometimes a war can serve a religious or ceremonial purpose, one that doesn't require a clear winner. Other wars have been fought for completely economic reasons. Others are proxy contests whereby greater powers can demonstrate their abilities without directly…

Wars might have unclear objectives and mission-creep, but I don't think anyone is fighting to lose.

Re: The McNamara fallacy: Measurement is not understanding

#80

Post by shellback3 »

It should be remembered that McNamara cut his teeth working for the office of statistics with Curtis LeMay in the use of B29 aircraft. He was proud that he was part of a larger effort using statistics and other math that helped to win the war and, with that hammer, most everything could be a nail.
Post reply on HN