{"id":2167,"date":"2012-10-06T12:11:25","date_gmt":"2012-10-06T12:11:25","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.saasoft.com\/blog\/?p=2167"},"modified":"2012-10-06T12:11:25","modified_gmt":"2012-10-06T12:11:25","slug":"counter-intuitive","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/hcse.blog\/?p=2167","title":{"rendered":"Intuitive Counter"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>If it takes five machines five minutes to make five widgets how long does it take ten machines to make ten widgets<\/em>?<\/p>\n

If the answer “ten minutes<\/em>” just popped into your head then your intuition<\/strong> is playing tricks on you. The correct answer is “five minutes<\/em>“.<\/p>\n

Let us try another.<\/p>\n

If the lily leaves on the surface of a lake double in area every day and if it takes 48 days to cover the whole lake then how long did it\u00a0take to cover half\u00a0the lake<\/em>?\u00a0 Twenty four days? Nope. The correct answer is 47 days and once again our intuition has tricked us. It is obvious in hindsight though – just not so obvious before.<\/p>\n

We all make\u00a0thousands of unconscious, intuitive\u00a0decisions every day so if we make unintended errors like this then they must be happening all the time and we do not realise.\u00a0<\/p>\n

OK one more and really concentrate this time.<\/p>\n

If\u00a0we have a three-step sequential process\u00a0and\u00a0the chance of a significant safety error\u00a0at each step\u00a0is 10%, 30%\u00a0and 20% respectively then what is the overall error rate for the process?\u00a0\u00a0A: (10%+30%+20%)\u00a0\/3 = 60%\/3 = 20%<\/em>? Nope. Um 30%? Nope. What about 60%? \u00a0Nope. The answer is 49.6%. And it is not intuitively obvious how that is the\u00a0correct answer.<\/p>\n

\n

When it\u00a0comes to numbers, counting, and anything to do with chance and probability\u00a0then our intuition is not a\u00a0safe and\u00a0reliable tool. But we rely on it all the time and we are not aware of the errors we are making. And it is not just numbers that our intuition trips us up over!<\/p>\n

\n

A\u00a0lot of us are intuitive thinkers … about 40% in fact. The majority of leaders and executives are categorised as\u00a0iNtuitors when measured using a standard psychological assessment tool. And remember – they are the ones making the Big Decisions that effect us all.\u00a0\u00a0So if their intuition is tripping them up then their decisions are likely to be a bit\u00a0suspect.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>Fortunately there is a group of people who do not fall into these hidden cognitive counting traps so easily. They\u00a0have Books of Rules<\/em> of how to\u00a0do numbers correctly – and they are called Accountants<\/strong>.\u00a0When they\u00a0have\u00a0the same standard assessment a lot of them pop up at the other end of the iNtuitor dimension. They are called Sensors. \u00a0\u00a0Not because they are sensitive (which of course they are)\u00a0but because they rank reality more trustworthy than rhetoric<\/em>. They trust what they see – the facts – the numbers.\u00a0 And money is a number. And numbers\u00a0\u00a0add up exactly so that everything is neat, tidy, and auditable down to the last penny.\u00a0Ahhhh – Blisse is Balanced Books and Budgets.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

\n

This is why the World is run by Accountants.\u00a0\u00a0They\u00a0nail our soft and fuzzy\u00a0intuitive\u00a0rhetoric onto the hard and precise\u00a0fiscal reality.\u00a0 And in so doing a big and important piece of the picture is lost. The fuzzy bit,<\/p>\n

\n

Intuitors have a very important role. They are able to think outside the Rule Book Box. They are comfortable working with fuzzy concepts and in abstract terms and their favourite sport is intuitive leaping<\/strong>. It is a high risk sport though because sometimes Reality reminds them that the Laws of Physics are not\u00a0optional or subject to negotiation and innovation. Ouch!\u00a0 But the iNtuitors\u00a0ability to leap about conceptuallycomes in very handy when the World is changing unpredictably – because it allows the Books of Rules to be challenged and re-written as new discoveries are made. The first\u00a0Rule is usually\u00a0“Do not question the Rules” so those who follow Rules are not good at\u00a0creating new ones. And those who write the rules are not good at sticking to them.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>So, after\u00a0enough painful\u00a0encounters with Reality the iNtuitors find their comfort zones in board rooms, academia\u00a0and politics – where they can avoid hard Reality and concentrate on soft Rhetoric. Here they can all have a different conceptual abstract mental model and can happily discuss, debate and argue with each other for eternity. Of course the rest of the Universe is spectacularly indifferent to board room, academic and political rhetoric – but the risk to the disinterested is when the influential iNtuitors\u00a0impose their self-generated semi-delusional group-think\u00a0on the Real World without a doing a Reality Check first.\u00a0 The\u00a0outcome is entirely predictable ….<\/p>\n

And as\u00a0the hot rhetoric meets cold reality the fog of\u00a0disillusionment forms.<\/em>\u00a0<\/p>\n

\n

So\u00a0if we wish to embark on a Quest for Improvement then it is really helpful to know where on the iNtuitor-Sensor dimension each of us prefers to sit. Intuitors need Sensors to provide a reality check and Sensors need Intuitors to challenge the status quo.\u00a0\u00a0We are not nailed to our psychological perches – we can shuffle up and down if need be – we do have a favourite spot though; our comfort zone.<\/p>\n

To help answer the “Where am I on the NS dimension<\/em>?” question here is a\u00a0\u00a0Temperament Self-Assessment Tool<\/a>\u00a0that you can use. It is based on the Jungian, Myers-Briggs\u00a0and Keirsey models. Just run the programme, answer the 72 questions\u00a0and you will get your full 4-dimensional profile and your “centre”\u00a0on each. Then jot down the results on a scrap of paper.\u00a0<\/p>\n

There is a whole\u00a0industry that has sprung up out these (and other)\u00a0psychological assessment tools. They feed our fascination with knowing what makes us tick and the role of the psychoexpert is to\u00a0de-mystify the assessments for\u00a0us and\u00a0to explain the patterns in the tea leaves (for a fee of course because it takes years of training to become a Demystifier).\u00a0Disappointingly, my experience is that almost every person I have asked if they\u00a0know their Myers-Briggs profile say\u00a0“Oh yes, I did that years ago, it is SPQR or something like that but I have no idea what it means<\/em>“.\u00a0\u00a0Maybe they should ask for their Demystification Fee to be returned?<\/p>\n

Anyway – here is the foundation level demystification guide to help you\u00a0derive meaning from\u00a0what is jotted on the scrap of paper.<\/p>\n

First look at the N-S (iNtuitor-Sensor) dimension.\u00a0 If you\u00a0come out as N then look at the T-F (Thinking-Feeling) dimension –\u00a0and together\u00a0they will give an xNTx preference or an xNFx preference. People with these preferences are called Rationals<\/strong> and Idealists respectively.\u00a0 If you\u00a0prefer the S end of the N-S dimension then look at the J-P (Judging-Perceiving) result and this will give an\u00a0xSxJ or xSxP preference. These are\u00a0the Guardians<\/strong> and the Artisans<\/strong>.\u00a0 Those are the Four Temperaments described by David Keirsey in “Please Understand Me II<\/em>“. If you are near the middle of any of the dimensions then you will show a blend of temperaments. And please note – it is not an either-or category – it is a continuous spectrum.<\/p>\n

How\u00a0we actually manifest our\u00a0innate personality preferences depends on our education, experiences and the exact context. This makes it a tricky to interpret the specific results for an individual – hence the Tribe of Demystificationists. And remember – these are not intelligence tests, and there are no good\/bad or right\/wrong answers. They are gifts – or rather gifts differing.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\n

So how does all this psychobabble help us\u00a0as Improvement Scientists?<\/p>\n

Much of Improvement Science is just about improving\u00a0awareness\u00a0and insight\u00a0– so insight into ourselves is of value.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>Rationals (xNTx) are attracted to occupations that involve strategic thinking and making rational, evidence based decisions: such as engineers and executives.\u00a0The Idealists (xNFx) are\u00a0rarer, more sensitive,\u00a0and attracted to occupations such as teaching, counselling, healing\u00a0and being champions of good causes.\u00a0 The Guardians (xSxJ) are particularly numerous and are attracted to\u00a0occupations that form the stable bedrock of\u00a0society – administrators, inspectors, supervisors, providers and protectors. They\u00a0value the call-of-duty and sticking-to-the-rules for the good-of-all.\u00a0Artisans (SPs) are the risk-takers and fun-makers; the promotors, the entertainers, the explorers, the dealers, the artists,\u00a0the marketeers and the salespeople.<\/p>\n

These are the Four Temperaments that\u00a0form the basic framework of the\u00a0sixteen\u00a0Myers-Briggs polarities.\u00a0 And this is not a new idea –\u00a0it has been around for millenia – just re-emerging with different names in different paradigms. In the Renaissance the Galenic Paradigm held sway and they were called the Phlegmatics (NT), the Cholerics (NF), the Melancholics (SJ) and the Sangines (SP) – depending on which of the four\u00a0body fluids were believed to be out of balance (phlegm, yellow bile, black bile or blood). So while the paradigms have changed, the empirical reality appears to have endured the ages.<\/p>\n

The message for the Improvement Scientist is two-fold:<\/p>\n

1. Know your own temperament and recognise the strengths and limitations of it. They all have a light and dark side.
\n2. Understand that the temperaments\u00a0of groups of people can be\u00a0both synergistic\u00a0and antagonistic.<\/p>\n

It is said that birds of a feather flock together<\/em> and the collective\u00a0behaviour of departments in large organisations tend to form around the temperament that suits that organisational function.\u00a0 The character of the Finance department is\u00a0usually very different to that\u00a0of Operations, or Human Resources – and sparks can (and do) fly when they engage each other. No wonder chief executives have a short half-life and an effective one is worth its weight in gold!\u00a0<\/p>\n

The interdepartmental discord that is commonly observed in large organisations follows more from\u00a0ignorance (unawareness of the reality of a spectrum of innate temperaments) and arrogance (expecting everyone to think the same way as we do).\u00a0Antagonism is not an inevitable consequence though – it is just the default outcome in the absence of awareness and effective leadership.<\/p>\n

This\u00a0knowledge highlights two\u00a0skills that\u00a0an effective\u00a0Improvement Scientist needs to master:<\/p>\n

1. Respectful Educator (drawing back the black curtain of ignorance) and
\n2. Respectful Challenger (using reality to illuminate holes in the rhetoric).<\/p>\n

Intuitive counter or counter intuitive?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

If it takes five machines five minutes to make five widgets how long does it take ten machines to make ten widgets? If the answer “ten minutes” just popped into your head then your intuition is playing tricks on you. The correct answer is “five minutes“. Let us try another. If the lily leaves on … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Intuitive Counter”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[18,35,38,42,43,45,48],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2167","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-finance","category-reflections","category-safety","category-how","category-why","category-what","category-trust"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/hcse.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2167","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/hcse.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/hcse.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hcse.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hcse.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2167"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/hcse.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2167\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/hcse.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2167"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hcse.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2167"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hcse.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2167"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}