Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Convincing 4th Edition players to consider 5th Edition
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5985183" data-attributes="member: 54877"><p>You'd think that, but I find in practice (both personal and professional) that a majority of people who tend to default to process thinking tend to avoid analysis of the process itself when trouble arises. There are many significant exceptions, of course, given the wide variance in people, but the majority is as I have described. </p><p> </p><p>Furthermore, this seems to have nothing to do with smarts, education, background, etc. I've known highly technical people, who are analytical in their jobs every day, very successful, who will blindly follow a side process even after it trips them up.</p><p> </p><p>I once worked for a company where over 10 engineers and technical management had blown $10,000 <strong>repeatedly</strong> over the same error, then wasted more trying for a foolproof technical fix. I mentioned that all we needed was that the backup on-call person (already there and needed for other purposes) simply needed to double-check the main on-call person's work, spending 5 minutes once a month. This would statistically reduce the chance of another failure to practically nil. They just stared at me. It had never even occurred to anyone before to question the process, through an 300%+ staff turnover in the six years this had been happening. (This was no great feather in my cap, either. It was a combination of having enough technical knowledge to know that a technical solution wouldn't work, but being new enough to the company to not be blinded by the established process. Any decent, technically qualified, business consultant would have spotted it, if asked.)</p><p> </p><p>My experience is that people are nearly always good judges of "this thing we are doing now is not working" but terrible at considering why. And like Scott Adams dictum that "we are all stupid, part of the time, about something," it can get anyone on a particular thing. We are creatures of habit. I'm certainly not immune in my own blindspots. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin :D" data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5985183, member: 54877"] You'd think that, but I find in practice (both personal and professional) that a majority of people who tend to default to process thinking tend to avoid analysis of the process itself when trouble arises. There are many significant exceptions, of course, given the wide variance in people, but the majority is as I have described. Furthermore, this seems to have nothing to do with smarts, education, background, etc. I've known highly technical people, who are analytical in their jobs every day, very successful, who will blindly follow a side process even after it trips them up. I once worked for a company where over 10 engineers and technical management had blown $10,000 [B]repeatedly[/B] over the same error, then wasted more trying for a foolproof technical fix. I mentioned that all we needed was that the backup on-call person (already there and needed for other purposes) simply needed to double-check the main on-call person's work, spending 5 minutes once a month. This would statistically reduce the chance of another failure to practically nil. They just stared at me. It had never even occurred to anyone before to question the process, through an 300%+ staff turnover in the six years this had been happening. (This was no great feather in my cap, either. It was a combination of having enough technical knowledge to know that a technical solution wouldn't work, but being new enough to the company to not be blinded by the established process. Any decent, technically qualified, business consultant would have spotted it, if asked.) My experience is that people are nearly always good judges of "this thing we are doing now is not working" but terrible at considering why. And like Scott Adams dictum that "we are all stupid, part of the time, about something," it can get anyone on a particular thing. We are creatures of habit. I'm certainly not immune in my own blindspots. :D [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Convincing 4th Edition players to consider 5th Edition
Top