Hindsight Bias and Fundamental Attribution Error

Related Articles:
Rethink Safety
The Leader

"Why did you do this? You should have done that." Most of us (including me) are guilty of similar thoughts or words. 

This is a classic example of hindsight bias (knew-it-all-along effect). 

Accident investigators already know the accident outcomes and sequence of events. Hence, they tend to be biased and focused on significant data points leading to the accident. Instead of blaming individual actions, it would be more meaningful to understand why individuals took or did not take appropriate actions based on the information available and context facing them leading to the accident. Recommendations should focus on the changes and improvements required to help individuals make better decisions in future to prevent accidents. Of course, the underlying assumption is that humans do not possess malicious intent.

Another concept is that of fundamental attribution error. The observer overvalues his own point of view and undervalues the actual situational context faced by the actor being observed. If the roles of the observer and actor are swapped, the same fundamental attribution error is likely to occur. 

It is almost impossible to eliminate hindsight bias and fundmental attribution error. The takeaway is to  focus on systems rather than individuals.  Improving the design of the systems (including technical, social and sociotechnical systems) is certainly more productive than focusing on blame. For instance, performance measurement systems shape and drive the behaviors of employees in enterprises. Who is to blame when undesired outcomes occur? 

Again, even if the system in place is flawless (is there one?), human ingenuity, the very reason that differentiates humans from other living things on Earth, more often than not, is the very same reason that collapses the systems we built. Seems like "People" are stickier problems than "Technology". Leadership may be the best solution available.  

Thanks very much for reading. 

Dynamics of Happiness and Practicality

Related Articles: 

Languages of Love and Appreciation

Dynamics of the Quality of Life

Recently, I had the opportunity to hear Professor Jay Forrester lecture in my ESD.74 System Dynamics class. It was a great privilege. The content of Forrester's lecture was nicely summarized by my classmate Ming Fai. Forrester is the inventor of the random-access magnetic-core memory, and the founder of system dynamics. Though in his 90s, Forrester looked extremely sharp, and his talk was deeply enlightening.

My inspiration for this post came from remarks like "She can never understand the practical side of things", and "He's not as romantic like before during our courting days." Post Forrester's talk, I captured the remarks in the system dynamics casual loop diagram below:

A positive (+) sign indicates that two related variables change in the same direction. A negative (-) sign says that two related variables change in the opposite direction. More happiness leads to more love and that's a positive sign. More practicality leads to less love and that's a negative sign. 

The left loop (or the gal loop?) reinforces love while the right loop (or the guy loop?) balances (reduces) love. My previous posts "Languages of Love and Appreciation" reinforces the left loop, while "Dynamics of the Quality of Life" captures the essence of work-life balance.

Understanding the dynamics of these interactions ensures long-term happiness and quality of life. Do you think so?

Thanks very much for reading. 

Dynamics of the Quality of Life

Related articles: 
Architect Your Life
Languages of Love and Appreciation
Dynamics of Happiness and Practicality

This summer, I'm in the class "ESD.74 System Dynamics for Engineers" taught by J. Bradley Morrison. Systems Dynamics was created by Professor Jay Forrester of MIT in the 1950s. A true MIT heritage indeed. In essence, system dynamics is an approach to understand the behavior of complex systems over time. My inspiration for this post came from my assignments regarding causal loop diagrams. Casual loop diagrams are visual aids that illustrate how related variables affect one another. 

Instead of engineering or business systems, I created the "Dynamics of the Quality of Life". A picture paints a thousand words. 

The convention goes like this. A positive (+) sign indicates that the two related variables change in the same direction. A negative (-) sign says that the two related variables change in the opposite direction. For example, when we work harder, we have less freedom (more work, less freedom => -ve). When we have less freedom, our quality of lives will drop (less freedom, less quality of life => +ve). 

Most of us start with the reinforcing (R) fulfillment loop to increase the quality of our lives. Once we have more money and hence more spending power, we go into the balancing (B) commitment loop which makes us work harder, and have less freedom (balancing workaholic loop), resulting in a decrease to the quality of life. 

Simplistic this causal loop diagram may be, it captures the essence of work-life balance. Are your loops well-balanced?

Thanks very much for reading.

Works Cited

Sterman, J. D. (2000). Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World. USA: Irwin McGraw-Hill.