#Count _correct_ units of analysis. Don't get bogged by incorrect ones.
Take an EV company. Is current US market share in EVs sold by each company the correct unit of analysis? It's obviously a time & space particularized slice. Will this enable you to learn & predict what may happen in ten years? In twenty? Globally, not just in the US?
Capacity? History? Bold vision and a strong past demonstrated track record to implement it, in prior similar instances? Easy, once we see it. How does choosing the incorrect unit of analysis impact predictive power and accuracy?
Take further any wannabe elected official. When running in their first election we can look at campaign statements. That may not be as reliable a measure as one would ever wish for.
It may get slightly better when they run for re-election: we can look at their voting record. Is _that_ sufficient now, though?
Is it the same as when we choose the elected official to be the US President? For example, President Lyndon Baynes Johnson. In his own words—in an interview after his Presidency—prior to being President he had not enough power to do what he had to do. Albeit he actually had and used quite some power. How then would we determine anything at the time of his election for VP alongside President John F Kennedy, before the latter's tragic death that led to the former becoming President? Could it be bold initiatives accomplished? Or, maybe bold initiatives _attempted_?
Given more power, would it not help to know how many initiatives attempted there were earlier, as a likely better predictor of what will the power be used for once it'll be there?
This way one will then better train a model of decision making for use later on deductive predictions for daily decisions that may be made by or impact us all.
Wouldn't you want to predict better from past behaviors of your date how will s/he react once s/he'll turn a spouse when deciding about purchasing a vehicle or home or about having children or who will raise them and how and where will they go to school and what they'll get a chance at becoming in their lives? All decisions likely possibly made better and which in turn in their massive aggregate may lead to humankind achievements of much larger scale. Or failure of much larger "grandeur." And certainly to both, only hopefully at different times and more of the former and less of the latter.
Is it feasible that one can imagine a world whereby decisions are always intuitively taken better because we learned to understand better how we make decisions and what motivates most of us to make them most often? Even without fully understanding all the mathematics behind it. The way we drive an automobile, better or not so well, without knowing much about the thermodynamics of an internal combustion engine. We could improve by measuring better. (Let's remember, Campbell's Law may simply work both ways. Once you know you can and must proactively compensate for its work.)
In memory of Donald T Campbell and Paul Y Hammond.🙏
Follow in the footsteps of the great.
Look inside.
Repeat.
[11]
Adrian S. Petrescu, Ph.D., J.D.
Chief Future Architect, InnovationTrek
We got here. What's next?
Accelerate Innovation.
In companies and self.
Grow flow. Naturally.
ASPetrescu@InnovationTrek.org
No comments:
Post a Comment