Correcting Errors?
Image by Marcio Eugenio via Flickr
David Balan, writing at Overcoming Bias, has a nice observation about knowledge and action.
"Most of the discussion on this blog seems to focus on figuring out how to identify biases.
We implicitly assume that this is the hard part; that biases can be really sneaky and hard to ferret out, but that once you've identified a bias, correcting it is pretty straightforward and mechanical.
If you've figured out that you have a bias that causes you to systematically overestimate the probability of a particular kind of event happening by .2, you simply subtract .2 from future estimates (or whatever).
But it seems to me that actually correcting a bias can be pretty hard even once it's been identified.
For example, I have a tendency to swing a bit too late at a (slow-pitch) softball. I'm sure this bias could be at least partially corrected with effort, but it is definitely not simply a matter of saying to myself: "swing .5 seconds sooner than you feel like you should swing."
That just can't be done in real time without screwing up the other mechanics of the swing."
This is relevant for avoid fraud, since 95% of individuals who are defrauded know at some level that there is something wrong with the transaction, purchase or deal. But what they don't know is how to translate that knowledge into effective action, or correct their errors.
There are two basic avenues here. Suppose, I realize that I run red lights. The warnings are seen but not effective. I want to prevent this. One thing I could do is create more warning signs, effectively requiring more transparent warnings.
The second thing I can do is stop driving, realizing that if I drive through red lights, then having more red lights probably won't do the trick. Both methods have their advantages, but the regulators generally favour the first method, even when the second is clearly preferable.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=b9d53aad-9888-4f01-9e12-afac9b63265e)
