Mistakes: Difference between revisions
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. Inadvertent | 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. | ||
Outright deception (as reported to have been practised in 2008 by the management of the Lehman Brothers | |||
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 established | |||
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. | |||
==Misinterpretation== | ==Misinterpretation== | ||
Revision as of 09:53, 13 March 2011
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 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 agencies, whose functionis 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 [1]) has seldom been established
Inadvertent error is probably more common than delberate deception, however. Statistical misinterpetation by experts is not uncommon. Cases of involving a form of misinterpretation known as the prosecutor's fallacy by expert witnesses and lawyers, have resulted in serious miscarriages of justice[2], and there is evidence to suggest that doctors fall victim to the false positive fallacy when evaluating blood test results.