Mistakes: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Nick Gardner
imported>Nick Gardner
Line 9: Line 9:


==Misinformation==
==Misinformation==
Misinformation in the form of "creative accounting" is a common feature of company accounts. It has not been uncommon for the demise of a company to follow closely upon a report of its good health. Auditors and [[credit  rating agency|credit  rating agencies]], whose functionis to protect investors, are frequently paid by the companies on which they report.
Misinformation by journalists, politicians and businessmen is widely believed to be commonplace
 
<ref>[http://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/Ipsos_MORI_Veracity_Index_2008.pdf ''Ipsos-Mori Veracity Index 2008'']</ref>. Misinformation in the form of "creative accounting" is a common feature of company accounts, and it has not been uncommon for the demise of a company to follow closely upon a report of its good health. Auditors and [[credit  rating agency|credit  rating agencies]], whose function is to protect investors, are frequently paid by the companies on which they report.  
Outright deception (as reported to have been practised in 2008 by the management of the Lehman Brothers
Outright deception (as reported to have been practised in 2008 by the management of the Lehman Brothers bank in 2008
bank in 2008
<ref>[http://lehmanreport.jenner.com/VOLUME%201.pdf Anton Valukas: ''In re Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc'', report to the United States Bankruptcy Court, March 2010]</ref>) has seldom been establishedbut is widely suspected. The professions are generally believed to be trustworthy, but there have been numerous cases of inadvertent expert error. Cases  involving a form of  misinterpretation known as [[Applied statistics/Tutorials#The prosecutor's fallacy|the prosecutor's fallacy]]  by expert witnesses and lawyers, have resulted in serious miscarriages of justice<ref>[http://www.dcs.qmul.ac.uk/researchgp/spotlight/legal.html ''Evaluating Legal Evidence'', Department of Computor Science, Queen Mary College, University of London, 2009]</ref>, and there is evidence to suggest that  doctors fall victim to [[Applied statistics/Tutorials#The false positive fallacy|the false positive fallacy]] when evaluating blood test results<ref>  Michael  Eysenck and Mark  Keane ''Cognitive Psychology'' page 567 [http://books.google.com/books?id=22ZWi-LVLDcC&pg=PA483&lpg=PA483&dq=%22false+positive%22++%22Harvard+Medical+School%22+++45%25+of+students&source=bl&ots=HJH28YS9yD&sig=6FRx8zyfUaB0LR4OSg75b8_Uxso&hl=en&ei=YSVJSp6VKdShjAeBx5li&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3](Google extract)</ref>.
<ref>[http://lehmanreport.jenner.com/VOLUME%201.pdf Anton Valukas: ''In re Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc'', report to the United States Bankruptcy Court, March 2010]</ref>) has seldom been established but is widely suspected  
 
Inadvertent error is probably more common than delberate deception, however. [[Applied statistics#Statistical misinterpretation|Statistical misinterpetation]] by experts is not uncommon. Cases of involving a form of  misinterpretation known as [[Applied statistics/Tutorials#The prosecutor's fallacy|the prosecutor's fallacy]]  by expert witnesses and lawyers, have resulted in serious miscarriages of justice<ref>[http://www.dcs.qmul.ac.uk/researchgp/spotlight/legal.html ''Evaluating Legal Evidence'', Department of Computor Science, Queen Mary College, University of London, 2009]</ref>, and there is evidence to suggest that  doctors fall victim to [[Applied statistics/Tutorials#The false positive fallacy|the false positive fallacy]] when evaluating blood test results<ref>  Michael  Eysenck and Mark  Keane ''Cognitive Psychology'' page 567 [http://books.google.com/books?id=22ZWi-LVLDcC&pg=PA483&lpg=PA483&dq=%22false+positive%22++%22Harvard+Medical+School%22+++45%25+of+students&source=bl&ots=HJH28YS9yD&sig=6FRx8zyfUaB0LR4OSg75b8_Uxso&hl=en&ei=YSVJSp6VKdShjAeBx5li&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3](Google extract)</ref>.


==Misinterpretation==
==Misinterpretation==

Revision as of 10:33, 13 March 2011

This article is developing and not approved.
Main Article
Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
This editable Main Article is under development and subject to a disclaimer.

Definition

With hindsight, any decision that has unintended consequences may be considered to have been a mistake. It is more useful, however, to define a mistake as a misguided decision, whatever its consequences. The unintended consequence that is to be expected of a misguided decision may be avoided by chance; and chance may result in an unintended consequence that could not have been anticipated. A driver may escape a collision when he crosses a busy junction against a red light. He may also be the victim of someone else who does so - but in that case, his decision to cross the junction legally cannot usefully be considered to have been a mistake, despite its unintended consequence.

Overview

Among the purposes of studies of mistakes has been the discovery of ways of avoiding them. Experimental psychology has revealed the existence of subconscious characteristics of the human brain that are conducive to misguided choices, but it has also revealed the possibility of conscious control over the subconscious. Other studies have explored the effects of organisations, organisational environments and administrative procedures. A number of measures have been adopted or proposed for the avoidance of mistakes.

The causes of mistakes have been categorised as misinformation, the misinterpretation of information, and decision errors.

Misinformation

Misinformation by journalists, politicians and businessmen is widely believed to be commonplace [1]. Misinformation in the form of "creative accounting" is a common feature of company accounts, and it has not been uncommon for the demise of a company to follow closely upon a report of its good health. Auditors and credit rating agencies, whose function is to protect investors, are frequently paid by the companies on which they report. Outright deception (as reported to have been practised in 2008 by the management of the Lehman Brothers bank in 2008 [2]) has seldom been established, but is widely suspected. The professions are generally believed to be trustworthy, but there have been numerous cases of inadvertent expert error. Cases involving a form of misinterpretation known as the prosecutor's fallacy by expert witnesses and lawyers, have resulted in serious miscarriages of justice[3], and there is evidence to suggest that doctors fall victim to the false positive fallacy when evaluating blood test results[4].

Misinterpretation

Decision error

Avoidance

References