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

The Feedback Fallacy

hbr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–68 of 68 posts

Re: The Feedback Fallacy

#61

Post by bena »

andrewflnr wrote: post #52
bena wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the error is including experiences. I am the sole source for what I'm feeling. Whether I admit that or not is another story, but if I think I feel sad, then I feel sad. Now, whether that emotion is justified is another story and whether the related experience should induce sadness can be up for debate and if I'm interpreting the situation correctly and all of that. But we can't argue that I'm not feeling sad.…

Sole source, yes, but that doesn't mean you're reliable. For anything more complicated than "sad", and maybe even for that, self-deception and lack of self-knowledge can be issues. For example, have you correctly identified exactly what it is you're sad about? I know I've caught myself believing dumb things about my feelings.

Like I said in my post, everything surrounding it is up for debate. But you can't tell me what I'm feeling. If I say, "I'm sad", that's the end of the story. It's not up for debate.

Even if I'm lying about what I'm feeling, there's no way for you to really know. There's always some room for doubt.

Re: The Feedback Fallacy

#62

Post by bena »

nitwit005 wrote: post #53
bena wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the error is including experiences. I am the sole source for what I'm feeling. Whether I admit that or not is another story, but if I think I feel sad, then I feel sad. Now, whether that emotion is justified is another story and whether the related experience should induce sadness can be up for debate and if I'm interpreting the situation correctly and all of that. But we can't argue that I'm not feeling sad.…

> but if I think I feel sad, then I feel sad. Our sensitivity to our own emotions doesn't seem to be that great. People talk about happiness sneaking up on you, or having a realization that they're unhappy in a relationship. Presumably the feelings were there, but they weren't conscious of it. I suspect if I did have dials in my head that displayed the level of each emotion, I'd go insane trying to move the needles.…

This doesn't actually go against what's being said.

Unexamined feelings are still felt. I'm still the only one who can tell you with 100% accuracy what I'm feeling.

Even if you're technically wrong about what you're feeling, there's no way for me to verify that you're wrong. You are still the sole arbiter of absolute truth on that matter.

Because people love to read into things that aren't there. Apparently, I have a very threatening face when I'm concentrating on something and I look kind of angry. I'm not. And it's kind of exhausting to have people try and tell you what you're feeling when they have no clue as to what's actually going on inside of your head.

Re: The Feedback Fallacy

#63

Post by elwell »

tunesmith wrote: post #28
elwell wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

? I still don't get it.

Averaging values with random divergence from the truth is useful. Averaging values with random divergence from nonsense is not.

Specifically, I don't get how is one random value is supposed to more accurate than many random values averaged.

Re: The Feedback Fallacy

#64

Post by ummonk »

tomnipotent wrote: post #41
ummonk wrote: post #36

The part about pain isn’t actually necessarily true. When I was recovering from surgery, they would ask “on a scale of 1-10, with 10 being the worst possible pain, how much pain are you feeling?” I imagined how excruciatingly bad the worst possible pain would be and rated my pain a 2. When my pain went up to a self-reported 3, the nurses were surprised to find me crying from the pain... Not everyone interprets the sc…

> Not everyone interprets the scale the same way... That's the exact point the author was making with this example. A doctor cannot normalize pain ratings across patients, and has to rely on each patient scoring their own pain relative to their own experiences. Your 2/10 could be 7/10 for someone else - all that matters is that you have a measurement stick to compare pain for yourself, so that medical staff know that…

The problem is that my 2/10 is rather distressful and doctors assume it isn't, because they assume that self-reported pain ratings map consistently to subjective levels of distress across patients.

Re: The Feedback Fallacy

#65

Post by tunesmith »

elwell wrote: post #63
tunesmith wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Averaging values with random divergence from the truth is useful. Averaging values with random divergence from nonsense is not.

Specifically, I don't get how is one random value is supposed to more accurate than many random values averaged.

I think that's more of a relative impact. When you have just one measurement, you know it's not particularly reliable. When you have a bunch, we are conditioned to think it's more reliable.

So in the latter case, the distance between its reliability and its perceived reliability is greater than in the former case.

Re: The Feedback Fallacy

#66

Post by elwell »

tunesmith wrote: post #65
elwell wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Specifically, I don't get how is one random value is supposed to more accurate than many random values averaged.

I think that's more of a relative impact. When you have just one measurement, you know it's not particularly reliable. When you have a bunch, we are conditioned to think it's more reliable. So in the latter case, the distance between its reliability and its perceived reliability is greater than in the former case.

I agree with you, that it has to do with perception of reliability. However, the article seems to state that there is an actual greater error with more inputs. That's what I don't understand.

"We cannot remove the error by adding more data inputs and averaging them out, and doing that actually makes the error bigger."

I don't see how it "makes the error bigger". Maybe I'm being too literal and the writer is truly referring to the perception of the results carrying more weight, and therefore having a "bigger error".

Re: The Feedback Fallacy

#67

Post by perl4ever »

bena wrote: post #31
0xBABAD00C wrote: post #30

> The only realm in which humans are an unimpeachable source of truth is that of their own feelings and experiences Side note, but this strikes me as extremely wrong, based on 35 years of living among humans. Humans have unsurpassed abilities of self-deception, cognitive dissonance tolerance, and building monumental mental models to hide the truth about themselves from themselves. As one economist put it, your 'self'…

I think the error is including experiences. I am the sole source for what I'm feeling. Whether I admit that or not is another story, but if I think I feel sad, then I feel sad. Now, whether that emotion is justified is another story and whether the related experience should induce sadness can be up for debate and if I'm interpreting the situation correctly and all of that. But we can't argue that I'm not feeling sad.…

As a counterpoint, consider how people say depression is anger turned inward, or perhaps the opposite, that anger is self-hatred turned outwards.

Another concept is, when you have chronic pain, you may forget what it's like not to hurt. And then one day you don't and you suddenly have perspective.

What I'm saying, I guess, is that generally no other person can tell you your feelings or emotions though they may try. But that doesn't mean you are necessarily correct in what you think they are.

Re: The Feedback Fallacy

#68

Post by perl4ever »

Cougher wrote: post #59
chadcmulligan wrote: post #43

managers spend way too much time on trying to get inside their employees head and fiddle around imho, they really don't have the skills or training. if they spent this time on actually helping do the work in terms of what's needed and wanted so everyone could just go home then the world would be a much better place.

Yes. They'd hire someone like Wayne Dyer to develop treatment plans at a psychiatric hospital. My favorite personal example was when my employer hired a management engineering consultant company to help people who spent their time in meetings to trim fat, i.e., fire people who did the work. One of the ways that was used to help us dumb people understand what a quality product is was to ask us which restuarant has a h…

This is such a cliche about consistency anyway. Who says they are consistent? The whole thing about franchising is they are independent businesses, and McDonald's isn't harmed if a given one does terribly and goes out of business.

Certainly after some critical mass, you don't have to be as consistent to retain customers. We all know how first impressions matter at any job.

Post reply on HN