The author, Charles Perrow, in fact takes the conservative view that sufficiently complex tech like nuclear reactors with sufficiently high negative failure costs should not be used at all. I’m not that radical, but he has a point. And the point applies to “complex thinking” too
-
-
To bring it back to the opening point, how do you judge a thinker? By topic, not method. How by topic? If a thinker routinely indulges in morally hazardous thinking where others are more likely to be hurt by erroneous conclusions, I do a double take.
Show this thread -
If they aren’t adding extra safety or taking on extra risk to compensate, I flip the bozobit. I’m doing this more quickly these days. There’s no excuse for putting others at risk with your bad thinking from relative safety.
Show this thread -
I’m fine with sloppy speculative spitballing and casual, loud, public thinking. That’s my own modus operandi after all. The trick is to then work on harmless topics and/or ones where you yourself are the one most at risk. If you want to move to meltdown topics, harden you methods
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.