If there is a unifying there here, it’s in explaining the seemingly complex in the most simple way possible. Occam’s Razor is a means of comparing multiple explanations or theories, with the notion that the simplest is likely the truth. However, many people are guiding themselves by the fallacy that the simplest explanation is the truth.
The factor that’s missed is the first part of Occam’s Razor, that the theories to be compared are equally sound. Theories are tested by evidence and experiment, and by their ability to predict the future. The theory that Atlas is holding up the Earth on his shoulders and standing on the back of a giant tortise is certainly easier to envision than warping of space/time and explaining the math of gravity — but it’s not going to help you calculate orbits.
These thoughts come to mind as I revisit yesterday’s item about Starbucks and the economy. Many people want to believe the world is a simple place. If Starbucks is losing jobs, then there are fewer jobs in the retail coffee industry. If someone is getting rich, then others must be getting poor. If prices are going up, then someone is being unfair.
Deep down, we all crave simplicity. The less we have to think, the more we can create and imagine and think about the things we want to. The danger comes when we paint too simple a picture for ourselves, and end up with a working model of our universe that is flawed. If someone believes that the rich get richer only by making poor people poorer, and that the only way to get wealth is to inherit it, then that individual will be less likely to engage in the behaviors that would lead to wealth accumulation. A simple worldview can cloud reality — and in this instance becomes a dangerous self-fulfilling prophecy.
Sometimes it’s okay to shave some edges off the models we use because we don’t need the level of detail the extra work would require. When the additional complexity isn’t worth the potential reward, then by all means ditch it. Just be careful about applying your template to other people, as they may have a need for a greater or lesser degree of detail in their results and their reality.
What are some of your pet-peeve oversimplifications?
[tags]Ike Pigott, Occam’s RazR, Occam’s Razor, philosophy, science, theory, economics[/tags]
The oversimplification of the housing market situation bothers me. “It’s horrible! We’re all losing our homes! The market is terrible! We might as well all just burn ’em down!”
That’s crap. It’s called a “buyer’s market,” people! If prices are dropping, it’s a *great* time for people like me who don’t yet own real estate but want to.
That’s how markets work. It’s not horrible. It’s natural.
Thanks, Ike, for prompting me to get that off my chest.
The one that really gets on my nerves these days is this:
“It snowed during June! Global Warming is total crap!”
Climate is one of the poster children for complex, chaotic systems that can’t be predicted for long periods of time. And trends are more than yesterday, today, and tomorrow.
@Mike – also, when the stock market drops, it’s usually great news for people investing through 401-K plans at work. You want low prices because you are buying more shares for the same money.
@Gary – Climate is a chimera anyway. Just as the snows in June are proof of nothing, so is the notion that the hurricane season of 2005 is positive evidence. Those trying to win the case for AGCC were dealt a blow by the zealots who glommed onto the Katrina imagery as proof they were right. Their forecasts of worse-to-come have been borne out as alarmism, and have provided easy targets.
I’m slightly annoyed when I see speculation being cited as the cause of our oil crisis, with no mention of external factors – Iraq, Iran, Saudi decision on level of production, lack forever of a real energy plan here, consumption of not only the US, but India and China and so on.
I am not an economist, but if you are not going to include the issues ( which are the very thing the speculators are actually betting on), and mention that if we addressed the issues maybe things would change then you really shouldn’t be writing
about it.
I have one…and this of course, is color from my local community and where I live, here in Prague, in Europe.
“The radar portion of the US-financed Missile Defence (MD) shield for Central and Eastern Europe is a good protection against WMDs from rogue states.”
and it gets better…as Condi was in town yesterday, July 7th, 2008 to do up the deal…
“…and once we [ed. the Czech government] ink and ratify this agreement with the US authorities on the precise parameters regarding the establishment of this radar portion in the Czech Republic, we shall explain the functioning and organization to the citizenry, and they will find it matches up to all of their expectations and diminishes their fears.”
I kid you not. These were the paraphrased statements of Deputy PM for European Affairs, Alexandr Vondra.
Scary, scary stuff…