Defecting by Accident - A Flaw Common to Analytical People
1–10 of 47 posts
Re: Defecting by Accident - A Flaw Common to Analytical People
#2This matches my experience exactly. So many times people, especially technical people, have something to say, some information to convey, and almost arbitrarily many ways to say it. They then, from among those arbitrarily many ways, fail to exercise any judgement as to which is going to achieve secondary goals of improving working relationships, making people feel good, getting people on-side, and generally improving the working atmosphere. Often they think that the information is enough, and how you say it is irrelevant.
Or perhaps, more accurately, they simply don't realise that there really is a choice to make, and it's an important one. How you say something can make the message more impactful, more effective, and additionally, get people working with you to make things better, instead of resenting you and potentially sabotaging your work.
Re: Defecting by Accident - A Flaw Common to Analytical People
#3Defecting by default is actually a pretty stupid and inconsiderate move. There are many variations of the Prisoner's Dilemma, but commonly the options are weighted such that the least punishment (or greatest reward) is gained _overall_ when people cooperate. Defection has a certain chance of bringing a locally maximized outcome to one individual, but that chance is relatively small considering the risk, and even if the gamble succeeds the global rewards from cooperation would have been higher. I believe this basic scenario also applies to many if not most real-world settings. Defecting is a stupid and risky, a gambler's choice in pursuit of a questionable (and often time elusive) outcome.
Re: Defecting by Accident - A Flaw Common to Analytical People
#4This matches my experience exactly. So many times people, especially technical people, have something to say, some information to convey, and almost arbitrarily many ways to say it. They then, from among those arbitrarily many ways, fail to exercise any judgement as to which is going to achieve secondary goals of improving working relationships, making people feel good, getting people on-side, and generally improving…
Pretty moot argument. If technical people spent a significant part of their time on how to bring a message instead of the content of the message, they would hardly be technical people. You need smart minds to be doing what they are good at.
It's pretty obvious why different people have different tasks, you wouldn't let a person from PR do a technical design, and you wouldn't let someone from technical design do the PR. Both would probably have ackward results...
Re: Defecting by Accident - A Flaw Common to Analytical People
#5Defecting by default is actually a pretty stupid and inconsiderate move. There are many variations of the Prisoner's Dilemma, but commonly the options are weighted such that the least punishment (or greatest reward) is gained _overall_ when people cooperate. Defection has a certain chance of bringing a locally maximized outcome to one individual, but that chance is relatively small considering the risk, and even if t…
You've confused me. The article isn't about people defecting by default because they've chosen to defect by default. It's about people not really realising that there is a choice to be made, doing something, and that something is defection, even though they never realised it and never thought about it.
Your comment reads as if you haven't read the article at all, which I'm sure can't be true. Perhaps you could explain the apparent discrepency.
Thanks.
Re: Defecting by Accident - A Flaw Common to Analytical People
#6This matches my experience exactly. So many times people, especially technical people, have something to say, some information to convey, and almost arbitrarily many ways to say it. They then, from among those arbitrarily many ways, fail to exercise any judgement as to which is going to achieve secondary goals of improving working relationships, making people feel good, getting people on-side, and generally improving…
Pretty moot argument. If technical people spent a significant part of their time on how to bring a message instead of the content of the message, they would hardly be technical people. You need smart minds to be doing what they are good at. It's pretty obvious why different people have different tasks, you wouldn't let a person from PR do a technical design, and you wouldn't let someone from technical design do the P…
Reductio ad absurdum.
Re: Defecting by Accident - A Flaw Common to Analytical People
#7Defecting by default is actually a pretty stupid and inconsiderate move. There are many variations of the Prisoner's Dilemma, but commonly the options are weighted such that the least punishment (or greatest reward) is gained _overall_ when people cooperate. Defection has a certain chance of bringing a locally maximized outcome to one individual, but that chance is relatively small considering the risk, and even if t…
You've confused me. The article isn't about people defecting by default because they've chosen to defect by default. It's about people not really realising that there is a choice to be made, doing something, and that something is defection, even though they never realised it and never thought about it. Your comment reads as if you haven't read the article at all, which I'm sure can't be true. Perhaps you could explai…
I think that might be some deliberate (if softened up) defection right here :-)
Re: Defecting by Accident - A Flaw Common to Analytical People
#8This matches my experience exactly. So many times people, especially technical people, have something to say, some information to convey, and almost arbitrarily many ways to say it. They then, from among those arbitrarily many ways, fail to exercise any judgement as to which is going to achieve secondary goals of improving working relationships, making people feel good, getting people on-side, and generally improving…
Pretty moot argument. If technical people spent a significant part of their time on how to bring a message instead of the content of the message, they would hardly be technical people. You need smart minds to be doing what they are good at. It's pretty obvious why different people have different tasks, you wouldn't let a person from PR do a technical design, and you wouldn't let someone from technical design do the P…
And I wouldn't let someone be a manager or technical people unless they also had some technical skills, and technical people without the ability to work well with other people usually don't get very far. There are honorable exceptions, but I've learned never to rely on being one of the exceptional cases.
By all means, concentrate on your technical skills and your technical skills alone, but understand the decision you're making. I've found that a small amount of time understanding business, negotiation, psychology and personal interaction has been enormously beneficial. If you choose not to learn from my experience, that's your choice.
Re: Defecting by Accident - A Flaw Common to Analytical People
#9I switched my strategy as soon as I got out of high school.
I used to defect all the time. Then I shut my mouth. I was initially surprised at how much information I could get if I didn't say anything, forcing the hand of others. over 10 years later and I've gotten pretty good at social and professional politics.
The trick is this (Socrates thought of it first). Ask questions. Still havent won? Ask some more. Only answer when you absolutely have to. Information is critical. Don't let it slip.
Re: Defecting by Accident - A Flaw Common to Analytical People
#10Bad explanations of the prisoners dilemma are a constant fascination to me. They pop-up in so many otherwise excellent bits of writing, imho, because the standard mental image of two prisoners being interrogated is such a mismatch for the actual dilemma.
For example, in this case he's talking about "defecting by accident", yet two paragraphs before he's just outlined the fact that "the best solution individually is to defect".
So you're "accidentally" following the optimal strategy, which is the same one you'd pick if you had perfect information about the situation. I fail to see how that's a problem.
The key to the prisoner's dilemma is to avoid being in that situation. Once you're in that situation, a situation that is fascinating precisely because you are so totally screwed once in it, the "game" is over. You (and your partner) only have one rational choice and it leads to a poor outcome.
Change the game when and if you can, that's the lesson of the prisoners dilemma (also, if you can't change the game then defect because the other guy should logically defect too leaving you high and dry if you try to cooperate and if for whatever irrational reason he doesn't defect then you get the best possible outcome by defecting when he doesn't).
To be extra clear, "defecting" will always gain you something in the standard Prisoner's Dilemma. That's kind of the whole point. In an iterated prisoners dilemma, where the guy you betrayed previously gets a chance to get even it's not so simple and gets more confusing if people hold irrational grudges. Interaction with colleagues obviously fits that kind of iterated version better as does pissing off your partner in crime who'll have you shanked in the prison showers as revenge for betraying him.
For a discussion about nerds needing to communicate better, leading off with a false technical analogy seems like a perfect way to piss the techies off and make them ignore the rest of your message, which all seems reasonable enough in itself and doesn't really need the reference to the PD and talk of defecting to jazz it up.