Skip to main content

Can we learn from cautionary tales?

 I'm a big fan of Tim Harford's Cautionary Tales podcasts. In them, the economist and presenter of the BBC's excellent Radio 4 show More or Less relates examples of where human error and misunderstanding has resulted in disaster (or, occasionally, triumph). I also love those pop psychology books such as Dan Ariely's Predictably Irrational which tell us about all the ways we make bad decisions and suffer from biases, This is perhaps in part because I made a bad decision myself in my first year at university, when I wanted to take psychology as my fourth subject in Natural Sciences and instead allowed my tutor (a crystals scientist) to persuade me to do crystalline state instead, which I hated.

On this morning's walk, I was listening to one of Tim's podcasts from June 2020 (I came to the series relatively late and am catching up on earlier episodes). In it, he admits that he himself did not step back and think about the implications when he first found out about the pandemic and, as a result, assumed, for example, that he would have money coming in from gigs over the summer. He compares this with other, more disastrous occasions when people did not change from their planned activity, despite evidence that they needed to (for example, in the remarkable case of the tanker Torrey Canyon, which he covered in his very first podcast).

What lesson did I learn from this cautionary tale? If Tim Harford, someone who spends his working life thinking about this kind of thing, did not change his behaviour in the face of one of the common errors and biases he describes, is it likely any of us will? Is there actally any point to this kind of information? I confess, I quickly forget most of the specific cognitive biases within days of reading about them (in part because there seem to be so many). 

I think the answer is that these tales and books are valuable - but not in the life changing way they tend to be presented. They're partly worthwhile because they are very engaging. They tell us about the human condition and why we make so many mistakes. And hopefully, even if we all, Tim included, fail sometimes to learn the lessons, there are a few underlying motifs that those of us who are fans are likely to pick up on at least some of the time:

  • Be aware of human failings (yours included)
  • When you hear a piece of information that may be important to you, question it and dig deeper
  • Be prepared to change your viewpoint
  • Think before you act, even if guided by an expert (or GPS)
I suspect this kind of broad guidance is all the practical benefit we get from these tales and books. But just as is the case with diets and health, there isn't enough to make a book out of the valuable stuff. The health thing is basically eat a varied diet with plenty of vegetables and a reasonable amount of fruit and not too much fat and sugar while taking regular exercise. Doesn't make much of a book. Similarly here, the 'think before you act' type advice is the only important lesson you can hope to benefit from and the rest is window dressing. I'm not going to stop listening to these podcasts and reading these books: I very much enjoy them. But I realise that they aren't going to change my life much, once I've got those basics embedded in my brain.


Popular posts from this blog

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope